We compared Cisco Identity Services Engine and Fortinet FortiNA (ISE)C based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison of Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Cisco ISE seems to be the slightly superior solution because of its expansive integration capabilities.
"The initial setup was easy. It took around one month. We did the installation part within half an hour to two hours but we found a couple of issues so we raised a case and once everything was resolved it was a month in total."
"Being able to authenticate wired users through 802.1X is valuable as it enhances our security."
"It does what it's supposed to. We use a certificate-based authentication method for corporate-managed devices. That means when a user walks in with their managed laptop and plugs it into the network, it chats with Cisco ISE in the background, allows it on the network, and away they go."
"One of the most important features is the authentication security for the individual connection to the network through their computer or laptop."
"Since migrating towards doing wired ports over ISE with 802.1X and MAB authentication, our organization's security risk has been better. We have been able to establish better layouts, so devices can move and we don't have to worry about where they need to go."
"Cisco offers automation, visibility, and control as well as third party integration capabilities."
"I found the CMDB Direct Connect in Cisco ISE 3.2 the most promising feature for my use case."
"The solution is great for establishing trust for every access request no matter where it comes from."
"Compared to other NAC vendors, Fortinet’s user interface is more user-friendly."
"When it works, it's great. It keeps things off the network which are supposed to be off the network."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiNAC is its integration with all other Fortinet solutions."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the user-friendliness, the graphical interface, and the technical support. The interface is very nice and the customization is good."
"The device fingerprinting feature allowed for easy creation and enforcement of access policies."
"I like FortiNAC's integration with other Fortinet devices. They work together well, but the solution also works with other network devices."
"Fortinet FortiNAC is a stable solution."
"The support responds to our queries within two to four hours."
"There should be a single button that can be pressed to dismiss all of the alarms at once."
"Cisco ISE can become quite complex, especially with policy sets, the entire authentication process, and everything involved."
"The solution is not so user-friendly."
"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."
"This product doesn't work in isolation."
"Profiling is a really good feature. However, it sometimes is a challenge for customers when there are issues with the remediation part. I would add a built-in remediation solution. That would be a very nice feature."
"The software is a little bit complicated to understand in the beginning, meaning the implementation. It needs proper documentation so that we can understand the options more easily."
"I would rate this solution a 7.5 out of ten. To make it a ten they should have more people on tech support. They need to invest more in the product. It's a good product. They should just work on tech support. More support for the customer. It's not that easy to get somebody to understand this product. I have had some issues with tech before for the solution. One of them brought the solution down due to some of his activity. They need to hugely invest in their tech support."
"The platform must enable troubleshooting."
"Fortinet FortiNAC's device compatibility could be improved, particularly for VoIP devices."
"The interface works fine, but it could be better."
"Admin UI could be better matched and easier to use; it cannot work as a RADIUS server."
"I would like to be able to compare the configuration backup before and after."
"The product must make its UI similar to other Fortinet products."
"The training documentation needs to be more transparent."
"The reporting capability needs to be improved."
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 FortiNAC is ranked 3rd in Network Access Control (NAC) with 43 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Fortinet FortiNAC is rated 7.6. 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 FortiNAC writes "I like the solution's native integration with other devices from the same vendor". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Fortinet FortiAuthenticator and Microsoft Enterprise Mobility + Security, whereas Fortinet FortiNAC is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Forescout Platform, Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, Fortinet FortiClient and Portnox CORE. See our Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs. Fortinet FortiNAC report.
See our list of best Network Access Control (NAC) vendors.
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.