"I like that Cisco ISE is easy to use."
"The solution cuts down on the repercussions of getting malware or ransomware."
"Technical support is okay."
"The WiFi portal in Cisco ISE is very useful for WiFi customers."
"The way the ISE works is you can get into defining. Let's say, in my case, I've got a Windows laptop and I've got an Apple product and those have unique identifiers, unique back addresses. It would say that this in my profile so I could get to those apps with either device, 24/seven. That's how granular the ISE or these NAC Solutions can get."
"Typically, the installation is pretty simple."
"So far, we have had no issues with the stability."
"The RADIUS Server holds the most value."
"It's a very useful tool."
"This product has the best results in terms of the lowest number of false-positives and false-negatives."
"The feature we've liked most recently was being able to take the YARA rules from FireEye and put them into Tenable's scan for the most recent SolarWinds exploit. That was really useful."
"Their overall cost of service is pretty good."
"Very customizable with a lot of templates."
"Tenable SC is good for reporting and alerting. The filtering feature is also very valuable. Its integration with multiple vendors is quite good. It can be integrated with SIEM solutions and PAM solutions such as Thycotic, which is very helpful."
"The solution is one of the most, if not the most, stable product available."
"The scans are the most valuable aspect of this solution."
"The user interface can be improved."
"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."
"Segmentation can 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."
"Migration could be better. Right now, we back up with the new version, and it requires a lot of licensing and other things. Whenever we choose a product, it's very difficult because we have to meet the requirements of each feature. There is no standard feature, so the best system that we bought may not fit the solution. We have to look at every feature that the customer uses. If you compare it with other products like Aruba, it's not the same. With Cisco, I have to read all about the features on this version and the licensing required for the product. In Aruba, that thing is covered when you get one license because it covers almost everything. It could also be more scalable."
"The software is a little bit complicated to understand in the beginning, meaning the implementation. It needs proper documentation so that we can understand the options more easily."
"The interface is not very user-friendly and it is not simple to use."
"The pricing is reasonable, but this could be brought down more aggressively, such as we see with Rapid7, Tenable SC's main competitor."
"There is not much room for improvement. However, there should be a guide that describes the step-by-step procedures for doing tasks. Otherwise, training is required from a senior guy to a junior guy."
"The GUI could be improved to have all concerns and priorities use the same GUI, allowing them to see all tickets, assign vulnerabilities, and assign variation failures to each member of their team."
"Current web page needs improvement, slows down processes."
"The biggest issue I have with the solution is when I'm using the scanning it picks up the original DNS of that device. That means, before we image it and actually change the DNS to something within our company structure, it'll just be random numbers and letters and Tenable will stick to that DNS for a long time."
"I will say it's a lot slower compared to an MS scan. It takes so much longer, so the performance could definitely be worked on."
"The integration is very good, although it still needs to improve."
"The reporting needs a lot of work on the template."
Tenable SC consolidates and evaluates vulnerability data across the enterprise, prioritizing security risks and providing a clear view of your security posture. With SecurityCenter, get the visibility and context you need to effectively prioritize and remediate vulnerabilities, ensure compliance with IT security frameworks, standards and regulations, and take decisive action to ensure the effectiveness of your IT security program and reduce business risk.
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 36 reviews while Tenable SC is ranked 4th in Vulnerability Management with 8 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 7.6, while Tenable SC is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) writes "Streamlines security policy management and reduces operating costs". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable SC writes "Good dashboards, reporting, and technical support, with a low rate of errors". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Forescout Platform, Fortinet FortiNAC, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas Tenable SC is most compared with Tenable.io Vulnerability Management, Tenable Nessus, Qualys VM, Rapid7 InsightVM and Tripwire IP360.
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.