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.
"It eliminated the management of 10 different individual discrete RADIUS servers."
"I like the integration options with a multitude of other vendors and Aruba applications."
"Gives us network access control, visibility, scalability, security, and control in what is becoming an uncontrollable, inundated BYOD and IoT world."
"The web dashboard and the policy manager are very intuitive and very easy for the engineers to use."
"Authentication capabilities are one of the most valuable features."
"The most valuable feature of Aruba ClearPass is its ease of use and the GUI is user-friendly."
"We can double verify whether a machine is compliant with our policy on the one hand, and on the other hand if it's one of our machines we let it into the network."
"The continuous server and posturing are valuable."
"Forescout has a feature that blocks the endpoint at the point of collection. It sets preconditions and will block the system if those aren't met."
"The initial setup is easy, taking no more than two or three weeks."
"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."
"The best parts of Forescout Platform are its orchestration features, discovery capabilities, classification buckets, and flexibility in creating policies."
"The solution's implementation and operation are very easy."
"Forescout Platform has granular features and one of the most impressive features is the agentless feature."
"I have noticed that in the last year the license model has changed from licensing the whole appliance to licensing the number of devices. It's more simple for a large installation, or a user to have CounterACT as their peripheral site in the company. It's a good choice to have changed the license policy."
"Obtaining visibility into the network and connected devices is very simple with this tool. It takes me three minutes to do a base deployment when all the parameters are available."
"The monitoring of Aruba ClearPass needs improvement. For example, they have monitoring for TECHx and you can find out what the administrator did. However, if Aruba ClearPass is managing GUI devices, you do not know what the administrator is doing."
"Aruba ClearPass has fewer deployment scenarios and flexibility than Forescout."
"The technical support has some room for improvement. It takes them a long time to respond sometimes. I rate Aruba support six out of 10."
"The AirWave Dashboard heat maps could be better designed."
"I can't think of an area where the solution is lacking a feature or a capability."
"The licensing model could be improved."
"The GUI of Aruba ClearPass could improve, it is not user-friendly."
"The solution should be more precise for VMs and allow for management of the entire system."
"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."
"We experienced some detection issues when checking compliance for the Sophos agent."
"Multitenancy should be included in the next version so it could be used as a managed service provider."
"I should be able to integrate my Forescout with any other third party security technology, to build that connected security strategy."
"Initially, the implementation of the Forescout Platform took some time to figure out. The reason is we are a manufacturing unit and we have certain silos that are insulated areas where certain systems will not connect to the internet or to the LAN. Since there are many parts of it, we have to have an inclusive view of all those systems. It took a while for us to initially implement, but after a few months, everything worked well."
"As a user, if I am using a laptop that is Wi-Fi connected, Forescout identifies my port connectivity as one user license, and if I take that same laptop with the same username to a wired network, which is also the same network that is used for the Wi-Fi connection, Forescout detects it as a separate license."
"Forescout Platform needs to improve how the device works in preventing rogue servers."
"Regarding pricing, there is room for improvement to enhance competitiveness with other vendors and solutions."
Aruba ClearPass is ranked 2nd in Network Access Control (NAC) with 75 reviews while Forescout Platform is ranked 3rd in Network Access Control (NAC) with 69 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.