Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) Reviews

We use Cisco ISE for device authentication, such as auto switches, and wireless authentication.

The most valuable features are authentication, we have more granular control on the access policies for the administrators. The solution is easy to use, has a center point administration, and has a good GUI.

The solution could be more secure.

I have been using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) for approximately five years.

Cisco ISE is stable.

I have found Cisco ISE to be scalable.

We have approximately 500 people using this solution in my organization.

We were using Cisco ACS previously. I have found Cisco ISE to be a more advanced and easy-to-use solution than the Cisco ACS.

The installation is straightforward since we have worked on Cisco platforms previously.

We have approximately 100 people for the maintenance and support of this solution.

I rate Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) an eight out of ten.

The RADIUS Server holds the most value.

The TACACS feature in ISE is good.

We also use the Posture feature to control the environment.

The product features are quite good.

One of the main issues in  Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is that it lags excessively.

Sometimes Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) just doesn't work properly, due to misconfiguration.

I would like to see the product simplified more, especially with the configuration.

I have been working with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) for approximately two years.

We are using version 2.7 Patch 2.

Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is easy to scale.

I have approximately 450 Apex end-based licenses.

Currently, we don't have plans to expand.

Technical support as always is one of the best.

The initial setup was a bit complex. It took us three to four weeks to complete the setup and get it up and running. We had help from the reseller.

It was deployed by a vendor.

It was installed by a vendor.

It's a bit expensive, especially the licensed product.

The hardware is purchased one time. 

The support license is reasonable, but when compared to other products, such as ClearPass or Fortinet, the base license for users is much lower in other products. In general, Cisco is more expensive.

I would like to see one license based on one user. We do not need to use multiple licenses in order to have multiple features in the product.

One of the issues in ISE is that if you need more features you have to have multiple licenses per user. One user can have three or four licenses. 

It would be beneficial to have a single license that included all of the features.

We are currently trying to deploy Fortinet network access control. The support from Fortinet is disappointing.

We are in the testing phases, but there is a good possibility that we will go with Fortinet.

We have not used it yet. We will try the POCs this week coming.

I would suggest having an experienced engineer implement the product. If there is an error when implementing, you will experience many issues, especially lagging.

If it was well implemented I would rate it a nine out of ten, because it's good.

Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is used in large enterprise companies. In our company and with our implementation, I would rate  Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) a four out of ten.

We use this solution for network security.

The most valuable features are the ability to retrieve information about Active Directory user names, viewing the log files to see which MAC address tried to connect with the created SSIDs, portal designing for your company, hotspot tools, and creating network rules for WiFi access.

The interface could be more user-friendly and the ability to apply rules to MAC addresses, for example, if I wanted to allow a certain MAC address access at a particular time I cannot make this adjustment.

In an upcoming release, they could improve by providing rule-based bandwidth consumption, bring your own device (BYOD) need to be more mature, and the reports could be more user-friendly.

I have been using this solution for approximately four years.

The solution is stable.

The controller has to manage a certain number of access points and we did not see any problems with the scalability. It is able to handle more access points than we need it for.

We do not have experience with The technical support from Cisco directly because the technical support we receive is from our partners which they have been excellent.

We have used 3Com wireless controllers previously.

We used Cisco partners to do the implementation of the solution.

Recently, I have evaluated Aruba solutions and I found them to be better than Cisco. There is room for improvement, Cisco can do better.

When deciding to implement this solution it is a good idea to assess and define the requirements to determine whether there is a need for this solution. It is important to know what you can use from it. You can have a WiFi environment without the need for a Cisco ISE. This solution has advanced security that might not be needed for your use case. Be sure about your needs.

I rate Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) a seven out of ten.

My clients are small to enterprise-size companies using this networking solution. One of my clients is a leading pharmaceutical manufacturing company, providing genetic medicine. The network they have has approximately 5,000 device inventory. Additionally, I have a couple of clients in the banking industry in the USA that has quite a large networking infrastructure using this solution.

The most valuable features are the NAC and the bundles that are available with Cisco ISE, such as Cisco ACS being integrated.

The solution infrastructure configuration is complicated to set up. They have improved over the years but there is still a lot of room to improve. When comparing the simplicity to other vendors, such as Fortinet and Aruba they are behind.

