Cisco Secure Access Reviews

We use Cisco Secure Access as a VPN where people are able to connect back to Cisco Secure Access, and from there we have an infrastructure that comes down to the inside enterprise level. We open a port for the firewall to be able to have VPN access.

We use Cisco Secure Client and Cisco Secure Endpoint, so there are two different clients that are able to have VPN access back to the users. Cisco Secure Client is really efficient for all the users and mostly for the enterprise, so I would say Cisco Secure Client would be the primary one.

Cisco Secure Client is really efficient for all the users and mostly for the enterprise, so I would say Cisco Secure Client would be the one.

At the firewall, we manage identity through identity management. We also have Cisco ICE as an identity management tool. We have TACACS+ and RADIUS to be able to find out who is actually trying to hit the access and who is not.

We have integrated it, and ICE is playing a crucial role in that.

I do not have answers for that now, though it is an interesting question. Hopefully, that is something I have to investigate based upon what problem I have and bring it up, but I do not really seem to be having any problem with that right now.

I have been there for two and a half years so far. Since I am aware of it, it has been two years. I do not know what is behind that, but since I am aware of it, it is two and a half years.

Based upon the user levels, users have a little bit of a problem, but as IT people, we deploy it and there is no inconsistency with that. Everything looks to be fine from my standpoint. If we see there is a problem, then there is no point in putting that infrastructure into an environment. Everything is efficient and strong enough for now.

If they have access, they will reach out to us, and then we support them.

We open a ticket with Cisco, and the support team usually handles most of the communications.

They are all good. I do not really have an answer for that question, but since I have not heard anything negative, it would be positive.

They used to have Cisco DNA, but this is not something I have known. Based upon the references and documentation that I have seen, they used to have Cisco DNA. After that, when I joined, we were using Cisco Secure Client. From then on, that is what I am aware of.

Cisco Secure Client is what we use.

We do not use other solutions.

It is a pretty much small shop, so it is okay. It is simple and it is basic efficiency for us to be able to manage. I guess that question is probably with the management systems, and I do not deal with the numbering systems.

It is decent.

I would rate it to nine for now, and during the deployment, I was not there, so I do not really have an understanding of how smooth and how efficient that was. I rate this review a ten overall.

On-premises

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

My main use case for Cisco Secure Access is to secure our network. A specific example of how I'm using Cisco Secure Access to secure my network is that we use it for our customers as an internet service provider to ensure everything is safe.

In my experience so far, I haven't noticed any best features that stand out with Cisco Secure Access. One feature that does sound useful to me is Zero Touch.

The Zero Trust feature in Cisco Secure Access works very well, but I have no idea about its specifics. Some common positive impacts I mention include faster troubleshooting, which I have noticed since using Cisco Secure Access.

Cisco Secure Access has helped with faster troubleshooting because when we were troubleshooting a loop in a network of our customers, with just a few clicks, I found where it came from and where it was going, so I closed this interface and everything is good.

I am using the AI Assistant feature in Cisco Secure Access, and it has helped in improving my security administrative tasks by summarizing pages or outputs of troubleshooting, which is helping so much. The most helpful thing the AI assistant has done for me is making recommendations for solutions during troubleshooting, which helps me focus on what to think about.

I think Cisco Secure Access can be improved, but as I said, I'm still new in this field, so I can't say something now. I plan to improve my skills more and gain more experience, and maybe I can send them an improvement by mail or something similar. I do not have more to add about the needed improvements.

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

In my experience, Cisco Secure Access is very stable, and I do not have issues with downtime or reliability.

Cisco Secure Access' scalability seems to keep up with my needs as my organization grows.

My experience with customer support for Cisco Secure Access has been okay, but it is not very fast.

Negative

I did not previously use a different solution before Cisco Secure Access, so I'm not sure about that.

Cisco Secure Access is deployed in my organization on-premises. I'm not sure if we use VPNaaS in Cisco Secure Access. I haven't used the Experience Insights feature powered by ThousandEyes yet; I know about ThousandEyes, but we do not use it yet.

I'm not sure if I have integrated Cisco Identity Intelligence with Cisco Secure Access. I haven't used policy verification in Cisco Secure Access as I am still new and do not configure any policies. I help mostly with troubleshooting something that's already running, just looking for anything wrong here and there.

I do not have anything unique to add about how I or my customers are using Cisco Secure Access.

