We compared Cisco Identity Services Engine and Fortinet FortiNA (ISE)C based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison of Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Cisco ISE seems to be the slightly superior solution because of its expansive integration capabilities.
"Typically, the installation is pretty simple."
"The posture assessment is a valuable feature because of the ability to do assessments on the clients before they connect to the network."
"The TACACS and RADIUS have been the most valuable features so far."
"Since migrating towards doing wired ports over ISE with 802.1X and MAB authentication, our organization's security risk has been better. We have been able to establish better layouts, so devices can move and we don't have to worry about where they need to go."
"The most important feature for us is visibility in terms of user connections. It's the ability to see what devices are online for a particular user that helps a lot with our troubleshooting."
"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."
"We found all the features of the product to be valuable."
"The most valuable features are the NAC and the bundles that are available with Cisco ISE, such as Cisco ACS being integrated."
"Fortinet FortiNAC is both scalable and stable."
"The network segmentation is the most important part of the solution. The integration with the Zero Trust Access solution is a crucial part of segmenting your network."
"FortiNAC has enhanced our network visibility because FortiNAC monitors MAC addresses and other network devices, like Cisco, Catalyst, or HPE switches."
"The users say that FortiNAC is configurable and easy to use."
"The product offers good profiling features and can support various vendor products."
"The initial setup was easy and straightforward."
"Fortinet FortiNAC is a stable solution."
"Compared to other NAC vendors, Fortinet’s user interface is more user-friendly."
"I would like the product to include support for OSVS version three."
"Difficult to figure out the protocols and nodes in order to implement correctly."
"The UI is not as intuitive as some other products, even products inside of Cisco's wheelhouse."
"Migration could be better. Right now, we back up with the new version, and it requires a lot of licensing and other things. Whenever we choose a product, it's very difficult because we have to meet the requirements of each feature. There is no standard feature, so the best system that we bought may not fit the solution. We have to look at every feature that the customer uses. If you compare it with other products like Aruba, it's not the same. With Cisco, I have to read all about the features on this version and the licensing required for the product. In Aruba, that thing is covered when you get one license because it covers almost everything. It could also be more scalable."
"I believe that Cisco can improve the way its policies are built because it's a little complex."
"The knocks I have against the product are the number of bugs that we encounter, constantly, and the amount of upgrading that we have to do."
"There should be a single button that can be pressed to dismiss all of the alarms at once."
"It does a good job of establishing trust for every access request. We have had a little bit of a challenge with profiling, but we are probably about 80% there."
"Keeping the hard disk on the one series will be easier for the distributor and will keep the prices lower for the customer."
"I think the network devices need to give more information."
"Fortinet FortiNAC could improve its hardware for use with cloud-based firewalls."
"The automation in Fortinet FortiNAC could improve."
"The interface works fine, but it could be better."
"The training documentation needs to be more transparent."
"Technical support could improve their response times."
"The reporting can also use improvement."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 138 reviews while Fortinet FortiNAC is ranked 4th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 44 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Fortinet FortiNAC is rated 7.6. 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 Fortinet FortiNAC writes "I like the solution's native integration with other devices from the same vendor". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Fortinet FortiAuthenticator and Microsoft Enterprise Mobility + Security, whereas Fortinet FortiNAC is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Forescout Platform, Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, Fortinet FortiClient and Portnox CORE. See our Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs. Fortinet FortiNAC report.
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.