We performed a comparison between Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and macmon Network Access Control based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Access Control (NAC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I found the CMDB Direct Connect in Cisco ISE 3.2 the most promising feature for my use case."
"When you push out the policy, it is able to populate the entire network at one time."
"Not having to trust devices and being able to set those levels of trust and more finely control our network is a benefit."
"Cisco ISE's integration with other external identity servers like Duende is very simple and easy."
"The WiFi portal in Cisco ISE is very useful for WiFi customers."
"Cisco ISE is a comprehensive solution that allows you to control access to network resources granularly based on policies."
"Technical support is okay."
"The most valuable feature is 801.1x and another very good feature is the TACACS."
"The API is a great way to get information from other tools."
"The ease of connecting with the client is valuable for me."
"We use it with our Cisco switches so we can see which switch it is actually connected to."
"It is too complex. It should be easy to use. We are not such a big team. We only have three engineers to work with this, and we don't use all of the functionality of the product. Its range of functionality is too wide for us, and this is the reason why we are thinking of switching to a more simple product. We have shortlisted a Microsoft solution. We have a big footprint for Microsoft products, especially in security. As a global strategy, we try to leverage to the maximum what is possible around Microsoft."
"The software is a little bit complicated to understand in the beginning, meaning the implementation. It needs proper documentation so that we can understand the options more easily."
"Some of ISE's features need to be more agile. For example, we couldn't integrate our data because Cisco needs your data to be in its own format."
"The user interface can be improved."
"The admin interface is really slow. It's horrible."
"Cisco ISE does not recognize devices and that is an issue we faced during its integration with our existing devices."
"ISE is a little clunky. The front-end feels like it is from the 1980s."
"Cisco ISE's performance could be better, faster, and more robust."
"The single sign-on process can be improved and the interface should be made more user-friendly."
"The service macmon offers is already great."
"The solution must allow users to filter files based on dates."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More macmon Network Access Control Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 138 reviews while macmon Network Access Control is ranked 9th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 3 reviews. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2, while macmon Network Access Control is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) writes "Gives us that extra ability to assist the end user and make sure that we are making them happy". On the other hand, the top reviewer of macmon Network Access Control writes "A robust solution that provides protection to effectively control the access to your network". Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas macmon Network Access Control is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC and Forescout Platform. See our Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) vs. macmon Network Access Control report.
See our list of best Network Access Control (NAC) vendors.
We monitor all Network Access Control (NAC) 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.