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.
"The endpoint profiling feature is among the most valuable because it keeps me from having to manually maintain a MAC address bypass list to track endpoints. I can have ISE profile them for me and then put them in the right bucket."
"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 valuable feature of the solution lies in its integration capabilities with other applications."
"It offers automatic profiling of phones and computers, enabling administrators to identify and categorize devices seamlessly."
"The ability to allow or deny hosts onto the network is valuable. It provides great security to the network environment."
"The WiFi portal in Cisco ISE is very useful for WiFi customers."
"I really enjoy the live log section. Sometimes, you will have someone who is having issues connecting to the network, and then you have to ask them the dreaded question of, "Did you type a password wrong?" They will probably tell you, "No," but the live log can help sort that out. It gives us that extra ability to assist the end user and make sure that we are making them happy."
"A lot of customers use a third party to manage their guest Wi-Fi. Cisco ISE presents the ability to bring that in-house so that customers can have full control over it, change the branding, and get extra telemetry from it and the user data. It works really well for our customers."
"The solution is good at giving a deep dive into each product. It tells you, for example, what is connected to the network. It gives us good reporting tools."
"Version 9.1 has been an improvement on previous versions. It's a good solution for SMB."
"This solution is very easy to implement and use. The interface is user-friendly."
"Fortinet FortiNAC is a stable solution."
"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."
"The interface is good and simple to use."
"Provides good performance, is easy to use and configure."
"Compared to other NAC vendors, Fortinet’s user interface is more user-friendly."
"The initial setup was a little bit complex. It's not that simple because it requires a lot of prerequisites for the solution to get a hold on."
"The solution lacks properly knowledgeable support, especially internationally, and this is why I am exploring other applications."
"We face many bugs."
"Cisco ISE integration with Cisco ACI is something that can be done in a less complex way. And the simplification in that area may help us do better."
"Third-party integration is important, as well as the continuous adaptation feature which is the AIOps. It would be helpful to include the AIOps."
"I would like to see them simplify the dashboard. It's very configurable, but, at the same time, it's not easy to maneuver through it. They should "Merakify" it."
"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."
"The UI is not as intuitive as some other products, even products inside of Cisco's wheelhouse."
"Its technical support needs improvement."
"The reporting can also use improvement."
"The dashboard needs to improve."
"Classifications and visibility need to be improved a lot. They have to start work on being agentless. Agentless means they need to have strong integration with Windows."
"FortiNAC could improve integration with other vendors."
"Fortinet FortiNAC's device compatibility could be improved, particularly for VoIP devices."
"I hope that Fortinet can add a feature with a remediation mechanism when you find a broken piece so that you can click on something and download the needed update or resolve the firewall issue more easily. Currently, we have to use an external remediation server to download updates."
"There could be better integration with legacy equipment. It integrates perfectly with all Fortinet solutions, but if you look at other third-party integrations—not on the networking part; but more on the security infrastructure part—it's more limited."
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.