Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) vs Forcepoint ONE comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
8.4
Cisco Identity Services Engine enhances security, reduces breaches, ensures compliance, simplifies management, and consolidates systems for cost savings and efficiency.
Sentiment score
6.8
Forcepoint ONE enhances cybersecurity and productivity, offering risk mitigation despite some users considering Microsoft's comparable solutions.
Direct comparisons with Forescout reveal up to 30% to 40% difference in cost savings.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
5.9
Cisco ISE support is praised for knowledge and responsiveness, yet occasionally inconsistent with integration and follow-up challenges.
Sentiment score
7.2
Forcepoint ONE's support is praised for responsiveness and personalized service, despite some initial response time complaints.
I rate the technical support as one out of ten.
Sometimes it's challenging to identify which support team is responsible for certain issues, which is a significant concern.
They are responsive and assist me with creating cases for any complex issues.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) offers high scalability, supporting large deployments and enterprise expansions despite hardware and setup challenges.
Sentiment score
7.2
Forcepoint ONE offers exceptional scalability with smooth deployments and high adoption rates, especially on AWS for rapid scaling.
Factors like architecture, business nature, and legal limitations such as GDPR affect it.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
Cisco ISE is highly reliable and stable, though larger deployments may experience occasional performance and configuration challenges.
Sentiment score
8.1
Forcepoint ONE offers near-perfect uptime and seamless integration, delivering high reliability and performance with minimal maintenance.
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is considered very reliable and stable.
The stability of Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is poor for certain use cases, like authentication.
 

Room For Improvement

Cisco Identity Services Engine requires improved integration, user interface, documentation, compatibility, and management efficiency to enhance user experience.
Forcepoint ONE needs improved DLP, MFA, AD integration, real-time reporting, scalability, and compatibility with IDP providers for seamless use.
The whole setup works well with Cisco access points and Cisco switches, but when you have multiple vendors in the environment, such as HP switches or access points like Aruba, you'll find they will not work well with Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE).
Pricing can be more expensive compared to other vendors, and there is a significant price gap observed, which doesn't seem justified by some specific features.
Additionally, the product is vulnerable and has many bugs.
I need to control specific functionalities within certain applications, like preventing the transfer of certain file types.
There is room for improvement in making the reporting closer to real-time, ideally around five or ten minutes instead of half an hour.
 

Setup Cost

Cisco ISE offers three pricing tiers, with high costs and complex licensing, but provides extensive features and potential discounts.
Forcepoint ONE offers flexible, negotiable pricing with various licensing options; understanding terms is vital to maximize investment.
The license costs can range between $50,000 to $100,000 per year for enterprises.
Compared to other solutions like HPE ClearPass, Cisco is more costly, and the conversation suggests a possible forty percent price gap compared to competitors.
Making large organizational costs significant.
The pricing is very good and cheaper than other solutions like Netskope and Forcepoint.
The licensing and pricing were fine with no issues.
 

Valuable Features

Cisco ISE enhances network security with integration, 802.1X authentication, policy management, ease of use, and strong access control.
Forcepoint ONE enhances security with location mapping, data protection, seamless integration, and efficient monitoring for effective governance.
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) offers authentication using RADIUS, enhancing network security by separating and segregating networks.
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is very good at device administration.
The solution is integrated with other Cisco devices and can offer automation for an organization, making deployments more dynamic and providing real-time visibility.
The most valuable feature was the website blocking capability, which allowed me to quickly block any dodgy websites.
I can access social networks but block specific platforms like Instagram and Facebook while allowing access to LinkedIn, a professional network.
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Identity Services Eng...
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
142
Ranking in other categories
Network Access Control (NAC) (1st), Cisco Security Portfolio (1st)
Forcepoint ONE
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
Secure Web Gateways (SWG) (20th), Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) (11th), Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) and Forcepoint ONE aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is designed for Network Access Control (NAC) and holds a mindshare of 25.8%, down 31.3% compared to last year.
Forcepoint ONE, on the other hand, focuses on Secure Web Gateways (SWG), holds 1.7% mindshare, up 1.1% since last year.
Network Access Control (NAC)
Secure Web Gateways (SWG)
 

Featured Reviews

SunilkumarNaganuri - PeerSpot reviewer
Enhanced device administration hindered by complex deployment and security limitations
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) needs to improve the profiling preauthentication. They are very poor in asset classification and should focus on improving the preauthentication profiling, especially for NAC use cases. This will give them a roadmap for software-defined access (SDA) use cases and network segmentation. Threat detection capabilities are very weak. Additionally, the product is vulnerable and has many bugs.
KimioTanaka - PeerSpot reviewer
Has valuable monitoring, DLP, and SIEM communication features
My company is a partner and reseller of Forcepoint ONE. I work with the solution, though I'm not as experienced with it. I had my training in the Forcepoint laboratory in Brazil because I just started working with the solution, but I know how Forcepoint ONE works, how to use it, and how to implement it. I'm using the latest version of the solution. The number of staff required to deploy and maintain Forcepoint ONE depends on the number of users because the solution can also be used individually or by a single user. My advice for people looking into implementing Forcepoint ONE is to take a course or go into training because the solution may seem easy, but it's not, particularly during implementation, because it would still depend on your tool. You need to understand your tool well and how you can adapt it to Forcepoint ONE. The solution is not easy if it doesn't have a direct integration with your tool. When you go direct to the cloud, there's no problem, but when you need it to be a hybrid solution, it could be a bit difficult in terms of integrating it well. The integration, though it's not very, very difficult, still requires attention and care for it to be successful. My rating for Forcepoint ONE is eight out of ten. For me to rate it a ten out of ten, the support, price, and functionality should first be improved. There would be a need to speak with the Forcepoint team about it, and the team is very, very dedicated in terms of explaining and helping you understand the solution.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Access Control (NAC) solutions are best for your needs.
851,823 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
24%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Which is better - Aruba Clearpass or Cisco ISE?
Aruba ClearPass is a Network Access Control tool that gives secure network access to multiple device types. You can adapt the policies to VPN access, wired, or wireless access. You can securely ...
What are the main differences between Cisco ISE and Forescout Platform?
OK, so Cisco ISE uses 802.1X to secure switchports against unauthorized access. The drawback of this is that ISE cannot secure the port if a device does not support 802.1x. Cameras, badge readers, ...
How does Cisco ISE compare with Fortinet FortiNAC?
Cisco ISE uses AI endpoint analytics to identify new devices based on their behavior. It will also notify you if someone plugs in with a device that is not allowed and will block it. The user exper...
What do you like most about Forcepoint ONE?
The platform's feature that has been most beneficial for our web security is its capability to replicate rules.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Forcepoint ONE?
The licensing and pricing were fine with no issues. I took over from somebody else, and it stayed as it was until we rebuilt and moved to the cloud.
What needs improvement with Forcepoint ONE?
There is room for improvement in making the reporting closer to real-time, ideally around five or ten minutes instead of half an hour. The interface could also be updated as it was quite dated.
 

Also Known As

Cisco ISE
Bitglass
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Aegean Motorway, BC Hydro, Beachbody, Bucks County Intermediate Unit , Cisco IT, Derby City Council, Global Banking Customer, Gobierno de Castilla-La Mancha, Houston Methodist, Linz AG, London Hydro, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Molina Healthcare, MST Systems, New South Wales Rural Fire Service, Reykjavik University, Wildau University
UNC-Charlotte
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Fortinet and others in Network Access Control (NAC). Updated: May 2025.
851,823 professionals have used our research since 2012.