We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Omada Identity based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, HPE Aruba Networking, Forescout and others in Network Access Control (NAC)."The TACACS and RADIUS have been the most valuable features so far."
"The solution is great for establishing trust for every access request no matter where it comes from."
"They have recently made a lot of improvements. My clients don't have much to complain about."
"It provides client provisions and profiling as well as guest access."
"I like that Cisco ISE is easy to use."
"Cisco ISE scales exceptionally well."
"Our clients like Cisco ISE because they already use various Cisco solutions. It's easy for them to use this solution because they have an engineer with Cisco certifications."
"The product is useful for device administration."
"As an administrator, we benefit from a lot of functionality that is available out of the box, but it is also configurable to meet our specific needs."
"I'm not using Omada, but the interface is easy to use and gives you a solid overview of your identities."
"The teams we work with at Omada provide great insights and support. Overall, it has been a pleasure working with them. That's the part we value the most."
"For me, the best feature of Omada Identity is its web interface because it's really easy for users to understand."
"The most relevant feature is Omada's reporting engine. Omada never 'forgets' and archives every process. All steps an admin, user, or manager has executed, are recorded in Omada."
"User-friendly solution."
"The key benefit of Omada Identity is maintaining complete control."
"What I like most is that we can always find a solution, and we can also find the cause when something goes wrong. I like that the most because everything is in one way or another traceable. That is what I like most. I like its reliability."
"Third-party integration is important, as well as the continuous adaptation feature which is the AIOps. It would be helpful to include the AIOps."
"This product doesn't work in isolation."
"It is too complex. It should be easy to use. We are not such a big team. We only have three engineers to work with this, and we don't use all of the functionality of the product. Its range of functionality is too wide for us, and this is the reason why we are thinking of switching to a more simple product. We have shortlisted a Microsoft solution. We have a big footprint for Microsoft products, especially in security. As a global strategy, we try to leverage to the maximum what is possible around Microsoft."
"It could be more intuitive in terms of how to configure the policies."
"The solution could be more secure."
"Support and integration for the active devices needs to be worked on. Their features mainly work well with Mac devices. If we use an HP the Mac functionalities may no longer be able to deliver."
"The knocks I have against the product are the number of bugs that we encounter, constantly, and the amount of upgrading that we have to do."
"The upgrades could be better. Every time we try to do an upgrade, we have problems. It's a pain."
"Omada could communicate better with us about the product roadmap. We haven't gotten any updates about it. The user interface is often a bit difficult to understand. It isn't optimized for small screens, so it doesn't display all of the information clearly, so users need to scroll a lot."
"Omada's performance could be better because we had some latency issues. Still, it's difficult to say how much of that is due to Omada versus the resources used by our other vendors in our on-prem environment. Considering the resources we have invested into making it run well, it's slightly slower than we would expect."
"If you find an error and you need it fixed, you have to upgrade. It's not like they say, "Okay, we'll fix this problem for you." You have to upgrade. The last time we upgraded, because there was an error in a previous version, we had to pay 150,000 Danish Krone (about $24,000 at the time of this review) to upgrade our systems... That means that we have to pay to get errors fixed that Omada has made in programming the system. I hope they change this way of looking at things."
"The account management integration isn't bad, but it isn't plug-and-play like Microsoft Azure. You need some deep development knowledge to set up the connectors."
"The reporting on the warehouse data and the import process both have room for improvement."
"In our organization, all the data is event-driven, which means that if an attribute is changed in the source system, it can be updated within a few seconds in all end-user systems. There is room for improvement in Omada regarding that. Omada is still batch-based for some processes, so sometimes it can take an hour or even four hours before the execution is run and the update is sent."
"The current reporting tools in Omada are limited, but we expect significant improvements in the new version."
"The Omada Identity SaaS version doesn't provide all the features Omada Identity on-premise provides."
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 Omada Identity is ranked 4th in Identity Management (IM) with 45 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Omada Identity is rated 8.2. 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 Omada Identity writes "The solution has sped up employee onboarding while reducing manual work". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas Omada Identity is most compared with SailPoint IdentityIQ, Microsoft Entra ID, Saviynt, SAP Identity Management and Oracle Identity Governance.
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.