Explore a detailed comparison of Clearpass vs ISE, including pricing, features, AD integration, certificate management, and top alternatives.

TL;DR:

• ClearPass = Best balance of vendor compatibility, ease of use, and scalability
  
• ISE = Best for Cisco-integrated enterprises needing fine-grained policy enforcement
• Forescout = Best for visibility and large-scale deployments (expensive)
  
• PacketFence = Best for skilled IT teams on a budget (open-source)
  
• openNAC = Best for simple deployments with minimal requirements

If you’re ready to take the next step in your tech career journey, cybersecurity is the simplest and high-paying field to start from. Apart from earning 6-figures from the comfort of your home, you don’t need to have a degree or IT background. Schedule a one-on-one consultation session with our expert cybersecurity coach, Tolulope Michael TODAY! Join over 1000 students in sharing your success stories.

ClearPass vs ISE: Comparison Table

Feature	Aruba ClearPass	Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE)
Deployment Type	Physical & Virtual Appliance	Physical & Virtual Appliance
Vendor Compatibility	Vendor-neutral (works well with Cisco, Juniper, etc.)	Best with Cisco environments
User Interface (UI)	Fast, simple, but slightly outdated	Modern design, but slow and sometimes unresponsive
Active Directory Integration	Manual per-node domain join	Cluster-wide domain join with automated group browsing
Certificate Management	Limited built-in CSR tool; no wildcard SAN via UI	Advanced CSR tool; supports wildcard SAN and more flexibility
Rule Configuration	Clean layout; rules not nameable	Detailed policies; supports rule naming and complex logic
Log Retention & Troubleshooting	Long-term logs via Access Tracker	24-hour logs via Live Log; older logs require Reporting Tool
BYOD Support	Strong onboarding and profiling features	Strong but works best with Cisco infrastructure
Licensing Model	One-time perpetual licensing	Subscription-based (recurring cost)
Ease of Setup	Easier to learn and deploy	Steeper learning curve; documentation mostly community-based
Scalability	Highly scalable with simpler UI	Scalable but heavier in setup and hardware requirements
Best For	Multi-vendor environments, mid-sized to large organizations	Cisco-based enterprises, large-scale policy enforcement
Notable Limitations	No rule naming, limited CSR customization	Slow GUI, complex licensing, limited 3rd-party support
Pricing Transparency	Clear, predictable upfront cost	Variable, often complex pricing tiers

RELATED ARTICLE: Network Protocols for Security: Everything You Need to Know

Cisco ISE and Aruba Clearpass: Find Out the Best for Your Network

In a world where devices outnumber people and remote work is the norm, securing network access is more critical than ever. That’s where Network Access Control (NAC) solutions step in, providing a vital layer of security that authenticates and authorizes users and devices before they can access sensitive corporate resources.

Among the top contenders in the NAC space are Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) and Aruba ClearPass, two enterprise-grade platforms known for their powerful access control features. But they’re not alone. Solutions like Forescout, PacketFence, and openNAC have also carved out significant mindshare, each offering its own unique strengths.

In this article, we’ll explain the ClearPass vs ISE debate in depth, breaking down their interfaces, performance, certificate handling, Active Directory integration, rule configuration, and pricing. Along the way, we’ll also position them against other vendors in the conversation, such as Cisco ISE vs Aruba ClearPass vs Forescout, and briefly explore comparisons like PacketFence vs ClearPass and openNAC vs PacketFence.

Cisco ISE vs. Aruba Clearpass: User Interface & Usability: Modern vs Fast

When evaluating ClearPass vs ISE, the user interface can be a dealbreaker, especially for network administrators who spend hours configuring rules, troubleshooting connections, and navigating logs.

Cisco ISE boasts a more modern and visually appealing interface, particularly from version 2.0 onward. With large dashboard panels, flat HTML5 elements, and interactive metrics, it looks the part of a premium enterprise solution. 

However, its performance often leaves users frustrated. Even in fresh deployments, ISE’s GUI can lag or stall unexpectedly, creating delays that disrupt workflow. Actions that should take seconds can sometimes stretch into minutes, something no admin wants during high-priority access control events.

