Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs One Identity Safeguard comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco ISE (Identity Service...
Average Rating
8.2
Number of Reviews
139
Ranking in other categories
Network Access Control (NAC) (1st), Cisco Security Portfolio (1st)
One Identity Safeguard
Average Rating
8.2
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) (6th), Privileged Access Management (PAM) (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2024, in the Network Access Control (NAC) category, the mindshare of Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is 25.7%, down from 32.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of One Identity Safeguard is 0.1%, down from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Access Control (NAC)
Unique Categories:
Cisco Security Portfolio
22.4%
User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA)
2.2%
Privileged Access Management (PAM)
4.8%
 

Featured Reviews

TO
May 3, 2024
Helped improve our security and is reliable
The solution is being used for authentication purposes and for sharing assessments.  Cisco ISE has helped improve our security.  It helps ensure that you are working in accordance with the organizational policy before you join the network. Also, the solution is very reliable.  I would like to…
RR
Jun 27, 2023
Offers high availability and enables end users to deploy the solution with 99.999 percent uptime
The main point regarding the user experience is that Safeguard has two separate management consoles. Both are web-based user interfaces, specifically HTML-based. However, they are completely distinct consoles. It would be preferable to have a single management console or tool instead. This would allow for a unified point of connection to all nodes, enabling the management and creation of policies, connection requests, and other related tasks. What I saw and heard from the customers is the control functionality of the HTTP session. Nowadays, there are numerous blind spots in the current organization of HTTP session control functionality. It should be addressed in the latest version, as some competitors already offer unrestricted functionality.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Cisco ISE is a comprehensive solution that allows you to control access to network resources granularly based on policies."
"Having access and being able to add people or change authentication yourself is nice. In the past, we've used other group authentication services, and we always had to go to them and get permissions. Having that control is key."
"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."
"For customers, it's great. It has a GUI, so the customers themselves can edit ACLs or even modify the policies. It's also an all-in-one solution with RADIUS and TACACS."
"Cisco ISE scales exceptionally well."
"The best feature of the Cisco ISE platform is that it is compatible with Microsoft products."
"Cisco ISE integrates with everything else."
"I found the CMDB Direct Connect in Cisco ISE 3.2 the most promising feature for my use case."
"All sessions are audited and they are indexed/searchable through the GUI."
"The transparent mode for privileged sessions is one of the best things for customers, because they don't see the system in-between."
"We don't need to use VPN for remote access."
"We use the solution’s Approval Anywhere feature which enables us to add an extra layer of security for critical passwords without adding time-consuming approval processes. By using this platform, if someone goes on a vacation, out of office, or needs urgent/planned leave, then our setup will select the functions tied to that person and automatically delegate them to the next person. That person can start performing that duty based on their access. No sharing of passwords is required."
"It's one of the best products we've seen. When you start looking at the functionality and use cases and usability of the product, it's straightforward. They designed this product with the end-user in mind, and they also had the sysadmin who is supporting the product in mind. They really did a nice job. Overall, it's a nice product to work with."
"I have found One Identity Safeguard to be stable."
"I have found the most useful feature of One Identity Safeguard to be Privileged Sessions."
"The initial setup is very easy."
 

