We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and IBM Security Identity Governance and Intelligence based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, HPE Aruba Networking, Fortinet and others in Network Access Control (NAC)."The valuable feature of the solution lies in its integration capabilities with other applications."
"The solution is very reliable."
"The most valuable feature of Cisco ISE is its seamless integration with the switches and the entire suite, enabling wireless access and smooth client information retrieval."
"For customers, it's great. It has a GUI, so the customers themselves can edit ACLs or even modify the policies. It's also an all-in-one solution with RADIUS and TACACS."
"The profiling model included is the most valuable feature."
"So far, we have had no issues with the stability."
"The core point is that Cisco ISE is the same globally compared to FortiAuthenticator. Whether I deploy in China, the US, South Africa, or wherever, I'm can get all the capabilities. It allows me to directly integrate with 365, and from a communications point of view, that is a good capability."
"The solution is great for establishing trust for every access request no matter where it comes from."
"Lifecycle management, governance and documentation."
"I would rate the price eight out of 10, with 10 as the best value for money."
More IBM Security Identity Governance and Intelligence Pros →
"The solution could be more secure."
"Sometimes, there are instances when Cisco ISE simply fails to function without any apparent reason, and regardless of the investigation we undertake, the logs indicate that everything is functioning properly, making it somewhat inexplicable."
"The templates could be better. When you have to do certs, especially with X.500 certs, it isn't very intuitive."
"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."
"I believe that Cisco can improve the way its policies are built because it's a little complex."
"Difficult to figure out the protocols and nodes in order to implement correctly."
"In an upcoming release, the solution needs to be more agentless and more independent. Additionally, there could be improved integration with other next-generation solutions, such as Palo Alto, Fortinet, or Check Point."
"In order to make it a ten, it should be more user-friendly. You need somebody who is knowledgeable about it to use it. It's not easy to use. We have to rely heavily on technical support."
"The solution is a bit pricey for some regions."
"Self service center is not always easy to understand."
More IBM Security Identity Governance and Intelligence Cons →
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More IBM Security Identity Governance and Intelligence Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 138 reviews while IBM Security Identity Governance and Intelligence is ranked 11th in User Provisioning Software with 2 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while IBM Security Identity Governance and Intelligence 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 IBM Security Identity Governance and Intelligence writes "We use the solution to ensure organizations conform to industry base certifications and best practices". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas IBM Security Identity Governance and Intelligence is most compared with SailPoint Identity Security Cloud, Microsoft Identity Manager, Saviynt and CyberArk Privileged Access Manager.
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.