Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) Reviews

We use it for MAC Authentication Bypass, 802.1X authentication, and certification and validation against Active Directory. Because MAC devices can't be enrolled in the domain, we were doing a manual installation of certificates.

We are a very secure enterprise now because only our corporate endpoints can be authenticated on our wireless. Before, any device could be connected to our production network. And the corporate endpoints have antivirus and anti-malware. Things are more and more secure.

Authentication is the most valuable feature because it puts our company at another level of security. It establishes trust for every access because we use only corporate endpoints. If somebody has another device, they can't connect it to the enterprise network because we haven't implemented bring-your-own-device yet. We have five warehouse buildings and all our operations are around logistics and that means external people don't come to our buildings.

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

It's very stable.

It's expensive to scale Cisco ISE, but our situation is stable so we don't need to scale it for now. In the future, we will need a more scalable solution.

It is used for all our departments, all end-users, all corporate endpoints. And when we use MAC Authentication Bypass, we include printers and VIP cell phones.

Tech support is very good.

We didn't have a previous solution.

The deployment was a little complex, but not because of the solution. It was more an issue for our people because it was a mindset change.

It took us about six months to deploy. Because we didn't have a previous solution, we just deployed it one department at a time across our four departments.

We used an integrator, ITS Infocom. Experience-wise, it was very good. On our side, we had three people involved. 

Since implementing Cisco ISE, we haven't had any attacks against our application.

Pricing is not a problem for Cisco because it has a lot of features and not much competition, although it's more expensive than other products. But if I do a cost-benefit analysis, Cisco provides high quality.

We looked at Aruba. Cisco ISE is much better.

Be patient with the implementation. It can be very difficult for the clients, the people using it, because it requires a change of mindset.

We use it for network device administration and for user access.

It has really helped us when it comes to security. It has eliminated trust from our network architecture because, with the solution in place, you tell us who you are and, based on who you are, we give you access. The solution provides us with a platform to define our policies. Users get into our system based on those policies. That eliminates threats. If you are not who you say you are, it will block you completely from our network.

It integrates with the rest of our platform, like our firewall, and helps us a lot. It also does a good job establishing trust for every access request.

With the recent release of the solution, we had a bunch of bugs and we had to delay our deployment. Other than that, the solution is good.

I have been using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) for 10 years.

Cisco ISE has come a long way when it comes to stability. It's getting better.

It's very scalable. We have it deployed in two data centers, and we're managing about 10,000 endpoints.

TAC is very responsive whenever we call them.

Positive

Currently we have two solutions that do the same kinds of things. For our wireless infrastructure, we use Aruba, but for our wired access, we use ISE.

The ROI we have seen is because Cisco gives us what they promised us. They deliver. Our requirements are being met and that results in getting value for what we pay.

Since we have a complete Cisco portfolio, including an Enterprise Agreement, it's not simple for me to compare what we're paying with the prices of other platforms.

We evaluated other companies and what they each do differently and looked at what was the better fit for our requirements.

Cisco TAC is really good. Whenever we have issues, we know they are there and that they will help us out with troubleshooting. The support of the other companies we looked at is not that great.

When I compare it with Aruba ClearPass and other solutions out there, I prefer Cisco. Cisco is number-one for user access, managing devices, and for network devices.

We don't leverage Cisco ISE for application access. We have another solution for that.

Get some hands-on familiarity with it first. Do a PoC and get people who really know the solution to help you out during phase one before you deploy it.

We're using version 3.1, which is very stable. There have been a lot of improvements.

I like the automation of the collection of information.

We have only been deploying this version for three months. We haven’t had any issues, but we'll see how it goes. One of the issues that we used to have was with profiling because we're working with a service provider that uses a lot of bring your own devices. We haven't had any issues since we started using version 3.1.

I have been using this solution for over 12 years.

There are no stability issues with version 3.1.

It's stable. We deployed with a client in petroleum with about 200 users worldwide, and it was stable.

Setup wasn't easy, especially if you haven’t worked with it intensively. VM is a little bit easier. If you don't deploy ISE with correct policies, it will be difficult.

If you deploy it with the correct policies, it's a wonderful product. You don't need to attach anything like your firewalls or creating rules.

ISE has always been expensive compared to other products in terms of what it does on a user level. I haven't had a client who didn't say that ISE wasn't expensive. I’ve had an issue where I was just selling four boxes, and it was four million. It was a high-end box, and the client didn't take it. They end up going with VM.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10.

It's one of the more difficult products to deploy.

You can learn a lot about ISE from their training videos. I would suggest watching the videos before deploying the solution. They have created good videos for ISE, from version 1.3.

Our customers use Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) as a network access control solution. Before they can get network access, you can do posture check, e.g. in the Windows version, or another version, then it is only after this posture check that the clients can enter the network.

Compatibility with other vendors is what needs to be improved in Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine). We should be able to use it with other vendors, for all specifications. There should be integration with different vendors, e.g. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) working with AccuPoint networks.

I've worked in my current company in product pre-sales for one year, and prior, I worked for a different partner company in Turkey, so my total usage of Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) spans eight years.

Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is a stable solution. It has good performance.

If we need support from the vendor side, we can open a case, then the vendor replies to us as soon as possible. Support for Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is fast.

The installation of Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) was easy.

Our customers pay for the license of Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine). They have an annual subscription, rather than a monthly subscription.

I evaluated Fortinet.

I'm a technical person, and I've worked for a company that does system integrations, including network pre-sales. My company sells Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Fortinet products in Turkey. I can also sell these products. My company is a gold partner of Cisco.

I've sold the on-premises version of Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine).

Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is the best solution for Cisco network customers. It is the best solution for Cisco network devices. As for network products from other vendors, we can use, or we could offer other network access control (NAC) solutions, e.g. Fortinet NAC, or Aruba Secure NAC, etc.

I'm part of the pre-sales team at our company. There are other people who are responsible for installing Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) post-sales, e.g. they install the solution for the customers. For this reason, I am unable to give information on how long it takes to install the solution.

We currently have over 30 users of Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine).

I can recommend Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) to other users.

My rating for Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is eight out of ten.

The solution is used for controlled access in the network, like if you want to restrict access.

The solution is deployed on-prem. I am an integrator of this solution.

The best features are the scalability and the license structure. The license structure is like a tier. If a customer doesn't actually want the highest features, then they can just start with the basic license package and upgrade it if their network is growing. For the smaller customers, they can start with the smaller plans and so on. If you have a financial customer or banking customer, they can go for the full features, and if it's not that critical, the customer can get the basic license package and implement that.

The licensing documentation needs to be better. We found some old documents describing the license names, like the Base license and Apex license. Cisco used both names. We have found that they changed the Advantage license and Premier License. If someone misunderstands that, they might end up with a hassle. I don't know if it's possible or not for Cisco to remove the older documents from the official website.

We have been working with this solution for more than two years.

We were using two solutions on Cisco's network, so we had a few ISE plans in that network.

The solution is stable. We have maybe 4,000 users for the Next solution.

We haven't used technical support very much, but in general, Cisco's support is always responsive.

Initial setup was straightforward from our point of view because we have engineers who did that, so of course it was not an issue with us.

The accesses took maybe three or four months to complete, but the Next part took about three weeks.

For deployment and maintenance, the team was average sized. You need to follow the correct documents for deployment. There can be misunderstandings if you use old documentation.

The licensing is subscription-based and based on the user account.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10. 

I would recommend this solution.

If someone is looking for a concrete solution to control the access, then ISE is a better solution.

My main uses are device administration, wireless access authentication, and ethernet access.

The most valuable feature is network access control for the users coming into the network, which allows us to know who is in the network at any given time.

The intuitiveness of the user interface could be improved. They could also make the deployment process more user-friendly.

I have two years of experience with this solution.

ISE is very stable - since it was installed, I've had no issues with it.

I've had no issues with scalability. I started using it on two campuses, and now I'm using it across the country and scaling it across subsidiaries in other countries.

I've worked closely with Cisco for many years and have no complaints about their support. Sometimes it takes less than a couple of minutes to get through to their support team.

I previously used Portnox, but it only gave us network access control, so we switched to ISE, which has more features like device administration.

Deployment is usually tough the first time, though once you get it working, it works well.

We used in-house engineers and an integrator.

We have a three-year license. Standard licensing gives backup access and very few features, and then there's VM licensing - each VM we use needs to be licensed. VM licensing comes in different sizes: small, medium, and extra-large. There are also licenses for features, posturing licenses, and profiling licenses.

Before deploying, it's a good idea to read up on the product first and then get some training so that when deployed, someone in the organization understands the solution. I would rate this solution as nine out of ten.

The solution is primarily used for Network management and Network Access Controls.

The general usefulness of the product is not specific to a particular feature. This is a comprehensive solution covering access to network to create a zero trust environment. It covers Network Access Control, Network Segmentation & policy control

The solution integrates well with other Cisco solutions. It works both from a single-vendor perspective and in cases where the client might have a hybrid network and multiple security solutions.

The product offers very good functionality.

From a configuration point of view, it's simple. It's not very complex. I don't see any major challenges when using the product.

The solution is reliable.

The scalability is good.

We haven't had any issues with technical support. They have been helpful. 

I have not come across any missing features. 

It would be ideal if Cisco could provide some short training videos or documentation to customers to help them understand how to use the product. 