Since using Cisco Secure Access, I haven't seen a return on investment and I do not have this information regarding saved time, money, or fewer employees.

Before choosing Cisco Secure Access, we evaluated a few solutions such as Cisco Meraki, Cisco ISE, and Catalyst Center.

Since I started using Cisco Secure Access, I have noticed positive impacts on my organization. My advice for others looking into using Cisco Secure Access would be to try it; it is very nice to have in a good environment, such as service providers. I would give this product a rating of 8 out of 10.

On-premises

Managing Cisco Secure Access through the single cloud management console will not be difficult if you experience it once. This means once you have hands-on experience, you know how to operate it. In the first time, you might have a challenge because you need to understand the system. However, once you understand it, it will not be difficult anymore.

I find the zero trust approach helpful and beneficial in securing standard applications, which means you are accessing the applications directly instead of giving privilege to access the network itself. This is very beneficial in the context of security and is very effective.

Regarding the threat detection and response capabilities, because it's integrated in the cloud, users don't have to configure it to integrate with Talos. The feed that it has is already there, detecting malware and blocking it by itself from the Cisco Secure Access. The Intel is there, and we do not need to manually integrate with Talos.

My personal thinking about Cisco Secure Access is that because I'm also catching up on this solutioning, I'm not really seeing any improvement because I'm still learning. So far, it's good; I do not have any comment on this.

Regarding features about the UI, the pricing, and the learning curve of Cisco Secure Access that can be improved, the AI is already embedded in the solution. Because I haven't explored much and am not an expert, the features might be there, but I haven't tested them out.

When it comes to thoughts on the pricing, setup cost, and licensing cost of Cisco Secure Access, I cannot comment as I only did SSE for Cisco and did not have experience with other products. In terms of price comparisons, I cannot provide much insight.

The more competitive the pricing for Cisco Secure Access becomes, the better it would be for customers.

Throughout my experience with Cisco Secure Access, I have had some stability and reliability issues, including lagging when accessing the portal. Sometimes the response is fast, and sometimes it's slow, with response information that can be either correct or wrong. However, I consider these minor issues because they recover in a few minutes afterwards, though there are still glitches present.

In evaluating my experience with the technical support and customer service of Cisco Secure Access, during the POC, we did not leverage tech support at that particular moment; instead, we engaged directly with the SE team, the Cisco System Engineer teams.

Positive

Regarding the experience with the initial setup of Cisco Secure Access, it is important to communicate with the customers on the requirements, so they understand and prepare whatever we need to set up the POC. We need to communicate effectively with them and let them know what we need. Once our requirement is fulfilled, we can proceed. The key point is that communication with the customer must be maintained.

Once we have all of the requirements, the setup of the product itself is not that difficult. The first time requires understanding many things, but after the deployment and gaining experience, it becomes quite straightforward.

I give Cisco Secure Access a seven because I did study other products as well. While I haven't deployed any other SSE product, I went for the training. The way of deploying and the solution is quite seamless, but that's my current assessment without hands-on experience with the other products.

As a partner with Cisco, this relationship is more related to the partners agreements, which is why we are selling Cisco Secure Access.

My impressions of Cisco Secure Access on protecting organizations from threats such as phishing or ransomware attacks are based on my recent POC. There aren't many use cases I have shown to the customer, but I can confirm that the solution is effective.

I would evaluate my experience with the Cisco team as an eight on a scale of one to 10, where 10 is the best.

My advice for other users who would like to start working with Cisco Secure Access is to find a good service integrator. As I come from the service integrator background, my advice to end users is to collaborate with a reliable SI that has the expected expertise on the solutions they are going to purchase and enroll.

The overall rating for Cisco Secure Access is 7 out of 10.

I use this solution for securing security controls like Secure Security Control (SSC) for local Internet breakouts. It offers a unified security policy across Google sites, providing secure web gateways, DNS and web security filtering, and multi-malware protection. These features are essential for comprehensive security.

The main feature of interest to me and the customers is DNS security and Integrated Secure Web Control (ISWC).

There is a need for improved global coverage since the service relies on the cloud provider's data centers. We are seeking more granular and global coverage to meet our demands. 

Modernization is needed, specifically in the enhancement of security features and functionality. Utilizing AI-oriented features is also important, considering what other vendors offer and their marketing strategies.

