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, reduces breaches, ensures compliance, simplifies management, and consolidates systems for cost savings and efficiency.
Sentiment score
6.9
Fortinet FortiNAC boosts security, reduces costs and configuration time, offering financial benefits and substantial ROI with minimal post-sale support.
Sentiment score
7.3
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 ISE support is praised for knowledge and responsiveness, yet occasionally inconsistent with integration and follow-up challenges.
Sentiment score
7.4
Fortinet FortiNAC support is responsive and helpful but criticized for slow responses, knowledge gaps, and lacking UK-based support.
Sentiment score
7.3
Portnox customer service is highly rated for responsiveness and efficiency, with room for improvement in local services and communication.
I rate the technical support as one out of ten.
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.
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.
They resolved issues quickly and provided clear explanations.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) offers high scalability, supporting large deployments and enterprise expansions despite hardware and setup challenges.
Sentiment score
7.7
Fortinet FortiNAC is generally scalable, flexible, suitable for enterprises, but user experiences vary due to licensing and integration challenges.
Sentiment score
7.5
Portnox is scalable and flexible, supporting growth efficiently, though larger setups may require more resources, rated seven to ten.
Factors like architecture, business nature, and legal limitations such as GDPR affect it.
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 highly reliable and stable, though larger deployments may experience occasional performance and configuration challenges.
Sentiment score
7.7
Fortinet FortiNAC's stability receives mixed reviews, with praises for improvements but concerns about initial issues and support challenges.
Sentiment score
7.6
Portnox offers reliable uptime, though CORE users report issues with vendor support and configuration, while Clear performs smoothly.
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.
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.
 

Room For Improvement

Cisco Identity Services Engine requires improved integration, user interface, documentation, compatibility, and management efficiency to enhance user experience.
Fortinet FortiNAC faces issues with integration, user interface, training, support, and network visibility, while being costly.
Portnox can improve with better GUI, integration, scalability, support, licensing, false positives, documentation, and Wi-Fi and AI analytics.
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 three pricing tiers, with high costs and complex licensing, but provides extensive features and potential discounts.
Fortinet FortiNAC offers competitive pricing with flexible licensing, good value, and affordability, especially in larger deployments.
Portnox offers scalable, competitive pricing based on ports, with annual fees, appreciated value, but no perpetual license option.
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.
It is a bit on the high side, but considering the cloud features and how much it costs to run the instance in the cloud, it is not unreasonable.
 

Valuable Features

Cisco ISE enhances network security with integration, 802.1X authentication, policy management, ease of use, and strong access control.
Fortinet FortiNAC provides strong security with device visibility, seamless integration, user management, compliance checks, and effective reporting tools.
Portnox provides scalable, agentless network visibility with intuitive dashboards and automated security integration, enhancing efficiency and endpoint compliance.
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) offers authentication using RADIUS, enhancing network security by separating and segregating networks.
The solution is integrated with other Cisco devices and can offer automation for an organization, making deployments more dynamic and providing real-time visibility.
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is very good at device administration.
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 very easy to implement on our current network hardware.
We use Meraki for our switching, making it simple to point all our networks and offices to Portnox.
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Network Access Control (NAC) category, the mindshare of Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is 25.3%, down from 31.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Fortinet FortiNAC is 18.9%, up from 16.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Portnox is 3.7%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
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.
855,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
20%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Government
8%
Educational Organization
24%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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: May 2025.
855,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.