Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE)

Aruba ClearPass and Cisco ISE are very similar in nature. The biggest differentiator that I have seen is the Cisco ISE ecosystem around native Adaptive Network Controls, programmable interfaces, pxGrid, and Cisco TrustSec environment. Due to the span of products Cisco has in its portfolio, the integrations between these products is both robust and native to each product.

In our case, the entire core of our network is based on Cisco technologies as well as user access. For this reason it was the simplest choice given that both by integration and by knowledge of the platform it was the solution with the least complexity and the best adoption curve offered us. At the level of capabilities, they seemed really similar to us, each option having some point where it surpassed the others and others where it was surpassed.

Cisco ISE is way ahead of other products when it comes to Network Access Control technology. With its granularity level controls and zero trust architecture, we can leverage its extensive policy enforcement to create rules based upon users/processes/machines. It gives so much flexibility to the IT Network team and a holistic view of all the assets connected in the infra.

We have used Microsoft NPS but found it to be hard to craft policies and it didn't have near the options that ISE had.

Cisco ISE is very well designed and information is provided in very logical and consistent form in the WebGUI, which cannot be said about Aruba ClearPass or others. Policy design and flow are far clearer than in Aruba ClearPass, Microsoft NPS, or FreeRadius. Cisco ISE scalability is far greater than ClearPass or others. Cisco support is second to none which guarantees appropriate support in case of a failure or a bug.

Meets requirements, this is also easy to use, [easy to] set up, and [provides] quality of support. It [also] provides data protection, network access, security, [and] scaling on wider scope. As mentioned previously it helped on bring-your-own-device (BYOD) setup [and] guest wireless access services. It also helped on reduced infrastructure, management, and support costs for guest wireless access services, reduced infrastructure, management, and support costs for BYOD support.

Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) stacks up well against other systems because it does what it says and is stable. For us, Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is great for managing access to our network devices and systems. Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) might not do as much as other products, but you will pay more for those options. If you are looking to manage your devices with no extra fluff, Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is great.

Cisco ISE is not cheap, but if your network is not too complex, this could fill your needs. I do think Forescout makes an easier product to manage.

I haven't tried any other vendor when it comes to AAA. It seems that ISE was preceded by Cisco ACS. Cisco seems to be the front runner when it comes to this level of security and implementation. Why would you go to another vendor if you know Cisco is the vendor setting the bar?

Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is definitely better, PxGrid alone wins the race. Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is more dynamic and vibrant, with a myriad of features.

These are two completely different products however there is some cross-over in terms of tracking endpoints on the network. These products would complement each other in as much as the Cisco Prime would be used to manage the network (and use ISE credentials to access network devices for example) and the Cisco ISE would ensure that only authorized users would have access to the network. Security is all about providing layers of defense on the network and it not about deploying single-point solutions and hoping that these can be relied on for sufficient security.

ISE can do what both products individually do. Yes, it may cost a bit more, but the scale of the ISE is way larger than these competitors. ISE is used in large enterprises where lots of features and devices are required. Basically, if you invest in the base license at a distributed deployment, that means any feature you want in the feature can be accommodated by just upgrading your license. It does require a lot of studying to understand what you need now and what you will need in the future. Again, it may not suit small networks, and be considered too expensive.

We made more progress with Forescout in 2 days than we did in 8 months trying to get ISE operational. It isn't even close. The MDM add-in worked almost immediately, and the lack of reliance on 802.1x made the entire setup process extremely quick.

Since building automation and remote sites are a big part of what we're doing, Tempered is fitting the priorities we have for segmentation. Our plan is to implement Forescout for on-boarding, and Tempered for IoT and remote sites.

We decided pass on testing ClearPass. We talked to a few existing users of ClearPass. They were happy with their implementations, but the implementation effort and tendencies toward 802.1x made it feel more like ISE than it did Forescout.

The Tempered system has some game changing capabilities when it comes to the things that it does well. I solves a lot of problems that traditional NAC doesn't even come close to addressing. For IoT, it's a game changer.

Cisco ISE stacks up well against other systems because it does what it says and is stable. For us, ISE is great for managing access to our network devices and systems. Cisco ISE might not do as much as other products, but you will pay more for those options. If you are looking to manage your devices with no extra fluff, Cisco ISE is great.