I have been using this solution for approximately three years.

The solution is stable.

Cisco's support system is very good and they are well known for it.

I am also using FortiNAC and it is similar to Cisco ISE. However, Cisco is spread across the globe with bigger clients, large enterprises. FortiNAC is not as mature, but they are still working their way up in the market

The price of the solution is price fair for the features you receive.

I have evaluated other solutions from Aruba and Fortinet.

I rate Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) a seven out of ten.

Our use cases are based around dot1x. Basically wired and wireless authentication, authorization, and accounting. 

In terms of administration, only our networking team uses this solution. Probably five to ten administrators manage the whole product. Their role pretty much is to make sure that we configure the use cases that we use ISE for — pretty much for authenticating users to the wired and wireless networks. We might have certain other advanced use cases depending on certain other business requirements, but their job is pretty much to make sure all the use cases work. If there are issues, if users are complaining, they log into ISE to troubleshoot those issues and have a look at the logs. They basically expand ISE to the rest of the network. There is ongoing activity there as well. The usage is administrative in nature, making sure the configurations are okay, deploying new use cases, and troubleshooting issues.

This solution has definitely improved the way our organization functions.

In terms of features, I think they've done a lot of improvement on the graphical user interface — it looks really good right now. ISE is always very complicated to deploy because it's GUI-based. So they came up with this feature called work centers, that kind of streamlines that process. That's a good feature in the product right now.

An issue with the product is it tends to have a lot of bugs whenever they release a new release.

We've always found ourselves battling out one bug or another. I think, overall they need to form a quality assurance standpoint. ISE has always had this issue with bugs. Even if you go to a Cisco website and you type all the bug releases for ISE, you'll find a lot of bugs. Because the product is kind of intrusive, right? It's in the network. Whenever you have a bug, if something doesn't work, that always creates a lot of noise. I would say that the biggest issue we're having is with all the product bugs.

Also, the graphical user interface is very heavy. By heavy, I mean it's quite fancy. It's equipped with a lot of features and animations that sometimes slow down the user interface.

It's a technical product — I don't think a lot of engineers really need fancy GUIs. We pretty much look for functionality, but I think Cisco, for some reason, is putting an emphasis on its GUIs looking better. We always look for functionality over fancy features.

We've had issues with different browsers, and sometimes it's really slow. From a functionality standpoint, we would rather the GUI was light and faster to navigate.

ISE has a very good logging capability but because their GUI is so slow, we feel it's not as flexible or user-friendly as we would like it to be, especially when it comes to monitoring and logging. At the end of the day, we're implementing ISE for security. And that means visibility.

Of course, you can export the data into other products to get that visibility, but we would like to have a better type of monitoring, maybe better dashboards, and better analytics capabilities within the product.

Analytics is one thing that's really lacking. Even if you're to extract a report, it just takes a lot of time. So, again, that comes down to product design, but that's definitely an area for improvement. I think it does the job well, but they can definitely improve on the monitoring and analytics side.

I have been using this solution since they released the first version over ten years ago.

Scalability is pretty good, provided that you design it properly from the get-go. There are design limitations, depending on the platforms, especially the hardware platforms that you select. On the scalability front, it's not a product that can be virtualized very well — that's an issue. Because in the world of virtualization, customers are always looking for products that they can put in their virtual environments. But ISE is not a truly virtualized product, as in it doesn't do a lot of resource sharing.

As a result, it's not truly virtualized. Although they do have the VM offering, it's not virtualization in the proper sense of the word. That's one limitation of the product. It's very resource-intensive. As a result, you always end up purchasing additional hardware, actual ISE physical servers. Whereas, we would like to have it deployed in virtual machines if it was better designed. I think when it comes to resource utilization, it probably isn't optimized very well. Ideally, we would like to have a better-virtualized platform.

Tech support tends to be pretty good for ISE. We do use it extensively because of all of the bugs we encounter. 

Mostly it's at the beginning of setting the whole environment up. Typically, once it's set up properly, it tends to work. But it's just that the product itself integrates with a lot of other products in the network. It integrates with your switches, with your APs, etc. So, it's a part of an ecosystem. What happens is, if those products experience bugs, then it kind of affects the overall ISE solution as well — that is a bit of a dependency. The ISE use cases are dependent on your network access devices, but that's just the nature of it. The only issue with support is you might have to open a ticket with the ISE team, but if you're looking at issues in your wireless network or switches, you might have to open another ticket with their tech team for switches. 

