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.
"I like the stability and the GUI, which is always improving."
"The most valuable feature of Aruba ClearPass is its ease of use and the GUI is user-friendly."
"Stable with good QBT technology."
"The most valuable features of Aruba ClearPass are its ease of use and the general network access controls."
"It has an easy to learn web GUI and command lines."
"Aruba is a highly scalable product. It just works. We have no issues with scalability."
"It is beneficial from a security perspective because not everyone can connect to our wifi without going through an authentication process."
"A mature and functional product."
"The solution cuts down on the repercussions of getting malware or ransomware."
"SGTs are valuable because they make it easy to enforce policies, instead of pushing them across all the other platforms."
"We have multiple metal devices from different places that use management, so we need to know who would be accessing all those devices and what changes are being done to those metal devices. With Cisco ISE we have visibility of all the changes happening on those devices."
"The ability to allow or deny hosts onto the network is valuable. It provides great security to the network environment."
"It does a good job of establishing trust for each access request, no matter the source. It's also very effective at helping with the distributed network and at securing access."
"ISE's most valuable feature is integration between IT and OTs."
"The core point is that Cisco ISE is the same globally compared to FortiAuthenticator. Whether I deploy in China, the US, South Africa, or wherever, I'm can get all the capabilities. It allows me to directly integrate with 365, and from a communications point of view, that is a good capability."
"I found the CMDB Direct Connect in Cisco ISE 3.2 the most promising feature for my use case."
"The AirWave Dashboard heat maps could be better designed."
"I remember our technical team stating that the installation front of the solution was a bit difficult when compared to other solutions."
"Because some users use OS 10, it would be good if the solution could group its functions better."
"Aruba ClearPass has a complex pricing scheme, so that's an area for improvement. The process for setting up Aruba ClearPass also needs improvement. It could be easier."
"I would like to see better integration with the firewall for zeroing out blacklisted users."
"ClearPass isn't hard to set up, but it takes a long time."
"The initial setup phase of the solution was really very difficult, owing to which the setup phase can be considered as an area that can be improved."
"The implementation can improve because it is challenging to explain some of the concepts to the client."
"The price here in Brazil is very expensive."
"I don't like the fact that we can see the logs only for 24 hours. Maybe that happens because of the way we set it up."
"We face many bugs."
"They should improve the upgrades. It's not easy to upgrade the solution."
"Cisco ISE can become quite complex, especially with policy sets, the entire authentication process, and everything involved."
"The knocks I have against the product are the number of bugs that we encounter, constantly, and the amount of upgrading that we have to do."
"Deploying to a machine, as opposed to a dedicated appliance, can be a bit difficult."
"A main issue is that the upgrade process, over time, is extraordinarily fragile. Repeatedly, over the past several years, when we've tried to upgrade our Cisco ISE implementation, the upgrade has broken it. Ultimately, we have then had to rebuild it because we need it."
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.