Cisco ISE

They evaluated other solutions before choosing the Forescout Platform.

I evaluated FortiNAC, and Forescout Platform is more robust and advanced.

Senior management used this product before and already did a comparison of other products.

We looked at Clearpass and ISE.

We evaluated Cisco. The difference is the compatibility with our network. Other switches are Cisco devices, and therefore the compatibility and the integration were a little easier. With Forescout we have had some issues with some other access points. With Cisco ISE, we don't have that problem.

We primarily evaluated Cisco ISE. We looked at Cisco ISE and were in the process of demoing it. We looked elsewhere because the MAC Authentication Bypass feature was not a workaround that we wanted to implement for over half of our environment.

We compared ForeScout to Cisco ISE. There were some other vendors in this space, but we felt they were for mid-sized companies at largest. Cisco looked like they had an offering that would be able to compete head-to-head with it in terms of size. The reason we picked this over ISE was because ForeScout had a non-802.1x solution for the wired network. We would avoid a lot of chaos and a lot of destruction if we go that route. Also, ForeScout had fewer vulnerabilities whereas Cisco ISE had several level-10 vulnerabilities that have been observed over the years. While we were testing it, two of them came out.

ForeScout has never had a vulnerability above 7.0, so when we look at the security of the system, it definitely meets that requirement where this is not something that's going to be compromised the way it looked, as though Cisco ISE had some potential for that. Much less disruptive, both Cisco ISE and ForeScout really require a client to get the full features of the system. They say that it can run client-less, but having the client gives a lot better functionality, and the ForeScout client just worked a lot better for us on our endpoints.

This was chosen without hands-on evaluation based on reviews and industry feedback.

Palo Alto

We evaluated a couple of options. We first planned to use Radius which is more of a Microsoft-ended solution. We also looked at Cisco ISE but that's very expensive and I've seen reviews on your site about the difficulty of implementation. 

We had ISE. As that product reached EOL, we considered whether there were alternatives to a NAC that we should consider but felt that a NAC is a security requirement.

We did look at multiple partners and we ended up with ForeScout.

No. I heard of Forescout, then went ahead and bought it.

I think we went right after CounterACT. We sampled around I think on the web and just looked for solutions. But, CounterACT really came out to be the one that was easy to use. The price was right. The customizability and how we had to incorporate CounterACT to talk to our Cisco switches was really straightforward. It was easy and it worked.

no, I have used only forescout and I haven't need to use anything else

This is not a very crowded segment for this kind of a product, and ForeScout is the best known of this small field.

We managed to evaluate Cisco ISE. Cisco ISE is a complex solutions to deploy where it only supports users who use Cisco switches.

ForeScout CounterACT is a much more appealing product because of the market here in Malaysia, where the users uses multiple brands of switches with complex network infrastructure. CounterACT could easily adapt to these environments without any changes made to the customer's network infrastructure.

No other options were evaluated.

We also looked at Fortinet. 

We didn't look for other solutions.

Cisco ISE was also evaluated, but the CT10000 was easier to implement and integrate into our environment.