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.

My company's use case for Cisco Secure Access is for teleworkers in general and for third parties.

The most valuable feature of Cisco Secure Access is the possibility to work from anywhere, along with the posture for the host, so the check on the posture. Cisco Secure Access has helped improve my organization overall by changing the way we work; we can work from everywhere.

To improve Cisco Secure Access, I would suggest simplifying the need for different components that Cisco has tried to implement; for example, to have Cisco Secure Access, it is necessary to have AnyConnect, ISE, and Duo, meaning there are various products that need to integrate to achieve the same result, unlike the all-in-one compact products from other vendors.

Inside the Cisco ecosystem, to have Cisco Secure Access, you need several components, which are different products; integrating these Cisco products for the zero trust network presents the main problem, especially since we have many applications that are on-premises, and for the latest version of Cisco Secure Access, the traffic must go to the cloud and then come back to access on-premises applications, creating delays and performance concerns.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for three years.

The stability of Cisco Secure Access is acceptable; it's very comfortable and perfect. There is no downtime for Cisco Secure Access; we are very happy with it.

We can scale with our business needs. Scaling Cisco Secure Access is a main pain point, as it requires integrating different products which makes it not so easy.

I have engaged with their customer service or support. My impression of Cisco support is very positive; we are very happy, and the SLAs are perfect. I would rate Cisco support as a 10; it's always a 10.

We have evaluated other products before.

We have used Zscaler and Fortinet products as well. We chose Cisco Secure Access over Zscaler because we were more used to Cisco; we were traditional and we believe in Cisco.

I do not use the AI Assist feature of Cisco Secure Access yet. I do not use VPN as a service for Cisco Secure Access, but we use AnyConnect. We do not use the Experience Insights feature of Cisco Secure Access, like the digital experience monitoring powered by ThousandEyes. I have only integrated the ISE, the Cisco Identity Secure Engine, with Cisco Secure Access so far.

The ISE has impacted our incident resolution time. The impact comes from the nice dashboard of ISE, which allows us to view the problem and generates reports on the issue, so it helps the resolution time. I am aware of the pricing and licensing. Comparing to other vendors, I find the licensing part for Zscaler much easier, while from the price perspective, I would say Cisco is more affordable; however, Cisco Secure Access offers different products to achieve the same goal, whereas Zscaler is all-in-one and much easier to integrate.

We need more of a hybrid cloud model for Cisco Secure Access, as many companies still operate on-premises and require that traffic for on-premises applications stays local instead of routing through the cloud. I would rate this review a 10.

My team's use case for Cisco Secure Access is that we currently have, or just had, a system with VDI connections, and it was quite difficult to handle because this VDI session is not optimized for video and telephony, especially Webex meetings.

We are now glad to have the opportunity to move to the SSE environment.

The feature of Cisco Secure Access that I appreciate the most is the ability to use Webex directly with the cloud.

We do not have to go through our on-premise system as we did before.

We can go directly from the home office workplaces to the cloud and we do not have to go through the on-premise infrastructure.

The benefit is that I can specify which traffic goes to the on-premise site and which traffic goes to the cloud.

Cisco Secure Access benefits my company considerably from my perspective, because we had some problems with integrating with the VDI infrastructure. In the end, it worked, mostly because of the thin client architecture we used. However, we were looking for something more powerful, better, and optimized for our environment, so we chose the SSE.

The deployment of Cisco Secure Access has impacted help desk ticket volume and the end-user experience. With the new SSE, we are rolling out new hardware. This is impacting the way our colleagues work with their electronic devices, and it is getting better now.

I am not using the AI assistant feature of Cisco Secure Access at this time.

I am not sure about using the VPNaaS in Cisco Secure Access, as in SSE, I am functioning as an end-user and I assist the guys who are implementing it. My part was mostly determining what ports are needed and what servers connect to on-premise and need to work with them. The implementation of this solution was quite easy.

I do not use ZTNA in Cisco Secure Access.

I have not used the Experience Insights feature of Cisco Secure Access, as I am not involved with it. It is just the underlying platform. I am implementing the voice features on it. I can speak from my opinions and insights on what I observed when implementing UC above the platform. It was quite good and acceptable.

I have not used the multi-organization management capability of Cisco Secure Access, so I cannot describe its usability and efficiency.

I come from a user perspective and user experience, because I am responsible for the UC clients which are working with the platform. From that, I can say it was quite easy to implement it and to bring the systems to work with SSE. However, I am not deeply involved in the capabilities of SSE.

I have been using Cisco Secure Access for about two to three weeks for my daily work, and I have to admit that I am using it part-time because our colleagues have not fully migrated to Cisco Secure Client.

We are in the process of transitioning from one system with VDI to the SASE and SSE.

I have not had any interaction with the customer service or technical support of Cisco regarding Cisco Secure Access, as I support other things, and we did not have a problem with UC communication. It was no problem to implement it.

Before choosing Cisco Secure Access, I was using the VDI infrastructure I already discussed, which included thin clients at home and now includes laptops at home. From my perspective, it will be easier in the future.

My experience with the pricing, the setup costs, and the licensing of Cisco Secure Access is that from my perspective, we made quite a good deal with Cisco.

We were in the process of supporting the older hardware of our VDI infrastructure again and again, year after year. For us, it was more economical to move to SSE than to continue supporting the VDI infrastructure, so that was a good point for us to transition from VDI infrastructure to the SSE platform.

From my perspective, it was the right decision to move to that platform, as I expect the product to be ideal for having secure access to your network system, especially as we will see a transition from mostly on-premise to mostly cloud.

My relationship with Cisco is that my company is a long-time user of Cisco software and hardware. I have been working with Cisco since about 2003, and I am quite satisfied with dealing with Cisco.

There are many advantages. We have documentation, we have events such as this one, and we have partners in Germany that we can work with.

My advice to any companies considering Cisco Secure Access is to plan it. Talk to your Cisco partners and your Cisco representatives; I think it is worth it.

I rate this product overall as a 10.

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.

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.

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.

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.