We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs Fortinet FortiAuthenticator based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Fortinet FortiAuthenticator has an edge in this comparison because it received higher marks in the ease of deployment and pricing categories, and users are more impressed with its features.
"Cisco ISE integrates with everything else."
"I found the CMDB Direct Connect in Cisco ISE 3.2 the most promising feature for my use case."
"One of the advantages is that you can easily find rogue endpoints. For example, if you don't want to allow any endpoints where you don't know the people plugging into what kind of devices, ISE can give you a big, clear picture, e.g., what kind of endpoints are getting connected to your network. That is one of the advantages."
"For me, the TACACS feature is the most valuable. I have also used Cisco ISE with LDAP, not with Active Directory. That works for me because I prefer LDAP versus Active Directory."
"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 interconnection with the ecosystem and the ability to force rules all over the network are the most important features."
"The most valuable feature is the ASDM - the user interface makes it very easy to configure the firewall."
"RADIUS is the best feature because it supplies authentication to our entire campus."
"FortiAuthenticator is really good software that integrates very well with Fortinet products."
"I work a lot with Fortinet products and I call the support often. They are very quick to respond and the support is very good."
"Simple to deploy, simple to use, and user-friendly."
"The initial setup of Fortinet FortiAuthenticator is easy."
"Intuitive interface and easy to deploy."
"The initial setup is very easy."
"FortiAuthenticator is a very good solution. It is all jury-based. FortiAuthenticator is very easy for anyone to understand how it works and be able to take action."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy. It is also easy to deploy."
"The templates could be better. When you have to do certs, especially with X.500 certs, it isn't very intuitive."
"They should improve the upgrades. It's not easy to upgrade the solution."
"The price could be better. I would like to see more integration with third-party solutions in the next release. This is because many of my clients don't have Cisco."
"I would like to see the product simplified more, especially with the configuration."
"It is a good product, but in order to use all of the functions of the product, you must have a good understanding of the product. You must know how to use and manage it. It is a little bit complicated to configure and manage. It must be simplified to make it easy to manage for end users. In the initial stage, we found ISE complicated for end users. It was not easy to manage it or to write authentication and authorization protocol. They must improve its management and make it easy for end users. The monitoring and reporting capabilities can be improved because end users want to quickly see what is happening in their network. There were some restrictions in working with other vendors. It should also have a better and easy integration with other vendors."
"The initial setup process is complex since there are so many big components."
"A lot of people tell you the hardware requirements for ISE are pretty substantial. If you're running a virtual environment, you're going to be dedicating quite a bit of resources to an ISE VM. That is something that could be worked on."
"Its user interface could be better. It's not bad. They've just redesigned the whole user interface. It's not terribly difficult. The drop-down menus are easy to use. However, when you're looking for some things in the user interface, it takes a minute to find where you were prior."
"They could expand FortiAuthenticator's capabilities to accommodate a broader range of environments."
"The product must provide 2FA for applications."
"A better integration with other vendors."
"There is room for improvement in stability and support."
"The technical support team is bad."
"It would be helpful to receive a code by yourself for authentication instead of it registered to a phone."
"I would like to see some email options for Fortinet FortiAuthenticator."
"The product must provide full support for third-party FIDO security keys."
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 Fortinet FortiAuthenticator is ranked 5th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 52 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Fortinet FortiAuthenticator is rated 8.0. 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 Fortinet FortiAuthenticator writes "A reasonably priced solution that can be scaled toward different functionalities and offers flexible SMS messaging". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Microsoft Enterprise Mobility + Security, whereas Fortinet FortiAuthenticator is most compared with Fortinet FortiToken, Fortinet FortiNAC, Microsoft Entra ID, Cisco Duo 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.