According to the vendor's claims, the solution is adaptable and scalable. I would rate scalability at eight to nine out of ten.

I am not able to read their resources, but I understand they have a good support organization. This stems from their original business in networking, integrating router and switch operations, as well as security devices. I assume the same organization now bridges into customer support.

Neutral

Cisco is not well accepted in the market since they are somewhat behind their competitors.

I would rate the initial setup at seven out of ten. The commercial aspects are significant here, primarily the recognition level compared to other dedicated suppliers approaching the market with stronger messages.

I am on the presale side, and the delivery aspect is handled by other people in the organization.

Prices are determined in the Compass. I do not refer to the suggested detail or the suggested list price, however, it is highly case-oriented. In the competitive landscape, they offer some advantages with Cisco deal IDs. However, renewal prices have been surprisingly high.

They have a strong brand and are supported by Cisco's traditional organization. 

I would rate them seven out of ten overall. 

Google

We primarily use Cisco Secure Access based on customer requirements, especially in the BFSI sector. They require Cisco Secure Access for their external branches and remote users. We mostly work with BFSI sectors who need Cisco Secure Access for their network. We have been resellers and integrators for this solution for more than eight years.

The most valuable feature of Cisco Secure Access is the level of security it provides. Cisco's dedication to the security industry is evident with how it remains up-to-date on current situations and recent attacks. Updates are frequent, and firmware upgrades are delivered promptly. It is very easy to stay updated, which is crucial for maintaining security.

The main area for improvement is pricing. Prices are high when compared to competitors, which makes it challenging to position the product with customers. If Cisco wants to enhance its product position in regions like South Asia, it needs to consider its pricing strategies seriously.

We have been working with Cisco Secure Access for more than eight years.

Implementation is very easy. Even if challenges arise, relevant documentation is readily available.

The solution is stable enough, and I did not experience any latency or performance issues.

Cisco Secure Access is scalable. I did not find any issues with scalability, and we did not receive any negative feedback from customers.

Our engineers are very satisfied with the features, technical assistance, and documentation provided by Cisco.

Positive

This solution is very easy to install.

Implementation requires two people. For maintenance, the same number of people is involved.

The main issue with pricing is that it is higher compared to other competitors, making it challenging to work with customers unless they specifically request Cisco. Also, the discount rates provided by Cisco for Asian countries are not sufficient.

Apart from Cisco, we also deal with Palo Alto, Fortinet, FortiGate, and Check Point.

My overall rating for Cisco Secure Access is nine out of ten. Although I could rate it ten out of ten, the pricing factor brings it down to nine. In terms of technical support, I would rate it nine out of ten.

Our primary use case for Cisco Secure Access is seamless connectivity for users, whether they are inside our corporate network or accessing it externally over the internet. The users do not have to switch on VPNs and reconnect. They can directly connect to Cisco Secure Access using Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA) and access all resources as if they are inside the corporate network.

The main feature I appreciate in Cisco Secure Access is the ZTNA feature, which provides excellent connectivity for remote users. We have been using Cisco Umbrella for several years, and this additional feature of ZTNA has enhanced our connectivity experience significantly. Seamless connectivity, whether inside or outside the corporate network, is a standout feature. It eliminates the hassle of switching on VPNs and provides a direct connection to resources via Cisco Secure Access.

At this moment, I am unable to comment on areas for improvement as we are just starting to work with the solution. However, I find that the complex procedure for raising support tickets is a significant drawback. Previously, sending an email would automatically create a ticket, but now it requires accessing specific portals, making the process complicated.

We have been using Cisco Secure Access for only a month since it is not yet fully deployed.

Even a basic IT person can deploy the policies for Cisco Secure Access, making it a very user-friendly and efficient setup. We have deployed it for about one hundred users so far, with a target of one thousand users.

I rate the stability of Cisco Secure Access as ten out of ten.

I would rate the scalability nine out of ten. There is always room for improvement.

Having been associated with Cisco for more than fifteen to twenty years, I find it increasingly difficult to get tech support these days. Although Cisco is reliable, the process to raise a support ticket has become more complex, requiring specific user accounts and access to specialized platforms.

Positive

Having tested only FortiGate and Sophos before, I prefer Cisco Secure Access based on my experience. I find Cisco provides a better experience.

The setup for Cisco Secure Access is straightforward and can be accomplished easily by IT staff with basic knowledge. The deployment process is smooth and does not pose any major issues.

