Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) vs Fortinet FortiNAC vs Portnox comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
8.4
Cisco Identity Services Engine enhances security and efficiency, providing cost savings and IT consolidation, making it vital for network management.
Sentiment score
5.0
Fortinet FortiNAC enhances network security and management, reducing costs and labor while offering financial savings and efficiency.
Sentiment score
4.8
Portnox CORE improved network visibility, security, and efficiency, reducing costs and enhancing decision-making through detailed analytics and automated features.
Direct comparisons with Forescout reveal up to 30% to 40% difference in cost savings.
If you were moving from a traditional on-premise NAC that was 100% managed by the IT department, there would be great savings in going to a cloud-based NAC with Portnox.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
5.9
Cisco Identity Services Engine customer service is praised for commitment, but technical support feedback varies due to delays and complexities.
Sentiment score
5.8
Fortinet FortiNAC support is varied, excelling in US and Asia-Pacific but needing improvements in EMEA, especially UK.
Sentiment score
6.7
Portnox customer service is responsive, but needs improvement in local support, ticketing, and technical training for better service.
I rate the technical support as one out of ten.
Cisco support has pretty good teams for support and every time we had good answers and we could somehow solve the issues we had.
Sometimes it's challenging to identify which support team is responsible for certain issues, which is a significant concern.
They provide sessions to help with various questions.
They could do more to improve, not because of the product itself but because of the support they provide.
The main area needing improvement is the technical knowledge of support staff.
They respond very immediately and provide detailed, amazing support.
I was seeing weird things, and they were able to explain things to me and help me quickly find a resolution.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
Cisco ISE excels in scalable environments, efficiently supporting deployments with flexibility for thousands of endpoints across various sizes.
Sentiment score
7.3
Fortinet FortiNAC is scalable and adaptable, with flexible licensing, though integration and setup complexity may need improvement.
Sentiment score
7.5
Portnox is highly scalable and flexible, efficiently supporting many endpoints with its adaptable cloud-based licensing model.
Factors like architecture, business nature, and legal limitations such as GDPR affect it.
However, you can have some latency issues depending on where your devices are.
The pricing model makes it challenging as the cost is substantial due to the per-node licensing model.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
Cisco ISE is reliable with high user satisfaction, though some report stability issues, especially during upgrades and high capacity.
Sentiment score
7.5
Opinions on Fortinet FortiNAC's stability vary, with ratings from seven to ten, citing both reliability and persistent issues.
Sentiment score
7.5
Portnox is stable but CORE faces issues; improved communication and support are needed, especially during updates and for older versions.
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is considered very reliable and stable.
The stability of Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is poor for certain use cases, like authentication.
Sometimes when we have upgrades or failovers with Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE), we had some minor issues.
The product itself is available and its uptime is 100%.
In the four years that I used Portnox, if it crashed or the server crashed, that would not have been more than once.
If there is a version one and another version, the communication between the organization using it and Portnox should be firm so they can coordinate effectively.
 

Room For Improvement

Cisco ISE struggles with setup complexity, non-intuitive UI, integration challenges, upgrade issues, and demands for better features.
Fortinet FortiNAC struggles with integration, usability, setup, support, and pricing, needing better documentation and enhanced features.
Portnox should optimize licensing, integration, UI, partner training, support hours, Wi-Fi integration, and resolve cloud authentication delays.
The whole setup works well with Cisco access points and Cisco switches, but when you have multiple vendors in the environment, such as HP switches or access points like Aruba, you'll find they will not work well with Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE).
Pricing can be more expensive compared to other vendors, and there is a significant price gap observed, which doesn't seem justified by some specific features.
They are very poor in asset classification and should focus on improving the preauthentication profiling, especially for NAC use cases.
Improvement in the interface design would make FortiNAC a better solution.
The graphical user interface (GUI) of Fortinet FortiNAC is very poor compared to competitors like Forcepoint and Cisco ISE.
Ideally, we should be able to search for any MAC address in the database, regardless of its authentication status, to see all its associated groups and potential conflicts.
When I'm doing filtering at times, it doesn't filter the items properly.
They don't have much support during Asia Pacific hours.
 

Setup Cost

Cisco ISE offers strong features with complex, expensive pricing, but discounts through partnerships can help alleviate costs.
Fortinet FortiNAC offers competitively priced license tiers, considered valuable with options for yearly or perpetual licenses and support.
Portnox pricing is considered balanced, offering scalable licenses, with mixed reactions to subscription-only plans and varying regional costs.
Compared to other solutions like HPE ClearPass, Cisco is more costly, and the conversation suggests a possible forty percent price gap compared to competitors.
The license costs can range between $50,000 to $100,000 per year for enterprises.
Cloud solutions are expensive, while on-prem setups with shared environments are cheaper but not effective.
Fortinet FortiNAC is relatively cheap compared to other solutions.
If you compare Portnox with all other well-known standard products, it is the cheapest.
The pricing is a bit high, possibly due to the cloud features and running instances across regions like the US, Asia, and Europe.
You are charged according to the number of users.
 

