We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Tenable Security Center 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 ability to integrate our Cisco AnyConnect connections to the active directory has been great."
"I like the logging feature."
"Not having to trust devices and being able to set those levels of trust and more finely control our network is a benefit."
"My team has gained a lot from Cisco ISE as it does also provide automation, which is a big asset in the eighth hour. After setting it up, it took a lot of the weight off in many ways. We have a co-worker, who we call the ISE Master because he's in charge of the ISE configurations. He's able to save a lot of time by being able to monitor everything from there. So it did take off a lot of time that we would waste by going individually to that different device and trying to figure out what was wrong."
"Cisco offers automation, visibility, and control as well as third party integration capabilities."
"It does a good job of establishing trust for each access request, no matter the source. It's also very effective at helping with the distributed network and at securing access."
"The solution enables us to do everything from one interface."
"Cisco ISE scales exceptionally well."
"The solution is very intuitive and the dashboards are simple to use."
"We use Tenable to scan all of our environments and plugins for vulnerabilities. Tenable helps us discover network vulnerabilities to threats and piracy."
"What is useful to me is being able to fulfill very customized scanning policies. In the clinical environment, because of vendor control, we can't perform credential-vulnerability scanning. And network scans, which I've done before, can cause a lot of impact. Being able to create very customized policies to be able to routinely scan and audit our clinical networks, while simultaneously not causing impact, is important to us."
"One of the most valuable features is their distributed scan model for allotting engines to work together as a pool and handle multiple scans at once, across multiple environments. Automatic scanning distribution is a distinguishing feature of their toolset."
"I think that this is a good solution for evaluating vulnerability in the network."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the vulnerability assessment."
"The solution has a lean and easy-to-use interface that is not confusing to first-time users."
"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."
"The initial setup was a little bit complex. It's not that simple because it requires a lot of prerequisites for the solution to get a hold on."
"Cisco ISE has numerous features that are impractical, and I won't utilize them since they require payment."
"The initial setup process is complex since there are so many big components."
"On the network services devices, when you click on filter, the filter comes up. However, when I type in a search and I want to click on something it defaults back to the main page. I keep having an issue with that, and I'm not doing anything wrong."
"I would definitely improve the deployment and maybe a little bit of the support. Our first exposure to ISE had a lot of issues."
"Some of the reporting could be improved."
"If you have someone taking care of it, it can be quite easy to manage the solution. Otherwise, if you don't look after it and take care of it day-to-day, then it will become more complex to run."
"Cisco ISE's real-time data analytics for database logging could be improved."
"The product could be user-friendly, and they could enhance the web application's security features."
"Security can always be improved."
"At times we have had the typical bugs."
"The reporting side can be improved. The dashboards are nice, but exporting things out for reports for management was a little tough."
"I think the vendor training provided for Tenable.sc could be a lower price. It's quite expensive for the training."
"The user interface can be improved."
"Certain aspects require manual effort, such as exporting and analyzing data for our dashboards. The built-in components of the Tenable solution are somewhat clumsy that require external tools. So, this is an area of improvement."
"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."
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 Tenable Security Center is ranked 1st in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 48 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while Tenable Security Center is rated 8.2. 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 Tenable Security Center writes "A security solution for vulnerability assessment with automated scans". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas Tenable Security Center is most compared with Tenable Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Nessus, Rapid7 InsightVM and Horizon3.ai.
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.