Cisco is known for being a premium product, and its pricing reflects this. Although competitive, a more flexible pricing model could attract more companies, especially those with smaller user bases.

Solutions such as FortiGate, Zscaler, Palo Alto, and Sophos provide similar security access features. However, based on my evaluation, Cisco Secure Access offers a more favorable experience.

In terms of overall rating, I give Cisco Secure Access a nine. I would definitely recommend it to other users.

Public Cloud

Other

I deploy Cisco Secure Access for my users to have remote access to on-premises infrastructure.

Cisco Secure Access is very helpful because I just configure it once and it is pretty scalable itself.

What I like the most about Cisco Secure Access is that it is really easy to use and it is secure. Additionally, it comes with different add-ons, such as pairing it with Umbrella, which is very helpful so that we can get analytics.

The benefits I have experienced from using Cisco Secure Access identity-based security measures in my organization make it more secure. I can do multi-factor authentication with that and I am also doing a bit of device posturing, which is improving my security posture.

I will pass on providing feedback on how Cisco Secure Access can be improved and what additional features I want to see in the next release.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for probably about the last seven years, even when it was called AnyConnect.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support as probably an eight.

Before using Cisco Secure Access, I simultaneously considered some other vendor solutions and some open source solutions as well.

They used FortiGate, FortiClient, and also Checkpoint.

I have not tried to evaluate return on investment.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing is that compared to other solutions, it is pretty standard.

With these features, Cisco Secure Access gives a good value.

On-premises

Microsoft Azure

My main use case for Cisco Secure Access is to administer my firewalls, FTDs, and to control my ACLs, along with all administration tasks and IPS management.

One of the features I value most is the URL filtering, along with malware and anti-malware capabilities.

I experience several benefits from Cisco Secure Access identity-based security measures, including all benefits since the administration is on the cloud, the facility for entry, and all other capabilities and features.

I measure the impact of detailed analytics on my understanding of network vulnerabilities by recognizing that we are very protected with Cisco Secure Access solution.

I believe Cisco Secure Access can be improved, but I trust this solution very much. It is very good.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for three years.

I evaluate customer service and technical support when I have problems as very fast.

Before, I used another solution that was an on-premises solution, FMC, Firepower Management Center.

My experience with pricing, setup, and licensing is that it is an easy process.

I would describe my experience with deploying Cisco Secure Access as very easy.

I did not consider other competition when picking Cisco Secure Access, as I work half my life with Cisco.

I assess the platform's ability to adapt to cyber threats as very well. I give this review a rating of 10.

On-premises

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

We use the solution for authentications and accounting services. 

We use the tool in the Finance and IT sectors. We provide Cisco Secure Access solutions to various clients, including government agencies, to enhance network security.

The most valuable feature is the authentication feature.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for two years.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten.

The solution’s scalability is good. More than 50 admin users use this solution. I rate the solution’s scalability a ten out of ten.

I received support from the team for Cisco Secure Access related to web services. There were occasional delays of up to two working days. With our live chat options or by contacting a specialist directly, we were able to address any issues. Additionally, Cisco provides resources and lessons that can be beneficial in such situations.

Positive

The initial setup is easy.

The tool is expensive. It costs around 25,000-30,000 per year. There is an additional cost for monitoring, setup, or hardware.

In the Secure Access process, we manage authentication for corporate data, resources, and user policies to ensure that transactions are conducted securely. This involves verifying user identities and ensuring access is granted only to authorized individuals.

Sometimes, authentication takes only two or five minutes. Cisco is easy to access and is user-friendly. There is a brand policy, value, and nearability.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

On-premises

It's user-friendly and easy to manage by administrators, and the performance is very good. The security is good.

We can manage security, user channels, and all the functions on the Cisco feature, including VLAN and more. 

Cisco Secure Access have to improve the security points.

I have been using it for the last five years. 

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

It is a scalable solution. 

There are around 200 people who use it in my company. We use firewall for WANs and Access Points is for the internal network. And there's guest Wi-Fi for guest flow.

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

The customer service and support are very good. 

Positive

We plan to change Cisco with another vendor.

Cisco Secure Access is easy to install. 

It is expensive. 

Overall, I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

Its performance is very good, and it's easy to manage. I will recommend it to other people.

Public Cloud