We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Impulse Point SafeConnect based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, HPE Aruba Networking, Forescout and others in Network Access Control (NAC)."It has all of the features available, in fact, more than what you need."
"The implementation is very simple."
"The most valuable feature is the flexibility of the policy sets."
"Visitors can be granted access to the wifi network using their cellphones, notebooks or tablets in a very easy way. The ease of accessibility that anyone can have to the network is very quick and is a big improvement in our network."
"When you push out the policy, it is able to populate the entire network at one time."
"Being able to authenticate wired users through 802.1X is valuable as it enhances our security."
"The RADIUS Server holds the most value."
"It is a good product for what it does...So, it is one of the most critical systems that we have."
"It is very easy to scale the product."
"In an upcoming release, it would be nice to have NAC already standard in the solution."
"Cisco ISE's performance could be better, faster, and more robust."
"We face many bugs."
"I'm frustrated by the resource consumption and how many resources it needs to run. It takes a lot of RAM. It takes a lot of space and a lot of IO power. It's frustrating to do upgrades because it takes a long time."
"The solution lacks properly knowledgeable support, especially internationally, and this is why I am exploring other applications."
"Support and integration for the active devices needs to be worked on. Their features mainly work well with Mac devices. If we use an HP the Mac functionalities may no longer be able to deliver."
"Adding new devices was a little cumbersome. I haven't done it that many times, but I remember that adding new devices to the authentication piece of it was a little cumbersome. The way I was shown to do it, I thought it was odd because we had to go into the active device, copy the file down, export it, make some changes to it, and then reimport it as opposed to being able to click it and having a template to fill out."
"Automation [is an area for improvement]. It seems like everywhere I look, automation is super important. Automation and integrations. That's the area it could be improved..."
"The solution would be much better if it offered self-service onboarding."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 135 reviews while Impulse Point SafeConnect is ranked 17th in Network Access Control (NAC). Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Impulse Point SafeConnect is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) writes "Gives us that extra ability to assist the end user and make sure that we are making them happy". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Impulse Point SafeConnect writes "Easy to scale, enforces policies well, and has responsive technical support". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas Impulse Point SafeConnect is most compared with Forescout Platform.
See our list of best Network Access Control (NAC) vendors.
We monitor all Network Access Control (NAC) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.