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 return on investment we have seen is related to time in terms of troubleshooting. The logs, such as the security logs, inform us of the issues that people have had. ISE has been very instrumental in helping isolate those issues. We've seen a lot of cost savings because we don't have to pay an IT person to waste time doing something that should be instantaneous."
"Cisco offers automation, visibility, and control as well as third party integration capabilities."
"It does a good job of establishing trust for each access request, no matter the source. It's also very effective at helping with the distributed network and at securing access."
"Among the most valuable features is TACACS."
"The most valuable feature is the ASDM - the user interface makes it very easy to configure the firewall."
"[One of the most valuable features] is just the ease of use. It's pretty simple to set up certs that we can add to our clients to make sure that they connect properly, [as is] whitelisting Mac addresses."
"It's easy to change and add policies."
"The most valuable feature is 801.1x and another very good feature is the TACACS."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiNAC is its integration with all other Fortinet solutions."
"The network segmentation is the most important part of the solution. The integration with the Zero Trust Access solution is a crucial part of segmenting your network."
"The FortiNAC features I found the most valuable are security and the ability to consolidate wireless networks."
"With FortiNAC, we don't need to configure the mass client site or access points. For example, we don't need to configure the switching site for a client's site. With Persistent Agent, it makes it much easier."
"There are some features that are working well."
"The features are more expandable."
"All the features of Fortinet FortiNAC are valuable."
"It's a very good solution and one thing I have noted is its simplicity and the ease of the set-up process."
"In an upcoming release, it would be nice to have NAC already standard in the solution."
"Documentation is probably the worst part of the software."
"With the recent release of the solution, we had a bunch of bugs and we had to delay our deployment. Other than that, the solution is good."
"In the next release, I would want to see this kind of solution in the cloud as opposed to on prem because when enhancements are made to the software, if it's in the cloud, it's overnight. I mean you're not going to have to respin the servers that the license sits on, it's all microservices kinds of things in the cloud. That would be my recommendation. If I'm a customer, that's what I'm looking at - for cloud based software subscriptions."
"Automation [is an area for improvement]. It seems like everywhere I look, automation is super important. Automation and integrations. That's the area it could be improved..."
"If you have someone taking care of it, it can be quite easy to manage the solution. Otherwise, if you don't look after it and take care of it day-to-day, then it will become more complex to run."
"The interface could be more user-friendly and the ability to apply rules to MAC addresses, for example, if I wanted to allow a certain MAC address access at a particular time I cannot make this adjustment."
"It would be ideal if Cisco could provide some short training videos or documentation to customers to help them understand how to use the product."
"The training from Fortinet FortiNAC could improve. Fortinet has to plan for better training for its partners. Additionally, device management should have more integration with other devices, such as new and third-party devices."
"Integration is hard in Fortinet FortiNAC, but they are evolving and getting better. For example, with Cisco, Aruba, Huawei, and Extreme devices, Fortinet FortiNAC is working properly, but some other devices have problems."
"I would like to be able to compare the configuration backup before and after."
"The interface works fine, but it could be better."
"FortiNAC could be more scalable."
"The GUI in Fortinet FortiNAC could improve."
"The automation in Fortinet FortiNAC could improve."
"I hope that Fortinet can add a feature with a remediation mechanism when you find a broken piece so that you can click on something and download the needed update or resolve the firewall issue more easily. Currently, we have to use an external remediation server to download updates."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 59 reviews while Fortinet FortiNAC is ranked 4th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 18 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 "Secures devices and has good support, but needs a better interface". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortinet FortiNAC writes "Easy to use and monitors the antivirus performance". 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 FortiClient, Portnox CORE and macmon Network Access Control. 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.