We compared Cisco ACI and Illumio Zero Trust Segmentation based on our users' reviews in six categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: Cisco ACI has a more intricate initial setup, but once deployed, it excels in configuration and management. It adopts a network-centric approach, offers micro-segmentation, and integrates well with VMware. However, users have reported issues with the GUI, high pricing, and a need for improved integration. On the other hand, Illumio Zero Trust Segmentation boasts a relatively simple setup and receives praise for its monitoring and visibility features. However, it lacks support for certain operating systems and proves less effective in OT environments. Users have also mentioned its high cost and have provided mixed feedback on customer service and support.
"Having a lot of racks and switches with a single point of configuration which can be done with automation on one platform using one API. This makes everything work faster."
"The security component is its most valuable feature."
"The stability is quite good."
"In legacy networks, managing changes requires individual tickets for each device. ACI's single pane of glass management through APIC is a big advantage. So, single-tenant management is a plus."
"The most valuable feature of Cisco ACI is that it is eay to manage. We can automate and it can be scripted. Virtual ACI is very good."
"Centralized management and control of the entire data center environment and its architecture."
"Cisco ACI can separate networks with a buoy interface. That is the most valuable feature."
"The product works very well with our virtual environment."
"The most valuable feature of Illumio Adaptive Security Platform is monitoring. When I have no requirement from the other application, I can use the web block traffic to build."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The product provides visibility into how the applications communicate and how the network protocols are being used."
"The flexibility of the solution is its most valuable feature."
"The features that I have found most useful is the ability to centralize all the rules and then distribute them across various locations. However, I've encountered challenges related to tagging policies, which can be complex to devise. It's a matter that requires careful consideration and stakeholder involvement before implementing such policies."
"It has helped us to understand internal network visibility and firewall policy implementation. We use the product to simplify firewall policy implementation."
"The solution helps to maintain logs and monitor activities. It also helps us with access management. The tool helps us to secure organizational data that include files."
"The Explorer allows you to know the traffic between source and destination."
"The integration has room for improvement. There should be a drag-and-drop interface for configuring the integration where you connect some arrows to boxes, and the system takes care of the configuration. Right now, they have something similar, but it's limited. You have to take care of some things yourself. That is one area that the solution can work on. It's easy now, but it's much easier in other solutions."
"It is challenging for people who don't understand the programming language, making it difficult to migrate. With technology, there are two verticals. One is hardware driven and the other is software driven. Most people in our domain understand networking, but they don't understand programming. When we migrate, some programming is required."
"The ACI setup is in its initial phases is difficult. The learning curve at the beginning is higher than a normal setup."
"Cisco ACI would benefit by providing the option to integrate easily with DNAC in their next release."
"I would like this solution to be integrated with Pure Storage."
"From my point of view, troubleshooting issues relating to ACI can be a little bit complicated to perform."
"The additional features I would like to see included in the next releases are support for our policy-based routing. There are endpoint issues that are there now in the code. Hopefully, these will get fixed in the future code."
"Our company had a lot of issues with the starter kit."
"Some of the features that can be improved is offer additional guidance on creating an effective and risk-free tagging policy would be highly beneficial."
"The product’s agents don't work very well in OT environments."
"The customer service is lagging a bit. It could be better."
"The interaction we've had with the support team hasn't been ideal. Technical support should be improved."
"Illumio Adaptive Security Platform could improve by supporting more operating systems. For example, Cisco and Apache appliances."
"The solution is very basic and doesn't do anything other than the orchestration of layer four endpoint firewall rules."
"It requires a low-level re-architecting of the product."
"I would like to see better data security in the product."
Cisco ACI is ranked 3rd in Cloud and Data Center Security with 97 reviews while Illumio is ranked 4th in Cloud and Data Center Security with 8 reviews. Cisco ACI is rated 8.0, while Illumio is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco ACI writes "Stable, easy to extend, scalable, and has a host-based routing feature". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Illumio writes "Pprevents attackers or threats from spreading or moving laterally". Cisco ACI is most compared with VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, Nuage Networks and Aviatrix, whereas Illumio is most compared with Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Zscaler Internet Access and Zero Networks Microsegmentation. See our Cisco ACI vs. Illumio report.
See our list of best Cloud and Data Center Security vendors.
We monitor all Cloud and Data Center Security 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.