We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and macmon Network Access Control based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Access Control (NAC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution enables us to authenticate with AD."
"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."
"It is stable and easy to use."
"The best features are the scalability and the license structure."
"Our clients like Cisco ISE because they already use various Cisco solutions. It's easy for them to use this solution because they have an engineer with Cisco certifications."
"It offers automatic profiling of phones and computers, enabling administrators to identify and categorize devices seamlessly."
"The most valuable feature is 801.1x and another very good feature is the TACACS."
"Cisco ISE scales exceptionally well."
"The API is a great way to get information from other tools."
"The ease of connecting with the client is valuable for me."
"We use it with our Cisco switches so we can see which switch it is actually connected to."
"On the network services devices, when you click on filter, the filter comes up. However, when I type in a search and I want to click on something it defaults back to the main page. I keep having an issue with that, and I'm not doing anything wrong."
"Cisco ISE requires a lot of time-consuming administration."
"I would like for the next release to be easier to implement and to limit its dependencies around ISE, Windows, the network as a whole, etc."
"They should improve the documentation. There tends to be a lot of old text, or the new things aren't always up to what's been released on the code, and sometimes the documentation is inconsistent."
"In a future release, I would like to see network access control. That is something that customers seem to be looking for."
"The solution lacks properly knowledgeable support, especially internationally, and this is why I am exploring other applications."
"With the recent release of the solution, we had a bunch of bugs and we had to delay our deployment. Other than that, the solution is good."
"Cisco ISE is complex. The deployment and design of networks with it is so complex. If it could change it would be better."
"The single sign-on process can be improved and the interface should be made more user-friendly."
"The solution must allow users to filter files based on dates."
"The service macmon offers is already great."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More macmon Network Access Control Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 138 reviews while macmon Network Access Control is ranked 9th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 3 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while macmon Network Access Control is rated 8.6. 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 macmon Network Access Control writes "A robust solution that provides protection to effectively control the access to your network". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas macmon Network Access Control is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC and Forescout Platform. See our Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs. macmon Network Access Control 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.