We performed a comparison between Aruba ClearPass and Forescout Platform based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: PeerSpot users feel Aruba ClearPass is flexible, versatile, and very user friendly. The licensing issues with Forescout detract a bit from its effectiveness.
"The most valuable feature is flexibility as it supports solutions from multiple vendors."
"Aruba ClearPass's most valuable feature is dynamic segmentation."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"A lot of the issues in Forescout are mitigated in Aruba ClearPass, it supports all the expected protocols."
"The solution is highly stable."
"The customized modules for guests, the self-registration and login, one license for all, no license for guest users, and the self-integration of sandbox integration are the most valuable features."
"The interface is very easy to use and the workflow is quite straightforward."
"Access Tracker is invaluable for troubleshooting access control incidents and quickly getting to the root cause."
"I can integrate Forescout with products from multiple vendors in my environment, and also, the integration is searchable. It can be used with 802.1X and non-802.1X to integrate with my existing network. I don't need to upgrade any existing networks in my system, and I don't need to replace existing devices to integrate with Forescout. I find value in not having to spend money upgrading existing devices and networks."
"Within three or four days, we have complete visibility of your infrastructure on the network. Compared to other solutions, the deployment of the solution is easier and we can close the project quickly."
"The threat prevention feature provides complete visibility."
"The most valuable features are remote access and administration scripts."
"The scalability is good."
"Ease of deployment There's a great support team that becomes actively engaged whenever we encounter issues. Their technical support is amazing. Good documentation is available. The product is stable. The solution is highly scalable. I recommend using the solution because it gives verified control over the environment. It has a great visibility feature."
"Provides a good overview of all devices on a network."
"The most valuable feature of Forescout Platform is that it has everything that Aruba has at significantly less cost."
"They should include SMP functionalities."
"In the next version, I would like to see some enhancement or extension on the tracking side. For example, when any user enters the network, it should be more visible in the graphical form."
"Some functions could be improved."
"Aruba ClearPass could improve when it comes to troubleshooting, it can be difficult. Some advanced problems are difficult."
"The GUI of Aruba ClearPass could improve, it is not user-friendly."
"Licensing cost is extremely high."
"There is room for improvement in the support."
"I can't think of an area where the solution is lacking a feature or a capability."
"Forescout Platform isn't flexible with connections to devices like printers and forces you to re-enter details like the MAC address after any breakdowns."
"We have found that the agent-based authentication, available within this solution could be improved."
"The solution could always improve by adding more features to make it more robust."
"It's scalable, but not without a big investment. It doesn't do so well at the branch. At the home office, it does okay and not so well at the branch."
"I believe that the overall user experience has not always been preferable."
"When adding what is in scope to a policy, it would be nice if you could select multiple policies instead of one policy at a time to add what is in the scope for network segmentation. I have found that during the install and configuration of the policies that if you want to modify multiple policies or enable multiple policies that you need to define what is in the scope (IP range or segments) one rule at a time. This caused some slow downs when implementing policies."
"The product needs to improve its support. I know a case that dragged on for about one and a half years. They eventually suggested professional services and closed the ticket. We followed their advice, engaging the account manager and professional service team, only to discover that the issue was a bug. After reopening the case, it's been about six months, and the problem still hasn't been resolved."
"The solution's customer support is bad and should be improved."
Aruba ClearPass is ranked 2nd in Network Access Control (NAC) with 75 reviews while Forescout Platform is ranked 4th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 71 reviews. Aruba ClearPass is rated 8.6, while Forescout Platform is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Aruba ClearPass writes "Easy to use, multifeatured, and reliable policy management platform for identity authentication and new device onboarding". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Forescout Platform writes "We can go granular on each endpoint, quarantine non-compliant machines, and target vulnerabilities through scripting". Aruba ClearPass is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Fortinet FortiNAC, Microsoft Intune, Ruckus Cloudpath and macmon Network Access Control, whereas Forescout Platform is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Fortinet FortiNAC, Nozomi Networks, Armis and Tenable Security Center. See our Aruba ClearPass vs. Forescout Platform report.
See our list of best Network Access Control (NAC) vendors.
We monitor all Network Access Control (NAC) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
Hi Nkwa,
I did some research comparing ForeScout with ClearPass.
Fundamentally they do the same but in a very different ways. It is important to understand these differences and how they could help you to achieve or not what you need in your organization. I will only point these differences and not every single detail. This is based on my own experience and I do not represent either ForeScout or Aruba ClearPass.
DISCOVERY PROCESS / Profiler - METHODS.
• NetFlow or SFlow: ForeScout do not support Sflow only NetFlow. Is this important? Yes, it is if your switches are not Cisco or any other vendor that support the NetFlow protocol.
ForeScout says: "This capability becomes more relevant in large scale deployments, where the CounterACT packet engine is limited in its "ability to detect activity in remote sites and branch offices". Use of information reported by NetFlow improves visibility and speeds detection of new endpoints." Reference: https:\www.forescout.com\wp-content\uploads\2018\04\CounterACT_NetFlow_1.2.pdf Page 3.
ClearPass:
NetFlow V5/V9 and V10 aka IPFIX + sFLOW are supported.
Reference: www.arubanetworks.com
ORCHESTRATE = Integration/Collaboration with other Systems.
