We performed a comparison between Aruba ClearPass and Cisco ISE (Identity Service Engine) based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Although Cisco is a worldwide, well-known, trusted, and respected branded product, with many known complexities, Aruba ClearPass is flexible, versatile, and more user-friendly than Cisco. Aruba’s aggressive stance on keeping hackers out with strict authentication policies and its cost-effective business model and excellent technical service make it a NAC solution to consider seriously.
"ClearPass' best features are authentication, support for multiple devices, and monitoring."
"Support is decent."
"Aruba is a highly scalable product. It just works. We have no issues with scalability."
"If you are looking at the base installation, then it was a very straightforward process, which I would rate an eight or nine out of ten."
"Aruba ClearPass has improved the security control in our network environment."
"Aruba has improved my organization because it supported me on my level of access."
"The web dashboard and the policy manager are very intuitive and very easy for the engineers to use."
"Aruba ClearPass's most valuable feature is dynamic segmentation."
"The most valuable features are the ability to retrieve information about Active Directory user names, viewing the log files to see which MAC address tried to connect with the created SSIDs, portal designing for your company, hotspot tools, and creating network rules for WiFi access."
"It integrates with the rest of our platform, like our firewall, and helps us a lot. It also does a good job establishing trust for every access request."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with StealthWatch and DNA as one fabric."
"It works as a good RADIUS server. It has lots of features. It works with all the proprietary Cisco AB pairs and features."
"With NAC, the profiling feature is valuable. We're able to see what we have out there in the network and dynamically assign policies to it. We can then use that to enforce TrustSec policy or anything else with NAC."
"It does what it's supposed to. We use a certificate-based authentication method for corporate-managed devices. That means when a user walks in with their managed laptop and plugs it into the network, it chats with Cisco ISE in the background, allows it on the network, and away they go."
"I like that Cisco ISE is easy to use."
"Authentication is the most valuable feature because it puts our company at another level of security."
"The initial setup was quite complex, it is not that easy."
"The user interface should be improved. The logs and how the logging mechanism works can also use an upgrade."
"ClearPass' interface could be more user-friendly."
"I can't think of an area where the solution is lacking a feature or a capability."
"The user interface could be more polished and modern. It would be useful to have more options for automation."
"I would like to see better integration with the firewall for zeroing out blacklisted users."
"We have had some issues with the installation of Aruba ClearPass."
"The improvement can be in the cloud area. They can improve it for the cloud so that we can deploy it on the cloud."
"I don't see as many customers as I should adopting the onboarding feature. I think Cisco should make that process a lot easier and less intrusive on the end users' devices."
"I would definitely improve the deployment and maybe a little bit of the support. Our first exposure to ISE had a lot of issues."
"Third-party integration is important, as well as the continuous adaptation feature which is the AIOps. It would be helpful to include the AIOps."
"The interface could be more user-friendly and the ability to apply rules to MAC addresses, for example, if I wanted to allow a certain MAC address access at a particular time I cannot make this adjustment."
"Cisco ISE could be simplified somewhat. I would also prefer certificate-based authentication over confirmation-based authentication for all the processes. It's possible for us to do a workaround, but the process needs to be simplified."
"The installation is not straightforward, it took us approximately one month."
"I'm frustrated by the resource consumption and how many resources it needs to run. It takes a lot of RAM. It takes a lot of space and a lot of IO power. It's frustrating to do upgrades because it takes a long time."
"The area where things could be improved is education. It's complicated to deploy initially because you have to know what you're getting into."
More Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Aruba ClearPass is ranked 2nd in Network Access Control (NAC) with 75 reviews while Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is ranked 1st in Network Access Control (NAC) with 135 reviews. Aruba ClearPass is rated 8.6, while Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is rated 8.2. 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 Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) writes "Gives us that extra ability to assist the end user and make sure that we are making them happy". Aruba ClearPass is most compared with Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, Microsoft Intune, Ruckus Cloudpath and macmon Network Access Control, whereas Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is most compared with Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Fortinet FortiAuthenticator and Microsoft Enterprise Mobility + Security. See our Aruba ClearPass vs. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) 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.