We performed a comparison between Portnox CORE and Ruckus Cloudpath based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Access Control (NAC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The technical support is top-notch."
"It's so easy to set up, you don't need outside assistance."
"The minute people have issues on their network, we can see what is happening right away."
"Previous to the deployment we didn't have complete visibility of all the endpoints, all the devices that are connected to the network. But with the deployment of portnox, we could see all the devices and where they're connecting. We can equally segregate and apply different rules, policies to each location that we didn't monitor specifically."
"The most important feature is that this solution is agentless. So, you don't have to install any agents on endpoints."
"There is an add-on feature for application control to kill unwanted applications when launched on a user's device."
"It's a stable product."
"The product is a valuable solution within zero-trust architecture, enhancing network security and visibility."
"Ruckus technical support is very good and helpful whenever we need them."
"The solution has good features for authentication, policies, and allowing users to self-provision devices for network access via their logins."
"I find the solution to be very rich in features."
"The solution is easy to use, well designed, robust, and has good traffic capacity."
"The ease of use is great, and the automation wizards can do a lot."
"The tool's most valuable features include the phenomenal functionality of DPSK. The ease of use, particularly when it is correctly set up, is remarkably simple. Tracking users is straightforward and dynamic. This allows us to identify where a user might encounter issues within the process."
"The solution did have some stability issues, however, all I had to do was restart it."
"Portnox CORE can improve on support for unmanaged switches (or hubs) and other brands of network devices. These kinds of devices are still in use in organisations, especially SMEs who cannot afford to buy a managed switch."
"The integration between Portnox CORE and Portnox CLEAR can be better. These are two different systems, and there is no unique console for both devices. Portnox CORE is agentless, whereas Portnox CLEAR is not agentless."
"The product should consider more integration with vendors like Huawei. It should also improve visibility. The solution should offer a partner portal that can provide customers training on the in and out of the solution."
"We have been having some issues with it. That's why we're considering migrating to Portnox Clear due to some limitations with CORE."
"It would be good to integrate Portnox CORE with CLEAR."
"It could be a little cheaper."
"One of the things for the on-premise is that sometimes you click on it and it takes a while for it to respond."
"The scalability could be better."
"The solution could improve by adding more detailed information that customers have available on the dashboards."
"The tool needs to support multi-vendor environments. Currently, my experience with it has been primarily within Ruckus environments. However, I haven't explored it for multi-vendor scenarios. It would be great to see newer builds that are multi-vendor capable of full integration."
"The setup process is a bit complex."
"I believe the solution is missing some great features which are present in other solutions like Aruba, UiPath, and Cisco ISE."
"The hardest part we've had to deal with is trying to find some physical product recently as everything is going like hotcakes."
Portnox CORE is ranked 11th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 14 reviews while Ruckus Cloudpath is ranked 10th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 6 reviews. Portnox CORE is rated 8.2, while Ruckus Cloudpath is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Portnox CORE writes "Simple UI, easy deployment but slow authentication times for devices". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ruckus Cloudpath writes "Helps to onboard corporate users based on certificate-based authentication". Portnox CORE is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Forescout Platform and Portnox Clear, whereas Ruckus Cloudpath is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Fortinet FortiNAC and Sophos Network Access Control. See our Portnox CORE vs. Ruckus Cloudpath 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.