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

Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) vs Cisco Secure Endpoint 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 ISE users report enhanced security, cost savings, seamless integration, improved efficiency, and reliable threat mitigation with positive ROI.
Sentiment score
7.4
Cisco Secure Endpoint boosts efficiency, increases productivity by up to 10%, and provides cost savings with quick threat response and integration.
Direct comparisons with Forescout reveal up to 30% to 40% difference in cost savings.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
5.3
Cisco Identity Services Engine's support is responsive but inconsistent, with reliance on partners and occasional delays in complex issues.
Sentiment score
6.6
Cisco Secure Endpoint's customer support is praised for responsiveness, knowledge, and effective assistance, although some experience slow response times.
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.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.1
Cisco ISE is scalable and flexible, but may require careful planning and specific hardware for complex environments.
Sentiment score
8.8
Cisco Secure Endpoint offers scalable, easy deployment across varied environments, enhanced by SecureX integration, requiring minimal management effort.
Factors like architecture, business nature, and legal limitations such as GDPR affect it.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
Cisco ISE is reliable and consistent, with some instability during updates or heavy loads, but overall well-regarded.
Sentiment score
5.8
Cisco Secure Endpoint is highly stable and reliable, with minimal issues, consistently praised across large deployments.
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.
 

Room For Improvement

Cisco ISE needs UI, integration, performance, and stability improvements, with enhanced documentation, real-time analytics, and security capabilities.
Cisco Secure Endpoint needs better integration, streamlined dashboard, improved support, enhanced malware filtering, AI integration, and competitive pricing.
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.
 

Setup Cost

Cisco ISE pricing is complex and costly, particularly challenging for small businesses, with value dependent on feature utilization.
Cisco Secure Endpoint offers flexible, justified pricing from $2-$3 per endpoint, with savings through Enterprise Agreement bundling.
Compared to other solutions like HPE ClearPass, Cisco is more costly, and the conversation suggests a possible forty percent price gap compared to competitors.
Cloud solutions are expensive, while on-prem setups with shared environments are cheaper but not effective.
 

Valuable Features

Cisco Identity Services Engine enhances network security with integration, robust features, and centralized management supporting zero-trust principles.
Cisco Secure Endpoint provides robust malware protection and threat analytics with integration and automation features for enhanced endpoint security.
The solution is integrated with other Cisco devices and can offer automation for an organization, making deployments more dynamic and providing real-time visibility.
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is very good at device administration.
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Identity Services Eng...
Ranking in Cisco Security Portfolio
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
141
Ranking in other categories
Network Access Control (NAC) (1st)
Cisco Secure Endpoint
Ranking in Cisco Security Portfolio
5th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
48
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) (13th), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the Cisco Security Portfolio category, the mindshare of Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is 22.9%, up from 18.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Cisco Secure Endpoint is 10.4%, up from 5.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cisco Security Portfolio
 

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.
Mark Broughton - PeerSpot reviewer
Tighter integration with Umbrella and Firepower gave us eye-opening information
We were using a third-party help desk. One of the ways that they were fixing problems was to delete the client and then add the client back if there was an issue where the client had stopped communicating. Any improvement in the client communicating back to the server would be good, particularly for machines that are offline for a couple of weeks. A lot of our guys were working on a rotation where the machine might be offline for that long. They were also terrible about rebooting their machines, so those network connections didn't necessarily get refreshed. So, anything that could improve that communication would be good. Also, an easier way to do deduplication of machines, or be alerted to the fact that there's more than one instance of a machine, would be useful. If you could say, "Okay, we've got these two machines. This one says it's not reporting and this one says it's been reporting. Obviously, somebody did a reinstall," it would help. That way you could get a more accurate device count, so you're not having an inflated number. Not that Cisco was going to come down on you and say, "Oh, you're using too many licenses," right away. But to have a much more accurate license usage count by being able to better dedupe the records would be good. I also sent over a couple of other ideas to our technical rep. A lot of that had to do with the reporting options. It would be really nice to be able to do a lot more in the reporting. You can't really drill down into the reports that are there. The reporting and the need for the documentation to be updated and current would be my two biggest areas of complaint. Also, there was one section when I was playing with the automation where it was asking for the endpoint type rather than the machine name. If I could have just put in the machine name, that would have been great. So there are some opportunities, when it comes to searching, to have more options. If I wanted to search, for example, by a Mac address because, for some reason, I thought there was a duplication and I didn't have the machine name, how could I pull it up with the Mac address? When you're getting to that level, you're really starting to get into the ticky tacky. I would definitely put the reporting and documentation way ahead of that.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cisco Security Portfolio solutions are best for your needs.
832,723 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
28%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
18%
Government
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

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 Cisco Secure Endpoint?
The product's initial setup phase was very simple.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco Secure Endpoint?
I am not entirely sure about the exact licensing cost. It ranges from 2,000 to 2,500 INR annually.
What needs improvement with Cisco Secure Endpoint?
Previously, there were options to uninstall the agent without a password if you had admin access, and this could be improved. It may require a password for uninstalling clients, which would be help...
 

Also Known As

Cisco ISE
Cisco AMP for Endpoints
 

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
Heritage Bank, Mobile County Schools, NHL University, Thunder Bay Regional, Yokogawa Electric, Sam Houston State University, First Financial Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) vs. Cisco Secure Endpoint and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
832,723 professionals have used our research since 2012.