Index › Network and edge › NAC › OPSWAT MetaAccess vs Cisco ISE

Network access control · October 2026 Edition

OPSWAT MetaAccess vs Cisco ISE

One of fourteen models named OPSWAT MetaAccess first on the direct prompt; zero named Cisco ISE. OPSWAT MetaAccess was named by seven of the fourteen models and Cisco ISE by thirteen and OPSWAT MetaAccess carries 12 labels and Cisco ISE 35, so the shares are not directly comparable.

OPSWAT MetaAccess

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

Cisco ISE

criticized challenger

Named in one category this edition.

First-choice share7%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.

Negative rate0%51%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.

Rank in category#3#5A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.

Labels1235A count; the two differ.

The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, OPSWAT MetaAccess reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Portnox Cloud was named alongside these two in eight of the fourteen direct answers. Portnox Cloud vs OPSWAT MetaAccess · Portnox Cloud vs Cisco ISE · PacketFence vs OPSWAT MetaAccess

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the network access control page.

By framing

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.

OPSWAT MetaAccessFirst choices, of fourteen modelsCisco ISE

Direct106 against Cisco ISE

Paraphrase202 against Cisco ISE

Comparative04

Budget-constrained113 against Cisco ISE

Scale-constrained003 against Cisco ISE

Negative004 against Cisco ISE

Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.

Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, OPSWAT MetaAccess and Cisco ISE were named in the same answer ten times, of the 26 answers naming OPSWAT MetaAccess and the 104 naming Cisco ISE. In those answers Cisco ISE took the first choice one time and OPSWAT MetaAccess one.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where OPSWAT MetaAccess and Cisco ISE stood in it.

Model	DirectOM	ParaphraseOM	Budget-constrainedOM
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.1 Fast	OM	OM
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Llama 4 Maverick	OM	OM
Qwen 3.7 Flash
Kimi K2
GLM 4.7 FlashX		OM
MiniMax M2.5	OM	OM	OM
GPT-6 Luna
Muse Glimmer 30B		OM

OM OPSWAT MetaAccess

Cisco ISEOM first choiceOM named as an alternativeOM argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, OPSWAT MetaAccess on the left and Cisco ISE on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where OPSWAT MetaAccess and Cisco ISE stood in it.

OPSWAT MetaAccess first, Cisco ISE not the choice

1 of 14 modelsCisco ISE was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.

Llama 4 MaverickOPSWAT MetaAccess alternatives: Portnox Cloud

Neither was the first choice, one was named

4 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.

Grok 4.1 FastPortnox CLEAR alternatives: OPSWAT MetaAccess

Mistral SmallPortnox CLEAR alternatives: Cisco ISE, Fortinet FortiNAC

MiniMax M2.5Portnox Cloud alternatives: HPE Aruba ClearPass, Ivanti Policy Secure, OPSWAT MetaAccess

GPT-6 LunaPortnox Cloud alternatives: Cisco ISE, FortiNAC, HPE Aruba Networking ClearPass

Neither was named

9 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.

Claude Haiku 4.5Cloudflare One, Jamf Zero Trust alternatives: Fortinet FortiGate, Microsoft Entra ID

GPT-5.4 miniAruba ClearPass alternatives: Cisco Identity Services Engine, FortiNAC, Portnox Cloud

Gemini 3.5 FlashPortnox Cloud alternatives: Fortinet FortiNAC, HPE Aruba ClearPass, macmon NAC

Perplexity SonarPortnox Cloud alternatives: Forescout, Fortinet FortiNAC, HPE Aruba ClearPass

DeepSeek V4 FlashPortnox CLEAR, Portnox Cloud alternatives: Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC

Qwen 3.7 FlashPortnox CLEAR alternatives: Cisco Identity Services Engine, HPE Aruba ClearPass

Kimi K2Portnox CLEAR alternatives: FortiNAC

GLM 4.7 FlashXPortnox Cloud alternatives: HPE Aruba ClearPass, Ivanti Policy Secure

Muse Glimmer 30BOPSWAT MetaAccess / MetaDefender NAC, Portnox CLEAR

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.

Small business

OPSWAT MetaAccess leads by four points.

OPSWAT MetaAccess#4 of 9

Cisco ISE#9 of 9

The full small business standing →

Mid-marketThe figures above

OPSWAT MetaAccess leads by five points.

OPSWAT MetaAccess#3 of 10

Cisco ISE#5 of 10

The full mid-market standing →

Enterprise

OPSWAT MetaAccess is not named for this buyer.

Cisco ISE#2 of 7

OPSWAT MetaAccessnot named

The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about OPSWAT MetaAccess

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.

“Portnox Cloud or OPSWAT MetaAccess give you device profiling, posture enforcement and guest/BYOD without standing up dedicated appliances.” Muse Glimmer 30B · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“OPSWAT MetaAccess - Cited as one of the most accessible entries for small organizations” MiniMax M2.5 · budget prompt · first choice

“The best network access control solution for a mid-market B2B company is OPSWAT MetaAccess” Llama 4 Maverick · direct prompt · first choice

What the models said about Cisco ISE

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.

“Avoid Cisco ISE unless you're already deeply committed to Cisco and have the operational maturity to manage its complexity.” Kimi K2 · paraphrase prompt · hard negative

“What to Avoid - Cisco ISE and Aruba ClearPass – While excellent solutions, they are typically expensive and complex” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · hard negative

“Avoid Cisco/Aruba/Forescout – these are enterprise-priced” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative

“Cisco ISE is the enterprise standard for organizations that want policy depth, identity‑based segmentation, and tight Cisco ecosystem integration.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · comparative prompt · first choice

“Best low-budget enterprise option: Cisco ISE Essentials if you already use Cisco gear or want a mainstream enterprise NAC.” GPT-5.4 mini · budget prompt · first choice

“Choose Cisco ISE if you're deeply invested in Cisco and need the most feature-rich enterprise solution” Kimi K2 · comparative prompt · first choice

Also compared

Portnox Cloud vs OPSWAT MetaAccess Portnox Cloud vs Cisco ISE PacketFence vs OPSWAT MetaAccess PacketFence vs Cisco ISE OPSWAT MetaAccess vs Aruba ClearPass Aruba ClearPass vs Cisco ISE All ten head-to-head pages and the full NAC standing

Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.