We performed a comparison between Forescout Platform 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 initial setup is quite simple. It's not too complex or difficult to set up."
"Provides a good overview of all devices on a network."
"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."
"The most valuable features of the Forescout Platform are NAC for sharing, Network Access Control, and port sharing of the devices."
"Being able to actively identify the client without a certificate allows you to control every device on your network regardless of the make, model, and software running. This allows for end-to-end security."
"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 most valuable feature is the blocking of USB devices."
"The most valuable feature of the Forescout Platform is the large capacity it can handle. Additionally, the interface of the platform is good."
"Ruckus technical support is very good and helpful whenever we need them."
"I find the solution to be very rich in features."
"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 ease of use is great, and the automation wizards can do a lot."
"The solution is easy to use, well designed, robust, and has good traffic capacity."
"The solution has good features for authentication, policies, and allowing users to self-provision devices for network access via their logins."
"If older network devices are used there can be some compatibility issues while using the Forescout Platform. Additionally, if the switches that are deployed in your infrastructure are not captured properly to the endpoints there might be some difficulties with Forescout Platform trying to monitor the network traffic. Traffic management is an area the vendor should work on."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"Forescout Platform could improve the integration or compatibility with other solutions, such as Chinese-made solutions. They do not have any integration with S33 which is a switch. They do not have good integration with new solutions in the market. They do integrate well with Rocket, Cisco, Juniper, and quite a few more but they could expand the integration."
"In the next release of the solution, it could benefit from being more flexible to allow for more freedom."
"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 system controls could be better."
"Forescout Platform's technical support is slow to respond and could be more knowledgeable."
"Regarding pricing, there is room for improvement to enhance competitiveness with other vendors and solutions."
"The solution could improve by adding more detailed information that customers have available on the dashboards."
"The setup process is a bit complex."
"The scalability could be better."
"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 hardest part we've had to deal with is trying to find some physical product recently as everything is going like hotcakes."
"I believe the solution is missing some great features which are present in other solutions like Aruba, UiPath, and Cisco ISE."
Forescout Platform is ranked 3rd in Network Access Control (NAC) with 69 reviews while Ruckus Cloudpath is ranked 10th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 6 reviews. Forescout Platform is rated 8.4, while Ruckus Cloudpath is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Forescout Platform writes "We can go granular on each endpoint, quarantine non-compliant machines, and target vulnerabilities through scripting". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ruckus Cloudpath writes "Helps to onboard corporate users based on certificate-based authentication". Forescout Platform is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Nozomi Networks and Armis, whereas Ruckus Cloudpath is most compared with Aruba ClearPass, Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Fortinet FortiNAC and Sophos Network Access Control. See our Forescout Platform 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.