Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) vs Tenable Security Center 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
7.5
Tenable Security Center optimizes resources, enhances security, and reduces costs with improved compliance, visibility, and efficient management.
Direct comparisons with Forescout reveal up to 30% to 40% difference in cost savings.
Through the use of Tenable Security Center, my clients achieve more efficient patching and gain visibility and understanding of security operations, leading to improved resilience and infrastructure insight.
 

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
7.3
Tenable Security Center's support is generally effective with praised premium service, though initial and international support need improvement.
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.
Longer response times and less thorough assistance.
 

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
8.2
Tenable Security Center is praised for its high scalability, easily managing numerous assets and users while supporting future growth.
Factors like architecture, business nature, and legal limitations such as GDPR affect it.
I can scale it extensively with the use of agents, allowing scanning in restrictive environments and loosely connected devices.
Scalability is a bit limited with Tenable Security Center.
 

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
8.0
Tenable Security Center is stable, reliable, efficiently supported, handles large scans well, with minimal technical issues reported.
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 stability of the solution is outstanding.
 

Room For Improvement

Cisco Identity Services Engine requires improved integration, user interface, documentation, compatibility, and management efficiency to enhance user experience.
Tenable Security Center struggles with customization, integration, performance, and support, needing improved UI, assessment, and management capabilities.
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.
Additionally, the product is vulnerable and has many bugs.
It's important for Tenable to catch up on testing capabilities that are present in solutions like Qualys.
The reports and plugins for reports and scans could benefit from enhancements.
Translating reports into European languages is especially relevant in Central Eastern Europe, where clients often require reports in local languages.
 

Setup Cost

Cisco ISE offers three pricing tiers, with high costs and complex licensing, but provides extensive features and potential discounts.
Tenable Security Center offers comprehensive but expensive asset-based pricing, with complexity impacting setup and licensing, especially for smaller enterprises.
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.
Making large organizational costs significant.
Tenable Security Center is quite expensive, particularly for the CEE region, causing us to lose cases due to its pricing.
The product is somewhat pricey, reflecting its valuable features and status as a high-quality solution in the vulnerability management market.
The cost of Tenable Security Center is reasonable for our company.
 

Valuable Features

Cisco ISE enhances network security with integration, 802.1X authentication, policy management, ease of use, and strong access control.
Tenable Security Center excels in vulnerability scanning, customizable policies, and integrations, with user-friendly UI and predictive prioritization.
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) offers authentication using RADIUS, enhancing network security by separating and segregating networks.
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is very good at device administration.
The solution is integrated with other Cisco devices and can offer automation for an organization, making deployments more dynamic and providing real-time visibility.
Tenable Security Center provides an overall score of vulnerabilities, comparing an organization with others in the same industry.
The most valuable features of Tenable Security Center for my clients are Vulnerability Priority Rating (VPR) and Asset Criticality Scoring.
The most effective feature of Tenable Security Center for detecting vulnerabilities is its capability for critical mapping.
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Identity Services Eng...
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
142
Ranking in other categories
Network Access Control (NAC) (1st), Cisco Security Portfolio (1st)
Tenable Security Center
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
54
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (4th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (11th), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) and Tenable Security Center aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is designed for Network Access Control (NAC) and holds a mindshare of 25.8%, down 31.3% compared to last year.
Tenable Security Center, on the other hand, focuses on Risk-Based Vulnerability Management, holds 13.3% mindshare, down 24.0% since last year.
Network Access Control (NAC)
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
 

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.
OndrejKOVAC - PeerSpot reviewer
Empower clients with risk-based vulnerability management through continuous workflow and valuable insights
Tenable Security Center could improve by implementing more dynamic data displays and translating reports into European languages. This is especially relevant in Central Eastern Europe, where clients often require reports in local languages. Additionally, the licensing model could be more flexible for managed security providers, similar to a pay-as-you-go model.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Access Control (NAC) solutions are best for your needs.
850,671 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
24%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
12%
Educational Organization
11%
Government
11%
 

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 Tenable SC?
The tool's dashboard and reporting capabilities match our company's needs since we are able to modify the basic view to create a new dashboard, and it works out very well for our needs.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Tenable SC?
Tenable Security Center is quite expensive, particularly for the CEE region, causing us to lose cases due to its pricing. The licensing requirements can be prohibitive for managed security service ...
What needs improvement with Tenable SC?
Tenable Security Center could improve by implementing more dynamic data displays and translating reports into European languages. This is especially relevant in Central Eastern Europe, where client...
 

Also Known As

Cisco ISE
Tenable.sc, Tenable Unified Security, Tenable SecurityCenter
 

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
IBM, Sempra Energy, Microsoft, Apple, Adidas, Union Pacific
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Fortinet and others in Network Access Control (NAC). Updated: April 2025.
850,671 professionals have used our research since 2012.