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

Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) vs Fortinet FortiAuthenticator comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 12, 2025

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 boosts security, reduces costs, and simplifies IT, enhancing mobility and compliance while avoiding breach-related expenses.
Sentiment score
5.8
Fortinet FortiAuthenticator is valued for breach prevention, offering compliance benefits, though financial returns vary in measurability.
Direct comparisons with Forescout reveal up to 30% to 40% difference in cost savings.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
5.3
Cisco ISE support is valued for expertise but criticized for delays, reactive approach, and integration challenges.
Sentiment score
8.0
Fortinet FortiAuthenticator's customer service is responsive and knowledgeable, but initial support may need escalation for complex issues.
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.
At times, some technical staff lack knowledge, which delays issue resolution.
When we send a ticket to Fortinet, they go into research mode as if they are hearing the problem for the first time.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.1
Cisco ISE offers scalable solutions for diverse enterprises, supporting expansions with additional nodes or licenses for efficient endpoint management.
Sentiment score
7.6
Fortinet FortiAuthenticator is highly scalable, easily expanding users, though minor challenges exist, typically rated 8-9 in scalability.
Factors like architecture, business nature, and legal limitations such as GDPR affect it.
The scalability of FortiAuthenticator is good, and I would rate it an eight on a scale of one to ten.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
Cisco ISE is generally stable, though some face issues during updates; reliability improves with proper configuration and recent versions.
Sentiment score
7.8
Fortinet FortiAuthenticator is highly stable with minor issues under heavy load, praised for integration and reliability.
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 users face challenges with complexity, performance issues, integration, intuitive interface, documentation, and licensing concerns.
Fortinet FortiAuthenticator needs improved user interface, easier configuration, better integration, increased automation, and enhanced cloud, support, and customization features.
Additionally, the product is vulnerable and has many bugs.
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.
For example, authentication for wireless users expires after 24 hours, requiring re-authentication daily.
The technical support could be improved as some staff lacks the necessary knowledge to assist effectively.
I would like to see more integration and inclusion of features for ransomware protection directly within the FortiAuthenticator without requiring additional devices.
 

Setup Cost

Cisco ISE's pricing model is complex and costly, with subscription expenses, though discounts benefit larger clients.
FortiAuthenticator provides cost-effective, flexible licensing with competitive pricing, often cheaper than competitors, despite market-driven price fluctuations.
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 ISE offers robust security and ease of use, integrating AAA management with scalability and improved GUI, enhancing network control.
Fortinet FortiAuthenticator provides user-friendly authentication, integration with FortiGate, flexible options, and centralized management enhancing security and efficiency.
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is very good at device administration.
The solution is integrated with other Cisco devices and can offer automation for an organization, making deployments more dynamic and providing real-time visibility.
We use multi-factor authentication for enhancing security.
The most valuable feature I find in FortiAuthenticator is web filtering.
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Identity Services Eng...
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
141
Ranking in other categories
Network Access Control (NAC) (1st), Cisco Security Portfolio (1st)
Fortinet FortiAuthenticator
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
59
Ranking in other categories
Single Sign-On (SSO) (6th), Authentication Systems (3rd), Identity Management (IM) (7th), Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator 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 28.4%, down 31.7% compared to last year.
Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, on the other hand, focuses on Single Sign-On (SSO), holds 10.1% mindshare, up 10.0% since last year.
Network Access Control (NAC)
Single Sign-On (SSO)
 

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.
Rias_Majeed - PeerSpot reviewer
Once configured properly, it runs smoothly with minimal potential for misconfiguration and enhances security by providing two-factor authentication
Customer service and support are helpful, but in the last few years, I've found that the first-level support isn't able to understand the issue. They escalate to the tier-two level, who are able to resolve it. On the first level, it takes time. Maybe they have grown too big and aren't able to give each network the unique attention it deserves. We customize some implementations, and at that time, they're not able to help because the people supporting are new and not from the field. The training seems fine, but in practice, it's different. Their support is not that great anymore. A little arrogance is there. It doesn't qualify them very well if there's arrogance in their communication. They do not understand the issue. That's why you're coming back to support. For example, one issue I'm facing is when a person leaves the organization without handing over details. They'll send an email to that person, but that person is not available. How are you going to access this email? These are a few instances where we are finding it difficult, and they take more than a week or two to resolve some issues. Their support used to be very good, but now that they're on top, they're not as responsive at the first-level support.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Access Control (NAC) solutions are best for your needs.
831,098 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
28%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Government
8%
Comms Service Provider
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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortinet FortiAuthenticator?
The cost of FortiAuthenticator is rated high due to market conditions. Nevertheless, I rated its cost an eight on a scale of one to ten.
What needs improvement with Fortinet FortiAuthenticator?
The technical support could be improved as some staff lacks the necessary knowledge to assist effectively.
 

Also Known As

Cisco ISE
FortiAuthenticator
 

Learn More

 

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
Black Gold Regional Schools, Amadeus Hospitality, Jefferson County, Chunghwa Telecom, City of Boroondara, Dimension Data
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Fortinet and others in Network Access Control (NAC). Updated: December 2024.
831,098 professionals have used our research since 2012.