For customers using Cisco, end-to-end, they should improve the integration and providing a seamless experience to the customer. But right now, they have to refer to other experts. They come in the call, but the whole process just takes some time.

That's an area that they can improve on. But typically, I would say that the support has been good. We've been able to resolve issues. They are responsive. They've been good.

Overall, I would give the support a rating of eight.

The setup is not straightforward. It's complex. You need to have a high level of expertise.

It's an expensive solution when compared to other vendors. It's definitely more expensive than ClearPass. It's expensive, but the issue, again, comes down to scalability. Because you can't virtualize the product, there's a lot of investment when it comes to your hardware resources. Your CapEx is one of the biggest issues here. That's something Cisco needs to improve because organizations are looking at reducing their hardware footprint. It's unfortunate that ISE is such a resource-intensive application to begin with. As it's not a properly virtualized application, you need to rely on physical hardware to get the best performance.

The CapEx cost is high. When it comes to operational expenditure, it all depends on the features you're using. They have their tiers, and it all depends on the features you're using. The basic tier, which is where most of the functionality is, is relatively quite cheap. But if you're using some advanced use cases, you need to go to their higher tiers. So, I'm not too worried about operations costs. You need to buy support for the hardware: you need space, power, and cooling for the hardware-side. All of that adds up. So, that all comes down to the product design and they need to make sure it's properly scalable and it's truly virtualized going forward.

We've evaluated other products, for example, Aruba ClearPass. There's another product, Forescout, but the use case is a bit different.

When it comes to dot1x authentication, I think it's ISE and Aruba ClearPass. Forescout also comes into the next space, but the use case is a bit different.

We prefer ISE because, I think if you're using Cisco devices, it really kind of integrates your ecosystem — that's why we prefer ISE. When it comes to NAC or dot1x products, from a feature standpoint, ISE has had that development now for 10 to 11 years. So, we've seen the product mature over time. And right now it's a pretty stable and functional product. It has a lot of features as well. So, I think the decision is mainly kind of driven by the fact that the rest of the ecosystem is Cisco as well. From a uniform figure standpoint, the other product is probably the industry leader at this point in time for network admission control.

The main advice would be in terms of upfront design — this is where a lot of people get it very wrong. Depending on the platforms you choose, there are restrictions and limitations on how many users. We've got various nodes, so how many nodes you can implement, etc. Also, latency considerations must be taken into account; especially if you're deploying it across geographically dispersed regions. The main advice would be to get the design right. Because given that directly interferes with the network, if you don't get your design right it could be disruptive to the network. Once you've got the proper design in place and that translates into a bit of material, the implementation, you can always figure it out. Getting it right, upfront, is the most important thing.

Overall, I would give ISE a rating of eight out of ten. I don't want to give it a 10 out of 10 because of all the design issues. There is definitely room for improvement, but overall out there in the market, I think it's one of the best products. It has a good ecosystem. It integrates well with Cisco devices, but it also integrates with third-party solutions if you have to do that. It's based on open standards, and we've seen the ecosystem grow over the years. So, they're doing a good job in terms of growing the ecosystem and making sure ISE can work with other products, but there's definitely room for improvement on the product design itself — on monitoring, on analytics. 

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.

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.

This product was installed before I joined this company. It would be six years or something like that. We are probably two versions behind the latest one.

It is stable.

Their technical support is good. Cisco support is good.

I was not there, but I think the company had a services company that helped them in implementing it. It was easy because we only had to give them the requirements and their engineers did it for us. After they finished their mission, we started to deal with this solution, but it is too complex for a company of our size.

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.

I would advise others to make sure that you have the knowledge of this solution to get the full benefits of all the features, and you are able to use it on a daily basis.

I would rate Cisco ISE a six out of ten. Its functionality is too wide for our company. 

We use ISE for security group tagging in terms of guests and visitors who access the network to make sure that they actually go through this to control their privilege access to ensure they don't actually access the internal network, etc. 