Cons

"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..."
"I'm working from China currently and the only real issue is that, within the country, there's some concern around Cisco and its ability to offer the solution for the long term. As the United States has banned the Huawei version in their country, we feel there may be retaliation in ours and Cisco will get banned as a countermeasure from the government. The future of Cisco in China is in question. Our local partners are worried about the situation."
"Sometimes, there are instances when Cisco ISE simply fails to function without any apparent reason, and regardless of the investigation we undertake, the logs indicate that everything is functioning properly, making it somewhat inexplicable."
"The licensing documentation needs to be better."
"Compatibility and integration with other vendors is what needs to be improved in Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine)."
"The user interface can be improved."
"There should be an easier way to do the upgrades. There are a lot of steps to get to the next version from the previous version which ends up being a bit of the headache with the upgrade."
"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."
"When we compare One Identity Safeguard with Cyberark, we know CyberArk has other tools or other features that are more complex and more useful for the customers. For example, I have one customer that wants to elevate the permission that is available in CyberArk."
"Transparent mode was too cumbersome, so I don't foresee us being able to use it. On paper when we were initially talking about it, it was definitely going to be the preferred method until we realized the burden it would be on our network guys. Then, we had to step back and reevaluate what we wanted to do. That's when we changed our approach to use the RD Gateway feature."
"We have feature requests and would like to see the turnaround times on those features to be faster."
"The high availability function of the box requires a long time to switch over from one appliance to another."
"Support for One Identity Safeguard could be improved because sometimes the support team doesn't have an answer or solution for some bugs. A feature I found in a competitor would make One Identity Safeguard better, and that is the ability to load balance the traffic in the target."
"We've had issues managing accounts and access to some data saved on the servers. Accounts are granted a new working certificate daily. We have an account to do it on APIs online and sync it with that. If the path changes at some point or someone changes the password, I don't know if it's from the Active Directory or what."
"Even though we have two nodes, there's no way to do an upgrade without taking everything completely offline. It would be nice if they could improve that."
"For some users, the physical appliance has been a bit buggy."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The technology is good, but to use some of the other features, and capabilities, they request that we purchase the Cisco DNA Center. As a result, the bundled price is a little high."
"For the Avast virus scan, we pay around USD $95 per machine for five years which includes all updates and technical support."
"ISE has always been expensive compared to other products in terms of what it does on a user level."
"The solution’s pricing is okay."
"The recent changes in the licensing model have caused some issues with the team."
"I have complaints. I don't enjoy the licensing model. Once we moved from 2.7 to 3.1, switching from Base, Plus, and Apex to Essential and Advantage in Premier, we went from a perpetual, with our base licenses, to now a subscription-base. So, we will have to renew those licenses every year, and I'm not a fan of that for our base licenses. Apex/Premier, we already expected, which is fine, but for basic connectivity, I am not a fan of that."
"I am not aware of the current price for Cisco ISE, but considering it is a Cisco product, it is likely to be quite high."
"It's an expensive solution when compared to other vendors."
"The pricing depends on our perspective, our budget, and, of course, the competitors we are taking into account."
"The pricing is about $80,000 per 100 servers. There are few elective costs."
"The license is very expensive for us, partly due to inflation and partly because of the exchange rate between the Dollar and the Iranian Rial. We purchased a perpetual license that we've been using up until now, but I believe that we are not going to update it in the future. Instead, we plan to find another third-party to support us with the license, in the sense that we would have access to their license as a shared agreement."
"Setup cost, pricing and licensing are all very expensive."
"Our licensing costs are on a yearly basis."
"The full license is expensive but if you plan to use it in a big organization then it is the best option because it is more flexible."
"It was definitely cheaper than the other two products that we evaluated."
"Its subscription cost is too much, and sometimes, it is very difficult to pitch the solution to the management for cost approval. If the cost is reduced a little bit, it would be easier. If its cost was less, many other organizations that currently cannot afford it would be able to use this technology. I'm sure many organizations around the globe are having issues with identity management, and it is a very difficult task for IT to manage privileged accounts."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Access Control (NAC) solutions are best for your needs.
793,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
24%
Computer Software Company
16%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Computer Software Company
22%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
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 adapt the policies to VPN access, wired, or wireless access. You can securely ...
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 cannot secure the port if a device does not support 802.1x. Cameras, badge readers, ...
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 someone plugs in with a device that is not allowed and will block it. The user exper...
What do you like most about One Identity Safeguard?
The identity discovery is good, and the performance is pretty good value.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for One Identity Safeguard?
They have comparable pricing. All identity products are essentially priced in a similar way. It's a per-user base. Usually, they start at one price, and when you start pricing the competition, you ...
What needs improvement with One Identity Safeguard?
We sometimes face issues with configuration and things like that, but we manage to solve them. In general, it is a pretty good solution for the PSM features. There can be an improvement in terms of...
 

Also Known As

Cisco ISE
No data 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
Cavium
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, HPE Aruba Networking, Forescout and others in Network Access Control (NAC). Updated: July 2024.
793,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.