"The implementation is very simple."
"Stable network administration solution that can be installed easily, and comes with fast technical support."
"In terms of features, I think they've done a lot of improvement on the graphical user interface — it looks really good right now."
"The most valuable features are authentication, we have more granular control on the access policies for the administrators. The solution is easy to use, has a center point administration, and has a good GUI."
"It integrates with the rest of our platform, like our firewall, and helps us a lot. It also does a good job establishing trust for every access request."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with StealthWatch and DNA as one fabric."
"The interface is pretty easy to use."
"It has all of the features available, in fact, more than what you need."
"The integrated Fortinet security with the app that allows you to easily do the two-factor authentication is most valuable."
"I believe FortiToken is the simplest to implement."
"Its ease of use is most valuable. It is simple to use and can be deployed out-of-the-box. It is quite a mature product with all the required features."
"FortiToken is available in a soft or hard token factor, so there's some flexibility in that. Beyond that, I would say it is a stable solution that has worked for us."
"Its ease of installation is most valuable. It took me five minutes, and it was up and running. It didn't take me that long. The installation on the cell phones is pretty simple."
"The area where things could be improved is education. It's complicated to deploy initially because you have to know what you're getting into."
"The solution configuration is complicated for setting the infrastructure. They have improved over the years but there is still a lot of room to improve. When comparing the simplicity to other vendors, such as Fortinet and Aruba they are behind."
"The customer server was great but it would have been better for me if they had support in other languages such as Spanish."
"The pricing is fair."
"I would like the product to include support for OSVS version three."
"The ISE software needs to be improved so that it is easier to administer."
"There are still some bugs in ISE that need to be worked out."
"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."
"Its reporting should be better. The reporting feature is missing. I don't have any reporting of who has done what, what has failed, and what didn't work."
"The app could be improved so that you don't have to actually type in the code. It would be great if you can just do a prompt or push similar to the way Duo does."
"I would like to see complete OAuth support. Also, if they can support it from a SaaS (Software as a Service) or cloud platform, that would be great."
"It needs a lot of coupling with their other Fortinet products. To implement FortiToken, I most probably need to couple it with FortiAuthenticator for full implementation. An RSA token can be used with many devices, whereas Fortinet FortiToken is always linked to only one FortiGate device. If I want to reuse the token across five or six FortiGates, I would have to get the FortiAuthenticator product. I can't use one token to connect to different FortiGates, and I need to get another product to enable this functionality. They should also improve the support for their mobile client. There should be a more detailed roadmap for the operating systems being supported. Some of our users were using an old iOS iPhone, and they were forced to get a newer phone because FortiToken didn't support that version of iOS. Similarly, there may be a version of Android that is not supported, so the users need to change the phone. This was one of the reasons why our deployment took longer."
"Fortinet support has some room for improvement. It has taken a long time to resolve some issues or find a workaround."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 60 reviews while Fortinet FortiToken is ranked 4th in Authentication Systems with 5 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.0, while Fortinet FortiToken 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 FortiToken writes "Ease of administration, durable, and is capable of performing solid RADIUS authentications". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Forescout Platform, Fortinet FortiNAC, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas Fortinet FortiToken is most compared with Microsoft Authenticator, Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, Duo Security, Yubico YubiKey and VMware Identity 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.