Our clients use ISE as a form of security policy management so that users and devices between the wired, wireless, and VPN connections to the corporate network, can be managed accordingly.

Take a house for example. Sometimes you need to access a room via a certain keyhole, so you use a key that is unique to that door. With ISE, you can segment this process in terms of policy management based on the security tag. You actually grant the user access based on the tagging.

That's the IT trend — saving a lot on operating costs to manage the different users and access methods.

Within our company, we have roughly 200 employees using this solution.

My clients are always talking about the segregation capabilities. Segmentation refers to how you can actually segregate employee and non-employee client access. 

They have recently made a lot of improvements. My clients don't have much to complain about — it's a one-stop-shop.

It should be virtualized because many people have begun migrating to the cloud. They should offer a hybrid version. 

It's stable but there's a limitation of up to 200,000 users. If you have a big number of users, then you have to customize the installation process. 

It's only scalable up to 20,000 users. 

I would say Cisco's support has been getting worse. I think they outsource a lot of skillsets.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. They actually provide a lot of help to IT administrators which makes setting it up rather easy.

The whole setup takes about three days because you need to basically configure the network, test the configuration, and then you need to cut over to production. 

Our customers definitely see a return on their investment with this solution.

I think licensing costs roughly $2,000 a year. ISE is more expensive than Network Access Control.

If you wish to use ISE, you must have a deep understanding of IT. If you don't, setting it up properly will be very complex.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine.

We primarily use the solution for user authentication and wireless segmentation of users for actual radius purposes.

The actual radius is the most valuable aspect of the solution. We need to have a centric solution either on MarTech X and for the wireless user authentication. We were mainly on Cisco and we continue to use them. However, this is the time period for a refresh as the five-year lifespan is completed. We may look for other options.

Technical support is okay.

The solution is not so user-friendly. It's very difficult to navigate through different manuals. The documentation should be simplified so that it is easier to understand.

It would take time for a beginner to understand and familiarize themselves with the solution. There's a bit of a learning curve.

Cisco ISE is not very stable. They could work on that aspect. 

We'd like the pricing to be better.

The product is not easily scalable.

Currently, if you want to do something with authentication, you need to have an additional document agent, however, these are short on all Microsoft endpoints. We then need to come up with some alternate options so that I don't have to modify any native applications on it. By default, Windows should be able to support and onboard the devices. Right now I need to have a Cisco AnyConnect as an agent to be deployed for authentication.

I've been using the solution for over five years at this point. It's been a while.

The stability of the solution needs to be improved. It's not ideal. It's lacking overall. If we have five or six items activated, the box shakes and we're scared to touch anything. When we do have to reconfigure things, it's a nightmare as it can go down and it can take us a day or two to sort things out.

In terms of scalability, it needs to be reactivated, which means that I need to add more nodes. It's got its own design limitations. We had only a two-node deployment in it. We need to add more hardware and we need to reduce so many things. It's not an easy option to scale this hardware. Scaling, in general, is very difficult.

We have roughly 9,000 users on this product currently.

Technical support is fine. However, we may need to depend on support to resolve some of our many issues. We need to spend an enormous amount of time with them and to explain so much stuff. It would be easier if we could troubleshoot the issue ourselves or if the solution was more reliable.

I don't know about other alternative products. I don't have any experience with other alternative products. I've only ever used Cisco ISE.

The solution's initial setup can be a bit complex as there are so many features that are available. It all depends, however, upon which one you want to activate. In our case, we have five or six activated and the box always shakes. It's not stable. So my colleagues are always afraid to touch the box. If it is working well and good, you don't touch it, and we don't reconfigure it. In cases where we encounter any issues, it's a nightmare and we need to spend a minimum of twenty-four to forty-eight hours to recover everything.

We pay a fee based on a subscription model.

The pricing could always be better.

I've been looking at evaluating Aruba's Clearpass as a potential replacement option for this solution. I haven't gotten too far into my research, however. I'm looking for a solution that's scalable and easy to use.

My advice to Cisco would be to simplify as much as possible so that a normal IT guy can understand the CCD and set it up. If they can simplify the manuals, navigation, and documentation, it would be nice. It will always be difficult for a beginner, however, to, rearrange or design the network.

I would rate the solution five out of ten.