

Cisco ISE and ThreatLocker compete in the cybersecurity industry. Cisco ISE seems to have the upper hand with its network access control capabilities best suited for Cisco hardware environments, while ThreatLocker is favored for straightforward endpoint security management.
Features: Cisco ISE stands out for its compatibility with 802.1X environments, comprehensive client provisioning measures, and rich integration within the Cisco ecosystem. ThreatLocker excels with its rigorous application allowlisting, elevation request features, and ease in managing software, scripts, and libraries for precise application control.
Room for Improvement: Cisco ISE's complexity in setup and management, unintuitive interface, and difficulties in integration with non-Cisco products are areas needing enhancement. ThreatLocker could improve in multi-factor authentication integration and seamless SIEM tool integration, alongside interface simplification and onboarding processes.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Cisco ISE is challenging to deploy due to complex initial setups but receives generally positive ratings for customer service and support. It is predominantly deployed on-premises with some hybrid cloud integration. ThreatLocker supports various deployment models, including cloud environments, making it flexible with strong customer support and efficient onboarding praised by users.
Pricing and ROI: Cisco ISE's pricing can be high, with complex licensing models, though ROI is deemed justifiable for its robust security and compliance features. ThreatLocker presents competitive pricing seen as cost-effective, adding value through comprehensive protection and support that optimizes total cost of ownership and results in favorable ROI perceptions.
Direct comparisons with Forescout reveal up to 30% to 40% difference in cost savings.
If something were to happen without ThreatLocker, the cost would be huge, and thus, having it is definitely worth it.
Based on what we use ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform for with the same functionalities and packaging, it was around 13 or 14 hours.
We have the MDR package as well, and just knowing someone is watching those endpoints at 3:00 a.m. is a lifesaver that you cannot put a dollar figure on.
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 have been very responsive, helpful, and knowledgeable.
I would rate their customer support a ten out of ten.
Their support is world-class.
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.
I started off with just the servers, and within a month and a half, I set up the entire company with ThreatLocker.
It seems to primarily operate on the endpoints rather than at a central location pushing out policies.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform scales very smoothly with our growing needs.
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.
For five years, we have not had a problem.
Once deployed, it downloads the policies locally, so even if the computer doesn't have internet, it doesn't matter.
It has been very stable, reliable, and accessible.
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.
Controlling the cloud environment, not just endpoints, is crucial.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform could improve by being a little more hands-off, perhaps by having a team inside ThreatLocker that does all the vetting of patches; having one person hired by ThreatLocker to check out patches means that a million other industries using ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform do not have to vet the same patch, ultimately saving time and money around the world.
This feedback would help us understand what is learned in real-time, especially during a one-hour learning mode setup, ensuring we remain aware of potentially unnecessary learned items.
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.
After conversations with other partners, it became clear we underpriced it initially, which caused most of our issues.
We are moving towards the Unified solution, where they basically bundle everything together, providing us better stability with the ability to bring in new product offerings without having to go back to the customer and say, 'This is going to cost you.'
Money is saved because it is not costly, and I would suggest it for other companies.
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.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform's ability to block access to unauthorized applications has been excellent.
It protects our customers.
The major benefit is fewer breaches overall, as nothing can be run without prior approval. This helps my company protect its data and secure itself effectively.
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) | 21.7% |
| ThreatLocker Zero Trust Endpoint Protection Platform | 1.4% |
| Other | 76.9% |

| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 44 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 32 |
| Large Enterprise | 91 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 51 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 13 |
| Large Enterprise | 8 |
Cisco Identity Services Engine offers robust authentication, posture profiling, guest and secure access, and dynamic policy management. Known for its seamless integration with Cisco tools and network access control features, it ensures secure device and user authentication across networks.
Cisco Identity Services Engine is renowned for its capabilities in managing authentication, guest access, and policy management through segmentation. Its TrustSec functionality, alongside RADIUS and TACACS+ support, provides enhanced security, further augmented by its ability to operate in diverse environments. Its scalability and integration with Cisco solutions aid in maintaining network visibility and access control. Challenges include the complexity of initial deployments, somewhat cumbersome documentation, and limited integration in multi-vendor environments. While encountering issues in stability and updates, the demand for better analytics and straightforward troubleshooting alongside cost-effective licensing is notable.
What are the key features of Cisco Identity Services Engine?Industries implement Cisco Identity Services Engine primarily for network access control, ensuring secure authentication and segmentation in both wired and wireless environments. Supporting policies like bring-your-own-device and compliance standards, ISE manages identity-based access control, especially beneficial for entities that require detailed user rights management and integration within enterprise networks.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform employs a deny-by-default approach to enhance security and operational efficiency, focusing on precise application control and streamlined access management without administrative rights.
ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform offers advanced application control, allowlisting, and elevation control, significantly reducing unauthorized software activities. Its granular controls improve security, while ringfencing enhances application monitoring. Elevation requests allow users to gain administrative access without IT intervention. The platform's ease of policy management and real-time threat visibility contribute to reduced help desk tickets and operational costs, ensuring protection against ransomware and unauthorized applications.
What are the key features of ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform?Organizations often deploy ThreatLocker Zero Trust Platform for ensuring endpoint security in industries requiring stringent application control and administrative access management. Its functionalities are critical for managing Shadow IT, creating policies, and overseeing software installation approvals. Common usage spans sectors demanding robust security and compliance, such as finance and healthcare, where maintaining high security and efficiency is crucial.
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.