On the other hand, Aruba ClearPass presents a less stylish, slightly dated GUI, but it runs like a well-oiled machine. Clicking between pages is near-instant, and navigating configuration menus feels smooth and responsive. Its dashboard includes practical features like “Quick Links,” letting users jump directly to the most-used sections without digging through layers.

While Cisco ISE may win on aesthetics, ClearPass wins where it counts, speed and usability. This is one of the most consistent points raised in every Aruba ClearPass review, especially by teams managing complex network environments with many daily access requests.

Active Directory Integration

Seamless integration with Active Directory (AD) is a cornerstone of any NAC solution. It’s how network access decisions are tied to real user identities and organizational structures. In the battle of ClearPass vs ISE, this is a key area where their philosophies diverge.

Cisco ISE provides a more automated and scalable approach. All nodes in an ISE cluster can join the AD domain simultaneously using a single administrator credential. Once joined, ISE allows administrators to browse existing AD groups and user attributes, significantly reducing the risk of typos. 

Group names and attributes are selected from dropdown menus, helping prevent human error and streamlining policy creation. This makes ISE ideal for large enterprises managing multiple domains or complex user hierarchies.

Aruba ClearPass, on the other hand, takes a more manual path. Each node must be joined to AD individually, and only one domain controller is configured per node at a time. To use groups or attributes, administrators must type names in manually when building policies. 

While this offers flexibility, it introduces the risk of configuration errors, especially in larger deployments. The process is simple enough for smaller networks, but as the environment scales, the limitations become more apparent.

That said, many Aruba ClearPass review sources praise the platform’s enforcement capabilities once AD is integrated. ClearPass can efficiently apply policies based on group attributes, and its bind operation with LDAP servers ensures compatibility with many AD-driven environments.

Still, when comparing Cisco ISE vs Aruba ClearPass vs Forescout, Cisco has the edge in Active Directory integration, especially for multi-domain or high-volume networks where automation matters.

Certificate Management

As organizations shift toward passwordless authentication and embrace 802.1X and WPA2-Enterprise, certificate management becomes a core capability in any NAC platform. In this area, the ClearPass vs ISE comparison shows clear philosophical differences.

Cisco ISE provides a highly flexible approach. Administrators can generate Certificate Signing Requests (CSRs) directly within the GUI, with full control over fields like Subject Alternative Names (SANs), including support for wildcard certificates (e.g., *.mycompany.com). 

This is particularly useful in environments where certificates need to serve multiple functions, such as EAP authentication, internal services, and guest portals. ISE also requires mutual trust between nodes in a cluster, relying on trusted root certificates to establish secure inter-node communication.

Aruba ClearPass, by contrast, restricts CSR generation within its GUI. Attempts to include wildcard entries result in errors. That doesn’t mean ClearPass doesn’t support wildcard certificates; it does, but administrators must generate the CSRs using external tools like OpenSSL and import them manually. This adds complexity, especially for admins without deep certificate knowledge.

Another key difference is how nodes communicate. Unlike ISE, ClearPass doesn’t require mutual certificate-based trust between nodes in a cluster. Instead, node pairing relies on a shared admin credential, simpler, but arguably less secure.

In short, Cisco ISE offers more control and flexibility, particularly valuable in large deployments or organizations with internal PKI infrastructure. ClearPass, while functional, is less accommodating when it comes to advanced certificate setups. For security-conscious organizations prioritizing certificate-based EAP-TLS authentication, this could be a deciding factor.

Visit tolumichael.com now to take your first step towards career transformation. Start earning multiple six figures with confidence. Don’t miss out!

Rule Configuration

Creating effective network access policies is the heart of any NAC solution. It’s where identity, device type, time of day, and countless other conditions converge to determine who gets access, and who doesn’t. In this phase of the ClearPass vs ISE debate, both platforms show strength, but with different design priorities.

Cisco ISE is built for granularity. Its Policy Sets contain distinct Authentication Policies and Authorization Policies, all layered with conditions based on AD groups, certificates, posture status, device profiling, and more. 

What makes ISE stand out is the ability to name each rule, which becomes invaluable in large enterprises managing hundreds of policies. Clear organization and documentation reduce mistakes and make ongoing maintenance easier.

However, ISE’s GUI, especially since version 2.3, has become increasingly “blocky.” