Cisco Secure Access Reviews

Cisco Secure Access serves as a major replacement for traditional VPNs with a VPN-as-a-Service offering. This is particularly useful for clients with aging VPN architectures who face challenges in scaling out.

The product also optimizes firewall capabilities for geographically distributed operators and enhances proxy-based architectures with Secure Web Gateways and CASB for cloud or SaaS applications. By integrating with identity providers like Azure Entra ID or Okta, Cisco Secure Access facilitates the transition from VPN to ZTNA while ensuring compliance with principles like least privilege access.

Additionally, it incorporates identity and device risk scores for dynamic access policies to respond to varying risk thresholds. The service is particularly useful for managing old VPN infrastructure replacements, firewall optimizations, and bridging the gaps between old and new secure access technologies.

The product also addresses unique geographical challenges, such as ensuring secure internet access for oil rigs in remote locations. Furthermore, Cisco Secure Access's multi-tenancy and Policy Verification features are crucial for managing multi-organization environments and ensuring policy accuracy, respectively.

Hybrid Private Access is particularly useful in regions where replacing existing gear isn't feasible due to cost concerns. Lastly, the product's AI-driven features like AI Access and AI Assistant ease policy management and triage, reducing the time and efforts needed in these processes.

Cisco Secure Access offers numerous valuable features. The VPN-as-a-Service replaces traditional VPNs, providing global secure access without installing solutions at each location, allowing geographically distributed operators to benefit from scalability and optimization.

The integration with identity providers facilitates this transition and aligns with Zero Trust Network Access principles. The platform offers capabilities like Secure Web Gateways, Firewall-as-a-Service, and CASB for enhanced cloud-based functionality. Its Policy Verification runs checks to prevent policy misconfigurations, a necessary feature for managing multi-organization environments.

Moreover, the product's AI-driven capabilities streamline policy management and triage, enhancing operational efficiency. Hybrid Private Access and multi-tenancy capabilities make it resource-efficient and particularly useful for unique geographical challenges. The product is scalable, adjusting to new requirements easily, and is backed by robust technical support.

Despite being a value-for-money product, there are a few areas for improvement. Transitioning for customers from Palo Alto to Cisco Secure Access has its challenges, primarily due to previous infrastructure setups and migration paths. Cisco Secure Access may not seamlessly integrate into such settings, although it performs well in a Cisco-based environment.

Furthermore, while the AI capabilities of Cisco Secure Access are useful, they are not seen as major differentiators compared to competitors such as Palo Alto.

Additionally, though the existing threat intelligence is sufficient for most use cases, extending the integration scope with other tools, especially concerning AI supply chain risk management, could enhance its functionality.

The first time I came across Cisco Secure Access, it used to be called a different solution. It was a combination of multiple solutions. First they started with Cisco Duo, and then they expanded into Cisco Secure Firewalls over close to three years. They conducted a lot of branding changes and naming convention changes after that.

While the product offers strong overall stability, there were occasional issues, particularly involving Linux devices. However, these hiccups were more related to endpoint-client interactions rather than being vendor-specific problems. Overall, the solution is stable, but improvements could further enhance reliability.

The scalability of Cisco Secure Access is a strong feature. Initially driven by the need for improved scalability over traditional VPNs, it has proven to scale seamlessly alongside infrastructural growth. Effective collaboration with account teams ensures a robust and flexible solution designed to meet future scaling requirements without significant issues.

The technical support from Cisco is exceptional. They provide geographically distributed, responsive support with strict SLAs. The purchase of premium support ensures rapid response times, upholding high-quality service delivery across the board. The commitment to excellent service reflects positively on client experiences.

I used to work for Deloitte until six months ago. Currently, this is about managing our own internal infrastructure and then managing that of a couple of our operators and partners. Reselling is not something I am doing currently. I used to do that until June of this year.

Installation and deployment of Cisco Secure Access are straightforward. Comprehensive and publicly available documentation supports this, backed by assigned account managers and optional professional services. Despite anticipating complexities by procuring external services, they were unnecessary due to the clear and simplified setup process offered by the existing resources.

We had an account manager who was assigned to us and then we also purchased some professional services for day zero and day one, in case we got stuck.

The integrated capabilities of Cisco Secure Access deliver significant ROI through reduced mean time to detect (MTTD) and mean time to respond (MTTR). The resource efficiency is notably improved as fewer personnel are needed for triage and system management. The AI features further contribute by expediting threat detection and incident response, ensuring tangible returns through operational savings.

Cisco Secure Access offers good value for money. Existing product relationships provide cost advantages, ensuring reasonable pricing without overcharging. Although the solution is cheaper than premium options such as Palo Alto, existing Cisco licenses facilitate replacing previous solutions with Cisco Secure Access smoothly and affordably.

If you were a Cisco house in the past, I would certainly use that. If you are coming from something with a Palo Alto firewall infrastructure, I would prefer going with Palo Alto. It is more about the widespread adoption. When ten different people are doing the same thing, then I guess the other five people would do the same thing.

While client-based solutions serve corporate employees, clientless options cater to third-party contractors and onboarding procedures without equipment. These options ensure seamless transitions to full client-based systems for long-term corporate users.

Regarding the multi-organization management capability, it is akin to multi-tenancy, helpful for service provider infrastructures with multiple clients or single customers with diverse business units. It brings intuitive infrastructure management without providing unique features compared to competitors.

AI supply chain risk management, while theoretically beneficial, may not give an edge unless thorough integrations with additional tools are pursued. Furthermore, the choice of not implementing low-cost workflows was based on a need for higher security enhancements.

I would rate this review overall at a seven out of ten.

Hybrid Cloud

My main use case is Zero Trust because we're moving to a full SASE platform and Cisco Secure Access was our first step.

Cisco Secure Access has helped my organization significantly, especially when we went through a cyber event and lost all our previous remote access. We were able to get Cisco Secure Access up within seven days and roll it out to all our people to get everybody back online. It was a very fast rollout to 30,000 users and we regained full functionality within those seven days.

I appreciate all the features of Cisco Secure Access, but I find the Secure Web Gateway is probably the best feature, followed by the Malware and IPS in the cloud.

The Secure Web Gateway is probably the best feature of Cisco Secure Access because it simplifies access and allows me to lock down my entire environment. My access network only allows 443 to Cisco Cloud, with no other traffic, reducing the chance of anybody getting in and cross-connecting to anything else.

One area that needs improvement with Cisco Secure Access is the ZTA policy itself, which is lacking because it is limited to one policy for one target. If I have multiple policies I want to apply to a multiple group for the same target, I cannot do it, which is very limiting.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for 14 months.

I did not face any major challenges or have bugs, crashes, or downtime during the deployment of Cisco Secure Access. However, we experienced one downtime when all of Cisco Secure Access went down, but it was not specific to our organization.

My experience deploying Cisco Secure Access was positive. We had CX services and got it in within seven days, so it was pretty easy.

I can definitely say I have seen a return on investment from having Cisco Secure Access, as it has cut down our admin cost. I have eliminated three sets of firewalls that I did not need to have. I would say we probably save about 30% in hardware and about 20% in administration right now.

My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Cisco Secure Access is that it is part of our security EA, so it is included in our program, which is part of a much bigger portfolio.

Before adopting Cisco Secure Access, I used Zscaler, which is along the same line, but I am not a fan. I am happy because I find with Cisco it ties well with the rest of the ecosystem, unlike Zscaler, which does not. We did look at Zscaler.

The attack we faced had a big impact.

I am not using the AI assistant feature in Cisco Secure Access yet, as we have started looking at it, but it has to go through risk assessment first.

I am not using any other AI tools in Cisco Secure Access. We were deploying AI endpoint but that has been paused.

I do use VPNaaS in Cisco Secure Access.

The transition from VPN to ZTNA with Cisco Secure Access has just been more secure for me. It is more secure because VPNs are easy. If somebody compromises a VPN, you get traditional full access to things, whereas ZTNA allows isolating access to an individual system, providing limited access.

I am not using the location enforcement by location features of Cisco Secure Access yet, but it is on the roadmap to deploy.

My experience with the Experience Insight feature, called DEM, is not good. I find the integration between Cisco Secure Access and ThousandEyes does not work well and does not deliver what it is supposed to. In fact, we have not been able to get it to work, making it pretty useless right now.

I have integrated Cisco Identity Intelligence in Cisco Secure Access, which is influenced by security. It is all tied to the identity, the root trust. That is where we are using it for.

My experience with the multi-organization management capability of Cisco Secure Access in terms of usability and efficiency seems okay for the limited usage we have for the multi-tenant. I cannot really comment if it is good or bad.

I would rate this review a 10 overall.

I am dealing with Cisco Secure Access products. As a consultant and reseller, I am using it myself with Cisco Secure Access.

You can have tenants with Cisco Secure Access. Tenancy is obviously part of it, so you can have multiple tenants on Secure Access. Especially if you're a managed service provider, you can have multiple tenants where you just have to flip the feature and specify which tenant you're working in. I've used that before to manage multiple infrastructures, and all you have to do is change the tenancy. That is quite useful. It used to be like that for Umbrella as well. Cisco basically just translated it back to Secure Access, so the same feature on Umbrella is on Secure Access as well. We have used it.

It's a best practice recommendation to have Cisco Secure Access integrated with Cisco ISE. With that integration, you can do your segmentation using security group tags and create a micro-segmentation setup with more security. We do that integration.

It's very useful because you can have visibility, especially in terms of logging and knowing who's doing what with Cisco Secure Access. If you have integration with Cisco ISE, then you have a name to traffic. You can have an identity that shows who is doing this, because it's integrated to your Azure network, your Google Cloud, or Active Directory. This makes investigation easier. Additionally, you can do your segmentation based on users and other criteria.

I think Zero Trust Access for application is the feature I find most valuable in Cisco Secure Access.

I only use Cisco Secure Access' AI Access feature for troubleshooting. It has a log feature, and there isn't really any AI element in that. The AI feature is more having an AI tool at the top where you can ask a question to get visibility. You can ask what a log means or ask a question that you want the AI to answer for you. There's an AI icon at the top of the bar, and then you can ask questions. That's basically where the AI feature is. There's no AI in terms of the telemetry unless you ask the AI feature to do it for you. If you want the AI element for that, there's another feature that Cisco has that you have to add as a feature add-on.

Cisco Secure Access has a VPN as a service feature. You have that Zero Trust as well because it's almost a VPN but just for applications. You access the application encrypted, but you don't need a VPN tool to connect. You can just access the application, which is what Zero Trust basically is. If you want VPN as a service, Secure Access has it. If you want to allow remote access for a certain application, then you do the Zero Trust setup, which is also a VPN but you don't need a VPN client to make it work.

Most of the time, I recommend my customers to use Cisco Secure Access' Experience Insights feature for Branch Access, which is basically when you want to tunnel all your traffic. You probably have a gateway in a branch and then you create a tunnel with Secure Access and then you send all clients through that tunnel to Secure Access. Everything including web traffic can be visible. You can also use it for VPN. You can use it to protect applications like I mentioned earlier about Zero Trust. You want to create an application that users can access remotely without using a VPN client, then you can do a Zero Trust setup. You can also do a proxy setup where you send all your internet traffic through Secure Access. These are the four features that I like about Secure Access.

I use Cisco Secure Access' Hybrid Private Access feature for varying the enforcement location for ZTNA private traffic. ZTNA is Zero Trust Networking, the private one.

The policy verification feature helps reduce policy misconfigurations in Cisco Secure Access where you can check to make sure that all your policies are intact. That is something we definitely use, especially if you have a lot of rules going on. You want to make sure that your rules are intact and you don't have any conflicts going on anywhere. That is a feature I always recommend.

I think the AI element of Cisco Secure Access is just asking logs, and I think the AI element can certainly be improved. The first question about how AI can enhance telemetry, that feature is not really there. You do have some kind of AI type element in it, but it's not advanced enough. That's where it's lacking. It's quite good because it's cloud-based. Pricing is also an area for improvement. It is really expensive.

I have been dealing with Cisco Secure Access for about two years.

If you log a ticket with Cisco, they usually come back really quick. I would say nine out of ten.

The pricing is not too bad because it's per headcount with Cisco Secure Access. You check how many clients you have. If you have 500 users, then you base your pricing on that. It's still expensive though. It's an expensive tool to have. I think they can do better in price. There are companies with better pricing options.

FortiGate cloud solution is what I usually recommend instead of Cisco Secure Access. They have something similar as well. If a customer says that Secure Access is too expensive for themselves, I recommend FortiGate because they're not too bad in pricing.

The AI element of Cisco Secure Access should have better guidance on the logs. To be honest, I can't think of anything else because it's quite a robust feature. My overall review rating for Cisco Secure Access is nine out of ten.

Hybrid Cloud

Other

My main use case for Cisco Secure Access is providing secure remote access to internal applications while enforcing Zero Trust security policies. For example, in a lab environment, I used it to securely connect to internal web applications without exposing them directly to the internet. I also used its Secure Web Gateway to monitor and filter web traffic based on organizational policies. Day-to-day, it helps ensure that only authenticated and authorized users can access specific resources, improving security while maintaining a smooth user experience for remote users.

One thing I appreciated about my main use case and the authentication process with Cisco Secure Access was how it centralizes access management and security policies in a single platform. Once authentication and access rules were configured, day-to-day administration became much simpler. It also provided good visibility into user access and security events, making it easier to identify and investigate potential issues. Overall, it improved security without creating unnecessary friction for end-users, which was one of the biggest advantages.

The standout features of Cisco Secure Access are its Zero Trust Network Access, ZTNA, Secure Web Gateway, and multi-factor authentication, MFA, integration. I also appreciate its centralized policy management, which makes it easy to enforce consistent security rules across users and devices. The detailed visibility into user activity and security events helps with monitoring and troubleshooting. Additionally, its cloud-based architecture provides secure access for remote and hybrid users without relying on traditional VPNs, making it both scalable and easy to manage. Overall, these features significantly improve security while maintaining a smooth user experience.

Compared with similar secure access solutions, Cisco Secure Access stands out because of its tight integration with the Cisco security ecosystem and its unified cloud-native platform. Instead of managing multiple separate tools, administrators can enforce consistent security policies from a single console. I also found the Zero Trust approach and detailed visibility into user activity to be stronger than many traditional VPN solutions. These features make it easier to secure remote users while simplifying management, making the platform a good fit for organizations with hybrid or distributed workforces.

Cisco Secure Access is a strong platform, but there are a few areas that could be improved. The initial setup and policy configuration can be complex, especially for organizations new to Zero Trust architecture. The user interface could be more intuitive, making advanced features easier to locate and configure. Reporting and analytics could also provide more customizable dashboards and detailed insights. Providing broader integration and simpler troubleshooting guides would help administrators resolve issues more quickly and improve the overall management experience.

I think Cisco Secure Access could benefit from deeper integrations with a wider range of third-party identity providers, SIEM platforms, and endpoint security solutions to simplify deployment in mixed-vendor environments. I would also like to see more built-in troubleshooting tools and guided policy recommendations, which would reduce the learning curve for new administrators and make ongoing management more efficient.

The reporting tools and third-party integrations could be more flexible and user-friendly. These are areas for improvement, but they do not outweigh the platform's overall strengths and value.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for approximately six months.

The authentication process for users in Cisco Secure Access was generally straightforward and easy to configure. Integrating it with an identity provider and enabling multi-factor authentication, MFA, was smooth, and the user onboarding experience was simple. The main challenge was configuring access policies correctly for different user groups during the initial setup, as it required careful planning and testing. Once those policies were in place, authentication became reliable and seamless. Overall, the setup was manageable, and the platform provided a secure, yet user-friendly login experience.

I would confidently recommend Cisco Secure Access to organizations looking to modernize secure remote access.

Cisco Secure Access has a strong approach to AI governance and security. I appreciate that its AI-driven capabilities are supported by Zero Trust principles, identity-based access controls, and continuous monitoring. The platform provides good visibility into user activity and helps detect suspicious behavior while maintaining strict security policies. From a governance perspective, centralized policy management and detailed audit logs support compliance.

I believe there is still room for improvement.

I find the AI capabilities of Cisco Secure Access to be accurate and reliable for most security-related tasks. The platform consistently identifies potential threats, provides relevant security insights, and helps prioritize alerts, which reduces manual effort for administrators. In my experience, the recommendations are generally actionable and aligned with security best practices. While no AI system is perfect and some alerts may require manual verification, the overall accuracy is high enough to improve operational efficiency and support faster decision-making. I would consider its AI output trustworthy for day-to-day security operations. I gave this review a rating of 9.

Our main use cases for Cisco Secure Access focus on information security direction in companies like banks, and we are implementing it in on-premise or cloud systems while integrating it into third-party vendors, particularly with information security teams.

I appreciate the posturing feature of Cisco Secure Access because it is very useful, especially when our company needs a hybrid system combining on-premise and cloud systems to work together with security; there are many features, and while I cannot tell you specific ones because it is part of the business, I basically value all of them.

I can provide that these features of Cisco Secure Access benefit not only our company but also the business that implements this approach, as our company is a professional team who knows how it works, and we are implementing what they need; our benefit is that we know it very well, and Cisco also supports us in this direction while we develop our IT and security knowledge.

When we started to use features such as AI assistance in Cisco Secure Access, it became very helpful for the IT and infosec staff because they have more visibility, and as an operational team, it saves them time.

I evaluate the AI Access feature of Cisco Secure Access as very new at this moment since we are just starting in a testing regime; we are now working on trusting everything about how it works, but I can say that deep dive visibility is more available now than it was before with these AI assistance features.

We are integrating Cisco Identity Intelligence with Cisco Secure Access, and it is the engine of everything.

This integration influences our identity management and security measures to be 100% better than they were before.

Cisco Secure Access could be improved with fewer bugs; we need to address less software bugs, as there are technical issues and errors in the software, which we are trying to resolve to achieve a more stable version that companies can use without issues, but it is a working process, and we understand this.

We started to use Cisco Secure Access about two years ago, especially in the government and financial sector, so we have two years of experience.

Technical support from Cisco is very helpful.

I would rate technical support a nine and customer service a 7.5.

The ratings reflect our region; it is not a global assessment, but in our region, it is this way.

Positive

Prior to adopting Cisco Secure Access, we were using another solution to address similar needs.

My experience deploying Cisco Secure Access is that it is very intuitive for a technical team, though the challenge lies in understanding the underlying processes; once that knowledge is acquired, deploying Cisco Secure Access becomes much easier, and if the team does not understand how the underlay routes work, that presents complexity.

I have not seen a return on investment with Cisco Secure Access.

Setup costs and pricing for Cisco Secure Access are not our case since we are doing it ourselves, and I think the pricing and licensing are acceptable and comparable to other solutions.

We are using Cloudflare, and I believe the factors that led us to consider a change involve the different approaches of Cloudflare compared to Cisco Secure Access, which depend on business requirements.

Before choosing Cisco Secure Access, we considered using Palo Alto Prisma, and compared to Cisco, Palo Alto is a more expensive option for business, which is one of the most differentiated reasons why we are using Cisco Secure Access at this moment.

The help desk ticket volume and end-user experience have been impacted by Cisco Secure Access deployment such that it may take two to three months, with a reduction of two times.

We are just starting to use the AI assistant feature in Cisco Secure Access.

At this moment, I cannot answer how effective AI supply chain risk management is specifically for the pre-enforcement controls for developers downloading AI models because I have no experience.

I use ZTNA in Cisco Secure Access every day.

Cisco Secure Access is client-based or clientless, depending on business requirements.

It is always difficult to transition the mindset of the company to Zero Trust and least privilege principles, but after deep dive work, it works.

After integrating identity management and ISE in the company, everybody starts to use all policies and begins understanding the security policies; it is a unified solution for all business segments, not just IT, which has greatly benefited the entire company and influenced its development.

We do not use the Experience Insights feature, Digital Experience Monitoring, or DEM powered by ThousandEyes of Cisco Secure Access at this moment in our company.

In comparison to past years, Cisco Secure Access has improved very well at this moment.

It is very flexible, a very competitive solution, very helpful, and very secure; it includes everything a business needs, and the pricing is also available.

I advise other companies considering Cisco Secure Access to first evaluate their business requirements, then make a demo to compare with other solutions, and subsequently try to step-by-step migrate all their services and policies, ensuring they achieve the best solution for their IT and security teams. I would rate this review a nine overall.

Cisco Secure Access is used primarily for VPN, implementing Zero Trust, and ThousandEyes at my company. Nearly all of our end-users use the VPN, which allows them to access the network outside of the building. Implementing Zero Trust requires some industry certifications.

Cisco Secure Access being a complete platform makes sense when you have all Cisco switches and routers, as it allows for an easy setup. We previously used AnyConnect VPN, so upgrading to Cisco Secure Access was a natural decision to help people be secure.

We do use VPN as a Service in Cisco Secure Access.

We are currently going through a significant project where everyone is still using Cisco Secure Access VPN. We are trying to transition slowly to get people into profiles so that we can leverage Zero Trust. This is an ongoing effort we are working through.

We have the feature called ThousandEyes in Cisco Secure Access, but I do not know what it does.

The multi-organization management capability of Cisco Secure Access is really easy to use and straightforward. It definitely helps if you have used Cisco platforms in the past. Training somebody to leverage the tools would be pretty easy, especially with that background.

Cisco Secure Access being a complete platform makes sense when you have all Cisco switches and routers, as it allows for an easy setup. We previously used AnyConnect VPN, so upgrading to Cisco Secure Access was a natural decision to help people be secure.

The multi-organization management capability of Cisco Secure Access is really easy to use and straightforward. It definitely helps if you have used Cisco platforms in the past. Training somebody to leverage the tools would be pretty easy, especially with that background.

I cannot answer yet how Cisco Secure Access can be improved because we are still onboarding and I do not know what it all does yet.

One critique I have about the onboarding process is that for a lot of Cisco apps, you do have to sign back into everything. If you want to access your switches and then go into Cisco Secure Access, it is two separate logins, but they are both Cisco platforms. I feel that maybe an integration into one to have more of one cohesive overall platform for all Cisco apps would be beneficial.

We recently started onboarding Cisco Secure Access to try and implement Zero Trust about six months ago. We are in the early phases with a full running deployment. It is still an uphill battle.

I cannot blame any downtime, crashes, or performance issues on Cisco Secure Access because I did have one thing, but it is not because of Cisco Secure Access.

Cisco Secure Access so far has been pretty easy, and I do not think we have noticed any real drops because of the platform.

We have experienced customer service and technical support where we have opened a few TAC cases. We have had problems in the past, but we have gotten everything smoothed over and taken care of relatively quickly. All high-priority tickets on those TAC cases got taken care of within the day. So there are no real issues with support.

I would give technical support probably an eight for customer service and technical support. I cannot think of a time where we have been without support, so the reliability is probably a nine or ten.

I did upgrade from Umbrella.

We made the move from Cisco Umbrella to Cisco Secure Access to keep up with industry standards, since things are ever-changing in the tech world.

We made the decision to move to stay up-to-date, and we have been happy with the platform. Umbrella was great. Cisco Secure Access allows us to get a little deeper into some of the things, and having everything on one platform definitely helps, so I do not have to log into fifteen different things to access our switches.

The experience with the deployment of Cisco Secure Access is pretty smooth, honestly. We redeployed the VPN and then Zero Trust and ThousandEyes. Once we got everything set up and running, it was not difficult at all.

The biggest return on investment when using Cisco Secure Access is definitely an investment into security. That is my specialty, cybersecurity, so any tool that will allow us to have more visibility into our networking and securing our end-users is priceless.

We have been using Cisco devices for years, since before I started working there, so it was a natural move for us to choose Cisco security.

I would rate Cisco Secure Access overall an eight point five out of ten. It is a nice platform. It does what we need it to do. For organizations and users trying to implement Cisco Secure Access, I would say get familiar with the Cisco platform before trying to deploy it. It is harder trying to set the policies when you have end-users already actively on the platform. Do your testing, get what you need to get done, and then deploy it.

I do not have anything else that I did not ask correctly or that I missed that I would like to add about my experience overall. I would rate Cisco Secure Access overall an eight point five out of ten.

The major use cases for clients regarding Cisco Secure Access involve ZTNA, for when you require cloud services, like ZTNA, Secure Web Gateway, CASB, and Firewall as a Service. When you want to secure your on-premises equipment, on-premises data center, or services center, we provide the connectivity through the cloud, and at that moment, we use Cisco Secure Access.

The ZTNA part in Cisco is very important because it helps my customers to secure applications. When you configure your application or deploy your application on the on-premises data center and you want to access it where there is no trust on the inbound—whether you are an enterprise user, a remote user, or any other user coming through the cloud—then you will provide only the split tunnel or the tunnel between the cloud and your data center, which provides Cisco Secure Access.

CASB is also relevant when your services are deployed in many different cloud services, as you can use CASB in those scenarios.

The biggest benefit of Cisco Secure Access, compared to Fortinet or other solutions from Palo Alto or Prisma, is its adaptability to different network environments.

Customers appreciate the good features of Cisco Secure Access because it is a hybrid network solution. When there is a hybrid network, customers require Cisco Secure Access so they can access both cloud services and on-premises data center services.

I would say it is easy to manage Cisco Secure Access through this console. It is similar to managing a firewall, such as the FTD, and the console is straightforward.

I have seen that if the on-premises devices are Cisco devices, then we use Cisco SSE. However, when there are Fortinet devices, then we use FortiSSE, which indicates a potential area for improvement.

Cisco could add new features in the future, such as enhanced automation capabilities. They are providing automation in their technology, which is an improvement area. If you use automation tools like Red Hat, you can perform automation more effectively. Regarding AI, I think Cisco is doing well, though there is still room for improvement in AI capabilities.

I started working with Cisco Secure Access relatively recently, but I understand how it works and how we submit proposals for Cisco Secure Access and Fortinet security solutions. When we require cloud security, then we provide Cisco Secure Access and SSE.

Cisco is stable and reliable.

Scalability mostly depends on the architecture, not on the hardware or OEM. How you architect and define the network design determines scalability. If you do not have a good architecture, you cannot achieve scalability.

I think Cisco's technical support is good. I believe that both Cisco technical support and Juniper technical support are very good.

If the requirement is for Cisco equipment, then we propose Cisco Secure Access. If the requirement is for Fortinet, then we provide FortiSafety.

As a system implementer, I think the biggest advantage of the product is its usability in various scenarios.

I am not certain who is the leader when comparing Cisco with Fortinet and Palo Alto. Both are good at what they do, and sometimes we cannot use all the features of any product. We use specialized or customized features for our data center according to customer requirements, and all follow standard features and protocols, which are good.

The HTTP protocol is important for connecting through the cloud or establishing a tunnel. A VPN service and another tunnel between the cloud SSE and your on-premises data center are essential.

Cisco Secure Client provides the resource connector. There is a connector on the on-premises data center, so we establish a secure connection, mostly VPN or IPsec VPN, between the cloud and the data center.

I would say that Cisco Secure Access is effective in protection from ransomware and phishing attacks. It is a standard they are using, and when you are using Cisco devices, then you can rely on Cisco cloud.

Both deployment parts are not very difficult. It is straightforward.

I did not deploy Cisco Secure Access myself, but I understand from my team that it is not a big challenge.

Cisco could add new features in the future, such as enhanced automation capabilities. They are providing automation in their technology, which is an improvement area.

My experience is primarily with clients using a hybrid model.

We mostly integrate with Azure and AWS through the cloud.

I cannot say who is the leader when comparing Cisco with Fortinet and Palo Alto. Both are good at what they do, and sometimes we cannot use all the features of any product. We use specialized or customized features for our data center according to customer requirements, and all follow standard features and protocols, which are good.

I would rate Cisco support at an eight out of ten. The overall review rating for this product is nine out of ten.

Hybrid Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Our main use case is application security and user security.

The feature I like the most about Cisco Secure Access is the rate at which you can secure your application in-depth, similar to DPI on the security side of it.

Using the VPN SaaS in Cisco has influenced us greatly because it gives you a seamless transition from your legacy systems to this new system that is available, so the transition has been seamless.

So far, I have not had any issue with Cisco Secure Access, so in terms of areas to improve, we are satisfied.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for the past four years.

So far, we have not experienced any issue with the stability and reliability of Cisco Secure Access. In terms of reliability, it has been doing what we wanted it to do, and we are hoping that it stays that way.

On this product, I would rate customer service and tech support an eight. I have other products with Cisco, but for this specific product, I would rate it about an eight.

I think we were using Zscaler before Cisco Secure Access.

I do not remember what prompted the change, but moving to Cisco Secure Access has been good.

I was more involved in the pilot phase when we were setting up Cisco Secure Access, but I'm not involved in the pricing for that; the architect team handles that.

We had help from Cisco deploying Cisco Secure Access, so we did not have that many challenges because the support was there.

When we were picking Cisco Secure Access, I did not consider other options. I started getting involved when it was down to two products, one being something that comes with Palo Alto. Since we are a Cisco shop, it makes things easy to get the Cisco product and then integrate everything together.

I have had experience with the Experience Insights feature, but not as much as my security team because I'm more on the networking side. However, sometimes I work with the security team, and from what I have heard from them so far, they have not had any issues since we made the transition.

We have not evaluated the AI Access feature of Cisco Secure Access for providing deep visibility and control over AI applications, tools, and large models because I have not actually used the AI side of things. However, we use many Cisco products that come with the AI feature.

I do not know if they are still using the hybrid private access feature for varying the enforcement location.

I have not used the policy verification to help produce policy misconfigurations.

I am satisfied so far with the product. My overall review rating for Cisco Secure Access is 8.5 out of 10.

Hybrid Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

The first use case is access to the private application on the data center. The second use case is access to the cloud application on the cloud, plus the branches connected to the branches.

When discussing how easy or difficult it is to manage Cisco Secure Access through the single cloud managed console, I find it very easy. Cisco Secure Access is similar to Umbrella and Meraki; it requires just a few clicks to configure what I need or what use case I have.

The features I have found most valuable in Cisco Secure Access include Data Loss Prevention, Web Security Gateway, Cloud-delivered Firewall, and CASB. All of these features are amazing on Cisco Secure Access.

Regarding the integration of Secure Access with CASB functionality for exposing shadow IT within my organization, it gives me powerful capabilities to control shadow IT and its integration and features for Data Loss Prevention.

For sales, it is easy to tell the client about the benefits because it is simple, with only one or two lines for pricing. For pre-sales, it is very good as I can configure it in two clicks on CCW. The use cases can be summarized in just two or three slides of presentation. The user experience is very easy because the security is invisible to end users, meaning they do not suffer from strict security preventing them from doing their job. I find it an amazing product, and as it is an upgrade for Umbrella, it has all the good sides of Umbrella while removing some bad sides.

Based on my experience, the main point for improvement is the full integration on the Meraki dashboard. Cisco Secure Access with Meraki MX forms what we call a SASE solution. However, currently, Cisco Secure Access does not appear on the Meraki dashboard; they are still using Umbrella, which does not fully unify with Cisco Meraki.

Regarding functionality, I do not find things that need to be improved, except that Cisco should make the security web gateway, URL filtering, IPS, and fire-walling more robust for large businesses. These features are suitable for small and medium businesses but may need enhancements for larger enterprises.

For large businesses, it does need some improvement, but if it improved, I think it will not be enough as it is targeting small and medium businesses. This is not a drawback, just correct sizing.

I have been working with Cisco Secure Access since its launch, which is about two years ago.

For stability, I would rate Cisco Secure Access a nine. It is a new product, and although two years is not long enough to fully judge stability, I have not found anyone who complains about Cisco Secure Access or even its predecessor, Cisco Umbrella.

Positive

Regarding scalability, cloud solutions inherently allow for scaling up and down without issues, but as I mentioned before, it is primarily for small and medium businesses. I cannot judge its applicability for enterprise use at this stage, but for certain, I would give it a nine.

Positive

For technical support from Cisco for Secure Access, I rate them ten out of ten. Cisco is known for its exceptional support, with a lot of team resources available.

Positive

Regarding the initial setup for Cisco Secure Access, I find it very simple, and it is a native cloud solution; it is not on-premises at all. If Cisco decided to create an on-premises version as a unique delivery option, it would be an outstanding out-of-the-box solution.

For pricing, I consider this one of the few drawbacks of Cisco. Cisco is known for its high pricing, so I would give them a six.

Positive

In my opinion, the main competitors in the market for Cisco Secure Access are vendors delivering SASE solutions such as Palo Alto, Fortinet, and maybe Huawei, but I do not have a real branding name for these. I have not done in-depth comparisons with these products, but we can compare features such as DLP on Cisco versus Forcepoint.

Cisco Secure Access operates on the Cisco native cloud and not AWS or Azure; it operates in Cisco data centers.

I can recommend Cisco Secure Access to other users, especially if their country approves cloud solutions for their people. I am 100% confident in recommending this solution. I rate this review an eight out of ten.

Public Cloud

Other

I have been using Cisco Secure Access in my company only. The primary use cases for Cisco Secure Access include VPN, posturing, Dot1x authentication, and AAA. I am using VPN as a service in Cisco Secure Access. We are not using ZTNA, but we are using the legacy VPN.

All the features of Cisco Secure Access are valuable, but in terms of endpoint health security, posturing is a good feature, and VPN is also a good feature. That is a feature of Cisco Secure Access that I did not explore. My experience with the Experience Insights feature, digital experience monitoring powered by ThousandEyes, is limited as I don’t have knowledge about that one.

I am not using the AI Assistant feature in Cisco Secure Access. That is also a feature we are not using in Cisco Secure Access. Integrating Cisco Identity Intelligence with Cisco Secure Access is also not something we are using. We use policy verification on the FTD to help reduce policy misconfigurations.

Cisco Secure Access is basically a good product, but nowadays, there are more competitive vendors available in the market with friendlier interfaces and technical features, so people are moving to those solutions instead of preferring Cisco Secure Access. The interface of Cisco Secure Access is more complex; for example, upgrading a security product for Cisco ICE takes more than eight hours, while other security products take only thirty minutes to one hour. That is a drawback.

Overall complexity is the main drawback of Cisco Secure Access that I see. I have mentioned the problems with configuration, interface, and overall complexity.

I have been working with Cisco Secure Access for more than five years.

Policy misconfigurations have caused slowdowns or blocked access for users in the past.

In my company, approximately 600 plus users are using Cisco Secure Access, and we have only three or four maximum administrators. As of now, I don’t have the headcount to increase usage in the future; it is already under 600, but maybe we will onboard some expected new employees. I have faced issues with scaling it up.

Usually when I am raising a case, I am getting proper support from Cisco. I rate their technical support a nine out of ten.

Before Cisco Secure Access, I worked with other vendors, which can be considered other partners.

Deployment of Cisco Secure Access is not going to be very easy, but somehow it can be manageable. The implementation time for Cisco Secure Access depends upon the scenario and what we are going to implement.

I have deployed Cisco Secure Access by myself and with the help of a third party; both methods were used. Basically, I am enough for the deployment, but if I want to take help from another partner, one person is enough to work with me.

I have seen return on investment with Cisco Secure Access. It took about three years for me to see ROI approximately with Cisco Secure Access.

Pricing-wise, it is reasonable for Cisco Secure Access. I did not purchase Cisco Secure Access directly from the vendor; I got it from a partner. I am a customer of Cisco, and we used to purchase through the partner only, not directly from Cisco.

FortiGate and Palo Alto are currently the competition that I see taking the lead in the market against Cisco Secure Access. The advantages of FortiGate and Palo Alto over Cisco Secure Access include their easiness; people configure them very easily, and they have a vast feature set to control them, along with more granular options for making policies and other features.

I am planning to stay with Cisco Secure Access because our complete infrastructure is Cisco dependent, so we will keep it as it is; changing it would mean removing everything from the access layer to the core layer. My organization is not a partner or reseller of Cisco; we are customers. I would rate Cisco Secure Access an eight out of ten overall.

On-premises