We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Ping Identity Platform 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)."I like the logging feature."
"Using this solution gives us the ability to allow proper access to the network."
"The solution is very reliable."
"The most valuable thing in ISE is the adoption of EAP deep that came in [version] 2.7, so we can do authentication based on user and machine certificates in one authentication."
"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 most valuable feature is 801.1x and another very good feature is the TACACS."
"Cisco offers automation, visibility, and control as well as third party integration capabilities."
"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 has a smooth and configurable user interface for single sign-on capabilities."
"PingFederate gives you granular control over the settings. There are many options for fine-tuning policies."
"I find the auto-discovery feature the most valuable. It helps us automate a lot of things using a single password across applications."
"The solution is stable. We haven't experienced any bugs or glitches."
"It provides ease of connecting all our devices."
"This is a user-friendly solution."
"The solution is highly stable and scalable"
"We use the product to run different reports."
"Documentation is probably the worst part of the software."
"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."
"The solution lacks properly knowledgeable support, especially internationally, and this is why I am exploring other applications."
"It is too complex. It should be easy to use. We are not such a big team. We only have three engineers to work with this, and we don't use all of the functionality of the product. Its range of functionality is too wide for us, and this is the reason why we are thinking of switching to a more simple product. We have shortlisted a Microsoft solution. We have a big footprint for Microsoft products, especially in security. As a global strategy, we try to leverage to the maximum what is possible around Microsoft."
"There is room for improvement in its ability to allow end users to self-enroll their devices. Instead, you should be able to assign that permission by AD group, which is currently not available."
"They should improve the upgrades. It's not easy to upgrade the solution."
"The UI is not as intuitive as some other products, even products inside of Cisco's wheelhouse."
"The solution configuration is complicated for setting the infrastructure. They have improved over the years but there is still a lot of room to improve. When comparing the simplicity to other vendors, such as Fortinet and Aruba they are behind."
"They could use some bio-certification. It's just more user-friendly and more convenient than entering the one time passes. That would be an improvement."
"PingID classifies the type of environment into internal and external, which is an area for improvement because you need to take additional steps to trust internal and external users."
"The management console needs to be improved. PingID should revise it."
"I think that the connection with like Microsoft Word, especially for Office 365, is a weak point that could be improved."
"PingID's device management portal should be more easily accessible via a link. They provide no link to the portal like they do for the service. The passwordless functionality could be more comprehensive. You can't filter based on hardware devices. Having that filtering option would be great. Device authentication would be a great feature."
"It requires some expertise to set up and manage."
"PingID should put a little more effort into making a pretty self-explanatory deck about their tech features and the services they offer."
"PingID would benefit from a better user interface for integration."
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 Ping Identity Platform is ranked 5th in Authentication Systems with 19 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Ping Identity Platform is rated 8.4. 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 Ping Identity Platform writes " A highly stable tool offering extremely helpful technical support to its users". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas Ping Identity Platform is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, Symantec Siteminder, ForgeRock, Microsoft Active Directory and Oracle ODSEE.
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.