We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Forcepoint ONE 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 most valuable feature is 801.1x and another very good feature is the TACACS."
"The most important feature for us is visibility in terms of user connections. It's the ability to see what devices are online for a particular user that helps a lot with our troubleshooting."
"The most valuable features are authentication, we have more granular control on the access policies for the administrators. The solution is easy to use, has a center point administration, and has a good GUI."
"With NAC, the profiling feature is valuable. We're able to see what we have out there in the network and dynamically assign policies to it. We can then use that to enforce TrustSec policy or anything else with NAC."
"There is good integration with third-party systems like antivirus patch management, MDM."
"Typically, the installation is pretty simple."
"The most valuable feature is the visibility element, the ability for customers to be able to see what devices are actually on their network. Without a solution like ISE, they would have no idea what devices are connected to their network. It offers them the ability to authenticate devices via mobile."
"I found the CMDB Direct Connect in Cisco ISE 3.2 the most promising feature for my use case."
"By default without a policy, Bitglass has the capability to notify the admin of multiple or simultaneous logins across a wide range of geographical regions."
"The core CASB solution is the most valuable part. It allows us to put policies in place around which devices can log into our cloud applications. We have a policy that states that only company devices can access these cloud applications."
"Forcepoint ONE is okay for me, and I find it a very good solution. Its most valuable feature is monitoring. Its monitoring is very good, and it can communicate with a SIEM system. I also find the DLP feature of Forcepoint ONE good."
"The initial setup was straightforward, which was a huge win. That mostly goes to the fact that they are agentless. We didn't have to sit there deploying thousands of agents and all the things that go along with that type of deployment. We were up and running very quickly."
"We are able to verify what is getting saved out onto the cloud. It allows us to have some DLP rules, since we have to be HIPAA compliant. If some personal health information has been uploaded to Office 365, then we are able to detect that sort of thing and account for it. We have set up rules to prevent people from doing that."
"The biggest thing that I like about this product is that it's easy to use and teach. When we have somebody new starting to work with the product, it's easy to teach them. It's also easy to use the product as it does so much."
"The solution’s AJAX-VM provides constant reverse proxy uptime. It has been very positive for our security operations. When people are trying to access the SaaS solution, it protects us from downloading any of that data and experiencing any type of attacks"
"The solution is very good when it comes to securing us against data leakage, because of the other proxy. It also has API scanning or data at rest. It inspects data in motion, which is the proxy, and then it has the data at rest, which is the API scanning. We can inspect for anything we want: file fingerprinting, PHI-sensitive data, PCI-sensitive data. It does not matter. We can usually find it and block it in transit and do our remediation with it. It could either be block, encrypt, or allow and watermark the file to follow it and see where it goes. It allows for those different scenarios."
"The opinion of my coworkers, and it's mine as well, is that the user interface could use some tender loving care. It seems counterintuitive sometimes. If you go to the logs, it's hard to figure out which one you need to look at."
"The primary issue is the slowness of the application and the web interface. We have multiple admin nodes and app nodes. So when I need to get some information about a particular user, the GUI would take ten to fifteen seconds in loading when we need to know right away."
"Some of ISE's features need to be more agile. For example, we couldn't integrate our data because Cisco needs your data to be in its own format."
"The customer server was great but it would have been better for me if they had support in other languages such as Spanish."
"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."
"This product doesn't work in isolation."
"Since we have started, we struggled a lot to implement this solution into our network, and we opened a case a couple of times. Up until this point, nothing else needs to be improved with this product."
"I think some areas where ISE could be better are perhaps in the number of integrations that they offer from a virtual standpoint, as well as having a better and more comprehensive pathway for the customer to go from a physical environment to a virtual one."
"I wish they would advance more into the endpoint DLP solution. Currently they do not do anything around endpoint, they're still strictly cloud-based. The forward proxy is really the only thing they do. What I would like to see them do is to scan machines, workstations and servers, for information we might not want on those machines. That would be huge."
"Initially, we had some challenges that Bitglass resolved quickly. The challenges were around communication. There didn't seem like there was the right level of communication within the Bitglass organization. Once we brought the issues up at a higher level, then they were resolved."
"In our environment, when an Active Directory password changes, we tend to have some latency issues with access. It takes about 15 minutes before that password is accessible through Bitglass after the change. That would be the major thing I see as a negative."
"One area for improvement in Forcepoint ONE is that you'll need more training to install the solution yourself. I practiced in a laboratory and I needed more technical information to do the installation."
"Bitglass integration with some IDP providers needs improvement."
"Integration into different multi-factor authentication tools. On their page, they tout Duo, but I don't use Duo. I use another vendor. Not that they don't interact, but it takes a little bit more doing. Any amount of efficiencies here would help."
"Their new SASE (secure access service edge) product would have been the one thing I would have requested. Now that they have that platform, I'd like to see it as integrated and seamless as possible with the core product. That's what they're working towards and that's where we're seeing the advancements."
"We encounter challenges in determining whether certain features for blocking certain file types or preventing automatic downloads are functioning correctly."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 135 reviews while Forcepoint ONE is ranked 23rd in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 10 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Forcepoint ONE 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 Forcepoint ONE writes "Gives us another layer of protection when it comes to end users; an extra set of eyes and ears". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas Forcepoint ONE is most compared with Netskope , Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Forcepoint Secure Web Gateway and Zscaler Internet Access.
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.