Valuable Features

Cisco ISE provides comprehensive access control, seamless integration, and enhanced security with intuitive management for versatile network operations.
Fortinet FortiNAC ensures robust security, visibility, and integration, with features like compliance checks and customizable reporting for diverse networks.
Portnox offers scalable, intuitive network management with seamless integration and security compliance for efficient endpoint management and visibility.
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) offers authentication using RADIUS, enhancing network security by separating and segregating networks.
There is value because it helps us secure the network and prevents certain things from happening which could cause financial loss.
The adaptability of Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) policy enforcement can fit to the site we have depending on which kind of devices we have on site and then the needs for authentication, granting access and then assigning each device into its correct network for segmentation.
I appreciate the feature where it can connect with different vendor equipment, regardless of the network devices from other vendors.
The main advantage of Fortinet FortiNAC is its integration with the entire Fortinet product portfolio.
It's notable how Portnox has improved operational efficiency.
It is a very robust application because three teams use that part: the network team, the security team, and the support people.
It is very easy to implement on our current network hardware.
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Network Access Control (NAC) category, the mindshare of Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is 24.2%, down from 29.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Fortinet FortiNAC is 17.9%, up from 17.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Portnox is 4.7%, up from 2.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Access Control (NAC) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE)24.2%
Fortinet FortiNAC17.9%
Portnox4.7%
Other53.2%
Network Access Control (NAC)
 

Featured Reviews

SunilkumarNaganuri - PeerSpot reviewer
Enhanced device administration hindered by complex deployment and security limitations
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) needs to improve the profiling preauthentication. They are very poor in asset classification and should focus on improving the preauthentication profiling, especially for NAC use cases. This will give them a roadmap for software-defined access (SDA) use cases and network segmentation. Threat detection capabilities are very weak. Additionally, the product is vulnerable and has many bugs.
Boaz Katabazi - PeerSpot reviewer
Seamless device discovery with integration and discovery capabilities
FortiNAC is very good in terms of device discovery and integration. I appreciate the feature where it can connect with different vendor equipment, regardless of the network devices from other vendors. That's something I appreciate about it, particularly in terms of adaptability. Despite the complexity of its interface, its discovery capabilities are commendable.
Scott Kerr - PeerSpot reviewer
It is seamless and integrates well with our Azure setup
We use devices like PLCs and controllers, and when we receive a request to allow one on the network, we bypass typical authentication, associate it with a group account, and push it to a firewalled VLAN. However, problems arise when the same MAC address is requested for a different project. Our current system only finds authenticated MAC addresses, making it difficult to troubleshoot when the same device is used for multiple purposes. Ideally, we should be able to search for any MAC address in the database, regardless of its authentication status, to see all its associated groups and potential conflicts.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Access Control (NAC) solutions are best for your needs.
869,160 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
9%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Government
7%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
Healthcare Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business44
Midsize Enterprise31
Large Enterprise91
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business30
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise14
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business12
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise7
 

Questions from the Community

Which is better - Aruba Clearpass or Cisco ISE?
Aruba ClearPass is a Network Access Control tool that gives secure network access to multiple device types. You can...
What are the main differences between Cisco ISE and Forescout Platform?
OK, so Cisco ISE uses 802.1X to secure switchports against unauthorized access. The drawback of this is that ISE cann...
How does Cisco ISE compare with Fortinet FortiNAC?
Cisco ISE uses AI endpoint analytics to identify new devices based on their behavior. It will also notify you if some...
What is the biggest difference between Aruba ClearPass and FortiNAC?
I've done quite a lot of work with ClearPass, and not a lot with FortiNAC/Bradford. ClearPass incorporates a number ...
What do you like most about Fortinet FortiNAC?
The support responds to our queries within two to four hours.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortinet FortiNAC?
I am not directly involved with pricing, but I know that Fortinet FortiNAC is relatively cheap compared to other solu...
What do you like most about Portnox CORE?
It's easy to manage and troubleshoot thanks to the lightweight components.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Portnox CORE?
It's not cheap. It's not expensive. It's in the middle, so I'll probably give it a seven out of ten, where one is che...
What needs improvement with Portnox CORE?
We have been having some issues with it. That's why we're considering migrating to Portnox Clear due to some limitati...
 

Also Known As

Cisco ISE
FortiNAC, Bradford Networks, Bradford Networks Sentry, Network Sentry Family
Access Layers Portnox, Portnox CLEAR
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Aegean Motorway, BC Hydro, Beachbody, Bucks County Intermediate Unit , Cisco IT, Derby City Council, Global Banking Customer, Gobierno de Castilla-La Mancha, Houston Methodist, Linz AG, London Hydro, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Molina Healthcare, MST Systems, New South Wales Rural Fire Service, Reykjavik University, Wildau University
Isavia, Pepperdine University, Medical University of South Carolina, Columbia University Medical Center, Utah Valley University
Data Realty, Royal London, Wales Millennium Centre, McLaren Construction Group, EL AL Israeli Airlines, 
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Fortinet and others in Network Access Control (NAC). Updated: October 2025.
869,160 professionals have used our research since 2012.