We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Skybox Security Suite based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, HPE Aruba Networking, Fortinet and others in Network Access Control (NAC)."The access policies, and all of the policies in Cisco ISE, are important to us."
"The implementation is very simple."
"Typically, the installation is pretty simple."
"The user experience of the solution is great. It's a very transparent system."
"It has all of the features available, in fact, more than what you need."
"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."
"ISE's most valuable feature is integration between IT and OTs."
"In terms of features, I think they've done a lot of improvement on the graphical user interface — it looks really good right now."
"Security review is the most important feature, because it offers a single pane of glass to analyze multiple firewalls."
"We are currently working on rule review and compliance. The logging features are good."
"This type of tool does a great job of reaching into those other devices producing risk recommendations, compliance recommendations, and a single plane of glass to do your queries, so you can find where these rules might exist."
"Aside from Firewall Assurance, we are using Network Assurance and Change Manager for an overview of the whole network and for documenting requests and the recertification of the ruleset."
"The features that I have found most valuable with Skybox Security Suite, and this is because I work on the security side, are the firewall assurance, the change manager and the vulnerability control. These three features are the most impressive from Skybox Security."
"It can be integrated with a vulnerability management solution. When a client comes, apart from pitching network and firewall change management, we are recommending having vulnerability management. So, rather than just having the audit of the firewall, they can integrate it with their vulnerability management solution, which could be Rapid7, Qualys, or any other solution. This provides them the most value out of the platform. That is the way we are approaching our customer base."
"Correlates logs and threats and prioritizes; provides network maps;p provides change result context and resulting vulnerability."
"The solution offers very nice dashboards and they've recently added a very good Java-based web interface."
"Sometimes some of Cisco ISE's graphical interfaces could be a little bit smoother. However, with the different versions, the product is getting better and better."
"Cisco ISE can become quite complex, especially with policy sets, the entire authentication process, and everything involved."
"The pricing is fair."
"The web interface needs improvement. The new web interface that they have is not as easy to manage and we find it to be very slow."
"The intuitiveness of the user interface could be improved."
"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."
"When I work with customers to do my knowledge transfer, they're really overwhelmed with the navigation of the product and the number of things you can do with it. From a user interface standpoint, Cisco could focus on making certain tasks a bit more guided and easier for customers to walk through. That is, a user-friendly interface and streamlined workflows would be great."
"One of the issues that we used to have was with profiling because we're working with a service provider that uses a lot of bring your own devices."
"The solution was quite technical. It would be easier to manage if the solution was more specific about aspects of the solution and provided more advisory around how to use it effectively. It would help users a lot if they were more clear about everything."
"The vendor's support is terrible."
"The stability is something that is questionable. I don't know whether it is because of the kind of infrastructure we have or because of the product in itself. We're running it on a virtual machine right now. Maybe once a month, or once in every 45 days, it requires a restart because the application fails to connect. So I have to restart the whole Skybox Manager itself, the Skybox server itself, and then connect to it from our Skybox Manager."
"The cloud site could be better. They should provide some use cases to help users."
"The price could be cheaper."
"The price is costly, and I hope they can reduce the cost."
"Skybox should improve their UX features by making them easier to use."
"It's expensive."
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 Skybox Security Suite is ranked 18th in Vulnerability Management with 34 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Skybox Security Suite is rated 7.8. 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 Skybox Security Suite writes "Efficient in vulnerability management, stable and easy to use ". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas Skybox Security Suite is most compared with AlgoSec, Tufin Orchestration Suite, FireMon Security Manager, Palo Alto Networks Panorama and RedSeal.
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.