We have not used this solution for ourselves but implemented it for various organisation's.

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is good. 

This solution can work well for large enterprises that have a larger environment, such as a distributed environment. Mostly, from my organization's perspective, we deal with SMEs.

The solution is quite scalable. 

I've been in touch with technical support in the past. They are quite good. I am satisfied with the level of support they provide. I don't have any complaints. 

Positive

The initial setup is not very complex. All similar solutions will have a similar type of configuration as well, so it's pretty simple to figure things out. 

In terms of how long a deployment takes, it primarily depends upon the environment the customer has. Customers might have a very basic environment wherein it might get done in a couple of hours or so. If it is a very complex environment and they have multiple policies to be deployed, then it could definitely take more time.

There aren't any challenges when it comes to maintenance. It's pretty simple. 

I don't handle the licensing aspect of the product. I can't speak to the exact costs involved. 

We have not faced any major challenges in terms of getting a good price point from our customer's perspective. That said, the pricing would depend upon the perceived value of the solution rather than the actual cost of the product. If the solution is able to help the customer in mitigating its challenges many customers don't see any point in discussing the price point if POC is successful

We are a system integrator.

The version of ISE we are using depends on the customer. 

We primarily have the solution set up on premise. 

In terms of advice, from a security standpoint, it is paramount for any organisation, to be secure, no matter its size (large or small). Having secure network access control will always make it safer & help organisation in attaining a zero trust environment 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. 

I'm using Cisco ISE for integration. We are currently using it for 82.X, but we are planning on using it for a different use case in the next couple of quarters.

The core point is that Cisco ISE is the same globally compared to FortiAuthenticator. Whether I deploy in China, the US, South Africa, or wherever, I'm can get all the capabilities. It allows me to directly integrate with 365, and from a communications point of view, that is a good capability. 

Cisco ISE could be simplified somewhat. I would also prefer certificate-based authentication over confirmation-based authentication for all the processes. It's possible for us to do a workaround, but the process needs to be simplified. 

I've been using Cisco ISE for more than a year.

Cisco ISE is stable.

I haven't really tried to scale ISE, but I don't think we'd face any challenges with hard gentle scaling.

We have a good relationship with Cisco support. However, when they do a new release, they take their time. I don't have much of an issue with Cisco support itself, but working with their customer success team and those types of things can be a challenge. It's not just the response time. It's the total resolution time. They'll respond quickly, but when they get the particular fix, it's a challenge. 

In the previous versions, the setup was okay. But as they add more capabilities, it gets more complicated to deploy and maintain the solution. We expect these complexities as part of the roadmap and evolution. We have to set the policy definitions manually because there is no discovery process to define what needs to be authenticated. When a new device is added, we might have to configure something so that it's integrated or set up some data flows of the service we need to do it. These are some of the maintenance activities that we must do to keep it live. We have a good IT team that numbers around 25 people and serves a decent number of customers.

Customers respond to a low price. From the point of view of integration, Cisco ISE hikes up the cost of security, but otherwise, I think it should be okay.

I rate Cisco ISE nine out of 10.

We are resellers. We provide and deploy solutions for our customers.

Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) helps the operation to automate.

It works very well with the network, router, and switches. It is able to enforce the policy and assigns the traffic a Security Group tag.

A Google user is able to enforce access throughout the router and switches ensuring the traffic going through has the same policy.

When you push out the policy, it is able to populate the entire network at one time.

It's quite good, the market is using this solution.

This solution has enhanced features that make it difficult to use. To make it easier, it should be made without PxGrid.

It should be able to work with third-party routers and switches. We want to work in an environment where there are multi-vendors that require PxGrid.

Their software-defined access is not easy to implement. You have to have a good understanding of how to implement it. It would be helpful if they could make it easier for the customer to adopt.

Third-party integration is important, as well as the continuous adaptation feature, which is the AIOps. It would be helpful to include the AIOps.

They are currently on version 3.1.

If the customer has more than 200,000 users, the performance becomes a bit laggy.

In terms of scalability, it's available on the cloud, but I have not yet tested the features on the cloud.

It is used mainly by our customers, who use it for their entire infrastructure. They have anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 users.

Technical support could be better. They outsource the support.

We are brought all around the world, it is similar to following the sun.

Currently, I am using SD-WAN (Software-Defined WAN) from Silver Peak.

To complete the installation, you need to be technically knowledgeable. The setup could be easier.

For the content, and the technologies it is made to be a bit more complex. 

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.

Once you purchase the DNA, you will need the SNA then the license, overall it's very expensive.

If, however, you implement Cisco ISE without the DNA and the SDA, the price is reasonable.

To avoid running into any complications when getting this solution up and running, you should get technically trained and comfortable with it before applying it.

I would 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.