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 and efficiency, providing cost savings and IT consolidation, making it vital for network management.
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 Identity Services Engine customer service is praised for commitment, but technical support feedback varies due to delays and complexities.
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 ISE excels in scalable environments, efficiently supporting deployments with flexibility for thousands of endpoints across various sizes.
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 reliable with high user satisfaction, though some report stability issues, especially during upgrades and high capacity.
Sentiment score
8.0
Tenable Security Center is stable, reliable, efficiently supported, handles large scans well, with minimal technical issues reported.
The stability of Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is poor for certain use cases, like authentication.
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is considered very reliable and stable.
The stability of the solution is outstanding.
 

Room For Improvement

Cisco ISE struggles with setup complexity, non-intuitive UI, integration challenges, upgrade issues, and demands for better features.
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 strong features with complex, expensive pricing, but discounts through partnerships can help alleviate costs.
Tenable Security Center offers comprehensive but expensive asset-based pricing, with complexity impacting setup and licensing, especially for smaller enterprises.
The license costs can range between $50,000 to $100,000 per year for 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.
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 provides comprehensive access control, seamless integration, and enhanced security with intuitive management for versatile network operations.
Tenable Security Center excels in vulnerability scanning, customizable policies, and integrations, with user-friendly UI and predictive prioritization.
This solution ensures organizations have secure environments and also supports robust policy enforcement, allowing control over who has access to various parts of the network.
There is value because it helps us secure the network and prevents certain things from happening which could cause financial loss.
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is very good at device administration.
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.
Tenable Security Center provides an overall score of vulnerabilities, comparing an organization with others in the same industry.
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Identity Services Eng...
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
143
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) (10th), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (3rd)
 

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 25.1%, down 30.7% compared to last year.
Tenable Security Center, on the other hand, focuses on Risk-Based Vulnerability Management, holds 11.6% mindshare, down 23.1% 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.
860,825 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
15%
Educational Organization
12%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
 

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: June 2025.
860,825 professionals have used our research since 2012.