No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) vs Sophos Network Access Control comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 5, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Identity Services Eng...
Ranking in Network Access Control (NAC)
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
144
Ranking in other categories
Cisco Security Portfolio (4th)
Sophos Network Access Control
Ranking in Network Access Control (NAC)
7th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Network Access Control (NAC) category, the mindshare of Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is 18.6%, down from 25.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Sophos Network Access Control is 3.0%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Access Control (NAC) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE)18.6%
Sophos Network Access Control3.0%
Other78.4%
Network Access Control (NAC)
 

Featured Reviews

NF
Network and Technology Information Manager at Akkodis
Has improved authentication management and simplified visitor network access
The log capacity in Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) could be enhanced because today natively on the ISE can only have a look at the logs from the day before. You cannot search into the oldest logs; you have to use another tool for that. This can be blocking if you don't have any log consolidation solution. To do a search for an issue or something that happened two days ago, you cannot search directly in there. The capacity of Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) could be enhanced. Something between one week and one month for the log capacity would be nice.
HirenPatel2 - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager at rspl
Have faced delays in support despite strong multi-layer policy configuration
I have observed some disadvantages as we have experienced one particular problem. We were facing an issue of synchronization of the endpoint with our firewall with help on a cloud for heartbeat syncing. However, it was not syncing as per our requirement. The user has to connect our firewall with the help of VPN. We were supposed to assume a solution on a cloud, which has good synchronization on a cloud with Sophos Central. It will sync with our firewall as well with the help of Sophos Central. Endpoint and firewall synchronization is not as smooth as we are expecting from Sophos Network Access Control. We have to connect with VPN. We are expecting that if we have already installed an endpoint on our system and it is connected to the internet, then it must be synchronized on a cloud with Sophos Central. Through Sophos Central, it must connect with our firewall. If the endpoint is configured on Sophos Central and the firewall is also configured in Sophos Central, then there should be no need to connect to VPN.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The way we can trust this solution is the most valuable. We have no issue with this product. It is a competitive product. You need to have a very good and deep knowledge of the product to take the full benefits of all the features, but it is a good product."
"The most valuable feature of Cisco ISE is its seamless integration with the switches and the entire suite, enabling wireless access and smooth client information retrieval."
"The most valuable features are the NAC and the bundles that are available with Cisco ISE, such as Cisco ACS being integrated."
"If someone is looking for a concrete solution to control the access, then ISE is a better solution."
"Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) has simplified guest access management for us without compromising security for our organization."
"We are very happy with the solution and we have no problem using Cisco ISE solutions."
"[One of the most valuable features] is just the ease of use. It's pretty simple to set up certs that we can add to our clients to make sure that they connect properly, [as is] whitelisting Mac addresses."
"The user experience of the solution is great. It's a very transparent system."
"What Sophos has done is integrate almost the entire OSI layer infrastructure; it gives me visibility across my infrastructure, into all the mobile devices that are on my network and the security I have on those mobile devices, my users, my servers, what is happening at all my gateways, and visibility on my switches, so it gives me a global view of my infrastructure."
"There is really good visibility for the appliance."
"The biggest advantage of Sophos Network Access Control is that it is very synchronized with the security on both the endpoint and the firewall on a single platform, and it is easy to maintain."
"The user interface makes it easy to configure and use."
"The initial setup is very easy."
"The product has the capabilities to satisfy all kinds of needs that a company may have, and you can find the right solution without spending a lot of money."
"Sophos Network Access Control has many valuable features: for access controls, MAC binding is available, the authentication page is useful, and continuous device assessments have a positive impact on our network security management."
"The installation is very straightforward."
 

Cons

"I would like the product to include support for OSVS version three."
"I would say they need to expand the hardware compatibility. The whole setup works well with Cisco access points and Cisco switches, but when you have multiple vendors in the environment, such as HP switches or access points like Aruba, you'll find they will not work well with Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE)."
"I would definitely improve the deployment and maybe a little bit of the support. Our first exposure to ISE had a lot of issues."
"They should improve the upgrades. It's not easy to upgrade the solution."
"There are always some things that I would request."
"In the next release, I would want to see this kind of solution in the cloud as opposed to on prem because when enhancements are made to the software, if it's in the cloud, it's overnight. I mean you're not going to have to respin the servers that the license sits on, it's all microservices kinds of things in the cloud. That would be my recommendation. If I'm a customer, that's what I'm looking at - for cloud based software subscriptions."
"Compatibility and integration with other vendors is what needs to be improved in Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine)."
"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."
"In order to provide better management, it would be ideal if they offered better plugins for their firewall."
"The user interface, in terms of managing the product, could be better."
"I'd like to see them include direct integration with Active Directory."
"I would like to be able to fully customize the reports."
"In order to provide better management, it would be ideal with they offered better plugins for their firewall."
"I would like more details on the incoming connection, like what is the download speed and how it fluctuates. If Sophos can give that information, it would be really good."
"The interface on the cloud could be a bit better - just to give more performance on it."
"Endpoint and firewall synchronization is not as smooth as we are expecting from Sophos Network Access Control."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The technology is good, but to use some of the other features, and capabilities, they request that we purchase the Cisco DNA Center. As a result, the bundled price is a little high."
"I would rate the pricing an eight out of ten, one being cheap and ten being expensive."
"I get very good pricing from Cisco, so I don't have a problem with that. I also don't have a problem with licensing because we get enterprise or global licensing."
"Its licensing could be improved. It used to be perpetual, but now they are moving away from that."
"It has a fair price. It is better than it was before."
"It is fairly expensive and that's part of why we have implemented it in the type of 'hack' that we did, to service multiple clients."
"Pricing and licensing are not my expertise. As far as budgeting is concerned, we run an ELA with Cisco. It's a part of our ELA."
"We are running Version 2.9 because Version 2.9 of the ISE has a persistent license — it's a one-time payment. The latest version (3.1) is only available if you do a yearly subscription."
"Sophos Network Access Control is an expensive solution."
"It is quite expensive."
"Sophos Network Access Control is costly but has a similar price range as CrowdStrike and Check Point. The product can get more market share if Sophos can play around with Sophos Network Access Control pricing and improve it."
"I rate the price of Sophos Network Access Control a five out of ten."
"Sophos Network Access Control is very cheap compared to other solutions like Cisco, Barracuda, and Palo Alto."
"It provides a moderate pricing option for all of its features and benefits."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Access Control (NAC) solutions are best for your needs.
896,692 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Healthcare Company
9%
Government
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business45
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise91
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business16
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise3
 

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 Sophos Network Access Control?
The pricing of Sophos Network Access Control is good, but it is somewhat high.
What needs improvement with Sophos Network Access Control?
In my opinion, one feature that should be added is the ability to trace emails from individuals who change their IP address or send misbehaving emails from alternative networks. If someone sends a ...
What is your primary use case for Sophos Network Access Control?
Sophos Network Access Control serves primary use cases for both networking purposes and security purposes.
 

Also Known As

Cisco ISE
No data available
 

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
Rushmoor Borough Council
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) vs. Sophos Network Access Control and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
896,692 professionals have used our research since 2012.