ForeScout:
* ForeScout
is able to interchange contextual information with 3rd party solutions, however the most of the contextual collaboration capabilities are available using an Extended Module option and ForeScout charges separately for this.
Reference Links:
www.forescout.com
www.cdw.com
www.cdw.com
Clear Pass:
* 140+ Integrations are included as part of the core solution. Basically, you can integrate ClearPass to anything in your IT infrastructure at no extra cost to share contextual information. Firewalls, MDM, TicketSystem, SIEM, etc.. Using build-in Modules or APIs. You can request as well customized APIs.
Reference Link www.arubanetworks.com
Reference Link www.arubanetworks.com
AGENT OR AGENTLESS?
Basically, an agent based solution needs a software installed, while an agentless approach don't.
Independently of what NAC solution you will use, it is important to understand if you need or not an agent.
When a device connects to a network, the agent software performs some actions that have been defined in a central access controller or policy management platform. If persistent, the agent performs auto-remediation functions during a connection and will permanently monitor the device throughout a session to “fix” things that may change.
The dissolvable agent: a user clicks on a web portal link to download the agent, which authenticates the user and device, checks the endpoint for compliance, and allows access to the network if policy conditions are met. It then disappears until the user runs it again.
ForeScout
ForeScout is proud to claim that they don’t require an agent (agentless approach NAC) but this is not completely true. ForeScout needs a “dissolvable agent” for authorization & compliance of unmanaged assets e.g. Employee BYOD, Contractor Laptops, printers, CCTV cameras, Smart TVs, etc. Agentless is fine when all your devices are Windows and all of them are under your management. For none windows devices you will need the dissolvable agent to perform health check and remediation.
Based on this explanation having an agent or not is irrelevant for most of the cases. there many identities sources from where you can extract contextual information to help the NAC to do his work, examples are: AD, Wireless AP, End-Point protection software, SCCM, MDM, the Switches, the Firewall, etc...
To do this you need integration, this is possible with ForeScout using the extended module /Plugins and normally paying the extra cost.
Reference Link: www.forescout.com
ClearPass
Clear pass can run with an agent and without the agent. It hast the persistence option, the dissolvable option for BYOD and Guest devices. It can be easily integrated to the mentioned identity stores at no extra cost.
www.bradfordnetworks.com
community.arubanetworks.com
community.extremenetworks.com
802.1X RADIUS AUTHENTICATION OR NOT
Here is one of the major differences. Both support Radius authentication. ClearPass see it like the most secure way to protect your network and ForeScout see it like something complex that you should try to avoid if possible, in my opinion.
ForeScout
* says: 802.1X presents several deployments, operational and troubleshooting challenges, particularly on wired networks.
* To perform RADIUS-based network authentication you need a “Plugin” to forward the authentication requests to an external authentication Sever, like the Microsoft NPS. Page 10, Reference link , you will need as well a Switch Plugin for wired network RADIUS-based deployment and a Wireless plugin for wireless network RADIUS-based deployment. All this sounds like a complexity to me.
* By not having 802.1x configured you save also configuring all switches on your network. Which is not a big problem because you do this once during the useful life of the switch.
* Not build-in TACACS+ - centralized remote authentication to network devices like switches, routers, etc.
Reference Link:
www.forescout.com
ClearPass:
* Is build-in CA and if you like you can use an external CA as well.
* Centralizing the radius authentication make the administration and configuration very easy because you don’t have to manage the NAC and the CA separated.
* No plugin is needed for non-802.1x Auth and non-domain joined devices. In this case you can enforce machine authentication and many other security layers to allow non-domain devices to safely connect without a certificate.
* non-domain devices can automatically or manually be provisioned using a guest network and dissolvable agent.
* Integration with the Aruba Wireless system for Radius Authentication is very easy (if you own an Aruba Wireless Infrastructure) and no extra cost.
You must configure your switches to work with 802.1x. This can be easily done using a template on HPE IMC.
• Build in TACACS+
DEPLOYMENT AND INITIAL POLICY SETUP:
ForeScout: preferred method is: I let you in then I find out who you are.
• ForeScout CounterACT propose the Post-connect deployment strategy for network visibility and access control in which endpoints are initially allowed access to the network while CounterACT profiles them to determine ownership and compliance. Access to the network is then adjusted based on profiling results and security policy.
Reference link: www.forescout.com
This makes sense on new deployments because the NAC can be configured transparent to the end user with no dramatic impact. My question is: What is the process after deployment? Do I let you in then I find a good policy for you?
ClearPass: preferred method is: I let you in if you tell me something about you. Then depending on the roles/policies this unknown device will be moved to a quarantine VLAN for remediation or moved to a dead end VLAN. At the same time this will trigger a ticket to helpdesk and a message to the user to know what is happening and what is the next step.
SUPPORT, SERVICE and DOCUMENTATION:
ForeScout:
• The references are very good everywhere you read in internet. Also, the expertise of their engineers. You can browse a little and it won't be hard to find references.
Online support, documentation, communities (forescout Chatter), etc.
Aruba/HPE
The references are very good everywhere you read in internet. Also, the expertise of their engineers. You can browse anywhere on internet and it won't be hard to find references.
Online support, documentation, communities (aruba airheads), etc.
PRICE:
This will depend on many factors. I would suggest that you consult both and make your own decision.