We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) 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 RADIUS Server holds the most value."
"The feature that I most like is that it can notify me whenever someone plugs in their device, which is not allowed. I get notifications for new laptop devices. I think the user interface looks good compared to previous versions."
"The solution enables us to authenticate with AD."
"After the product was installed, no one could access the secure connection network. In order for any laptop or any endpoint device to attach to my network, it needs to be authorized or be certified to be connected."
"The first benefit is that we can implement zero trust architecture because of Cisco ISE. I can assure my CISO in my company that my network is such that nobody can just bring in their laptop, desktop, or any sort of mobile device and can directly get connected to my network. That is a benefit that I can only allow people who I trust on the network."
"The ability to allow or deny hosts onto the network is valuable. It provides great security to the network environment."
"For device administration, all devices have multifactor authentication in collaboration with IT, so it secures access to all of our devices. For guest and wireless access, it's a matter of a lowly manager who we give access to the portal and he can assign access to the guests, so it's a very simple process now. It keeps the IT focusing on their work, and gives the business people the right access."
"I've had no issues with scalability. I started using it on two campuses, and now I'm using it across the country and scaling it across subsidiaries in other countries."
"Our customers have never complained about the stability"
"The tool is reliable and easy to configure."
"We have seen a return on investment from F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager. It provided access at a time when we didn't have it."
"The portal access was very good."
"In my opinion, the GUI is perfect with the configuration options provided. F5 BIG-IP has given customization options and policy configuration tools in the GUI. It's good and good enough to work."
"The product allows us to create customized portals for your users."
"The solution is stable and reliable."
"F5 BIG-IP APM is relatively easy to use."
"We face many bugs."
"Profiling is a really good feature. However, it sometimes is a challenge for customers when there are issues with the remediation part. I would add a built-in remediation solution. That would be a very nice feature."
"Cisco ISE's performance could be better, faster, and more robust."
"The templates could be better. When you have to do certs, especially with X.500 certs, it isn't very intuitive."
"The interface could be more user-friendly and the ability to apply rules to MAC addresses, for example, if I wanted to allow a certain MAC address access at a particular time I cannot make this adjustment."
"I'd like to see the logging be a bit more robust in terms of what it has baked in. If I want to do any in-depth searching, I have to export all the logs to an external platform like Elastic or LogRhythm and then parse through them myself. It would be nice if I could find what I want, when I want it, on the platform itself."
"Cisco ISE does not recognize devices and that is an issue we faced during its integration with our existing devices."
"In an upcoming release, it would be nice to have NAC already standard in the solution."
"The initial setup was complex."
"The price of this product can be improved."
"The technical support’s response time must be improved."
"The solution is quite costly."
"I'd suggest improved documentation integration directly within the GUI. Right now, finding comprehensive documentation often requires going to external websites like the community portal."
"The operational deployment is not great."
"We do not have knowledgeable support teams locally."
"In my opinion, the GUI side needs some improvement based on my usage. Sometimes, it doesn't work as efficiently as the CLI side."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 138 reviews while F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is ranked 6th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 13 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is rated 8.2. 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 F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) writes " Facilitates packet inspection, modification, and offloading and offers visibility and troubleshooting capabilities, allowing for pre-production server testing". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and One Identity Manager, whereas F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) is most compared with Citrix Gateway, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Ivanti Connect Secure, Microsoft Entra ID and Aruba ClearPass. See our Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs. F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) 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.