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 Oct 8, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Identity Services Eng...
Average Rating
8.2
Number of Reviews
139
Ranking in other categories
Network Access Control (NAC) (1st), Cisco Security Portfolio (1st)
Fortinet FortiAuthenticator
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
57
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 29.2%, down 31.6% compared to last year.
Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, on the other hand, focuses on Single Sign-On (SSO), holds 11.3% mindshare, up 11.4% since last year.
Network Access Control (NAC)
Single Sign-On (SSO)
 

Featured Reviews

Rohit-Joshi - PeerSpot reviewer
Aug 3, 2023
Enables us to ensure that any machine that comes into the network is patched and secure
Posturing is the most valuable feature. There are other tools available that can do some of their other features, like network authentication. The posturing was something because of the nature of the industry that we are in. There are people who go outside for work. Their machines are at times not in the network, and not patched properly. We don't know when they're going to come back, whether it is in a good state, whether it has antivirus, whether it's installed on those machines. Posturing is something that we have made our baseline policy that whenever a machine comes back to our network, it should have a certain level of the operating system and a level of security and antivirus installed. We couldn't have done this posturing without Cisco ISE. This is its greatest feature. It does help me to detect and remediate my network. It enables me to detect any external threat that comes to my network and remediate. If a machine comes into my network that does not qualify per my baseline policy, I have a policy that the machine gets redirected to where it can be patched and remediated. I can ensure that it is fully patched and secure. The entire idea of having ISE is to enhance cybersecurity resilience. The zero trust architecture was coined by the cybersecurity team itself. It was a task given to us in the infrastructure space to see how we can bring resilience into the cybersecurity network and ISE was the solution.
Rias_Majeed - PeerSpot reviewer
Jun 4, 2024
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.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"SGTs are valuable because they make it easy to enforce policies, instead of pushing them across all the other platforms."
"For guests we give them limited access to the internet when they come in so that access has been useful. Previously, we just used to give them the APN key which they would leave with. Now, we give them credentials to use that are for a limited period of time."
"The interface is pretty easy to use."
"The biggest value of ISE is that it can get so granular with gaming systems, versus IoT and BYOD."
"TACACS and .1X security are the most valuable features. TACACS acts for user control, so no one can authenticate to our network devices, and .1X is to validate that unauthorized devices are plugged into our network."
"They have recently made a lot of improvements. My clients don't have much to complain about."
"A lot of customers use a third party to manage their guest Wi-Fi. Cisco ISE presents the ability to bring that in-house so that customers can have full control over it, change the branding, and get extra telemetry from it and the user data. It works really well for our customers."
"Being able to authenticate wired users through 802.1X is valuable as it enhances our security."
"Intuitive interface and easy to deploy."
"Simple to deploy, simple to use, and user-friendly."
"We use this product for SSL two-factor authentication and FortiToken management."
"The most valuable feature is the OTP on the mobile phone."
"The ease of use is really nice. Using Authenticator, I've been able to actually work better on my authentication due to the fact that I have a single fabric to authenticate control from my firewall and on my access points. Authentication takes place from this area."
"FortiAuthenticator is really good software that integrates very well with Fortinet products."
"The product enables SSO."
"The two-step authentication provides a higher level of security."
 

Cons

"There is room for improvement in CLI. Most things are done through the GUI, and there aren't many commands or troubleshooting options available compared to other Cisco products like switches and routers."
"It is a good product, but in order to use all of the functions of the product, you must have a good understanding of the product. You must know how to use and manage it. It is a little bit complicated to configure and manage. It must be simplified to make it easy to manage for end users. In the initial stage, we found ISE complicated for end users. It was not easy to manage it or to write authentication and authorization protocol. They must improve its management and make it easy for end users. The monitoring and reporting capabilities can be improved because end users want to quickly see what is happening in their network. There were some restrictions in working with other vendors. It should also have a better and easy integration with other vendors."
"I don't see as many customers as I should adopting the onboarding feature. I think Cisco should make that process a lot easier and less intrusive on the end users' devices."
"The compliance and posture don't always work. They should make it more stable. With each upgrade, we lose some functionality. We have to wait for another upgrade."
"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."
"I would rate this solution a 7.5 out of ten. To make it a ten they should have more people on tech support. They need to invest more in the product. It's a good product. They should just work on tech support. More support for the customer. It's not that easy to get somebody to understand this product. I have had some issues with tech before for the solution. One of them brought the solution down due to some of his activity. They need to hugely invest in their tech support."
"Cisco ISE has numerous features that are impractical, and I won't utilize them since they require payment."
"Cisco ISE does not recognize devices and that is an issue we faced during its integration with our existing devices."
"No SMS gateway from the ISP"
"The price of the solution could improve, it is expensive."
"There are multiple areas that are in need of improvement. It is not a mature product."
"It can not use SQL to query FortiAnalyzer directly."
"The solution's command line interface could be improved to provide better support for low-level debugging and advanced configurations."
"We would like to see Linux-based operating systems be able to integrate with FortiAuthenticator to get two-factor authentication running on them. as well. This is a shortcoming that I have faced a few times already."
"We had issues trying to integrate the keys properly during the initial setup."
"I don't have any issues with this solution, but it may need a better, more user-friendly interface or better design of the platform."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"If you're not going through an agreement, it's very expensive."
"The licensing is subscription-based and based on the user account."
"The price for Cisco ISE itself is very low, however, Cisco professional services are quite expensive. Subscription amount is dependent on number of users."
"The Essentials licensing is reasonable, but I would like the Premier version to be perpetual instead of a subscription."
"This solution requires an annual license and it is a bit expensive than competitors."
"ISE has always been expensive compared to other products in terms of what it does on a user level."
"Its price is probably good if you use all of its features and functionalities to protect your environment. If you use only a part of the functionality, its price is too high. It is just a question of value and the functionality you use."
"It has a fair price. It is better than it was before."
"It costs more to license the high-availability option."
"The platform is cost-effective as it does not require a separate license for SD-WAN functionality."
"I rate the price of Fortinet FortiAuthenticator a three out of five."
"The licensing structure is cost-effective for us compared to some of the other solutions that have recurring monthly costs."
"I rate its pricing a three to five out of ten."
"The pricing is fair."
"The product could be more competitively priced."
"You can pay as you go with them. You purchase a base license and add to it as needed."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Access Control (NAC) solutions are best for your needs.
815,854 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
26%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
19%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

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 pricing is about three on a scale where ten is low. Pricing should be more flexible.
What needs improvement with Fortinet FortiAuthenticator?
FortiAuthenticator should integrate with other applications. I currently use Google Authenticator and Office Authenticator, and it would be better if FortiAuthenticator could be added to other appl...
 

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, HPE Aruba Networking, Fortinet and others in Network Access Control (NAC). Updated: October 2024.
815,854 professionals have used our research since 2012.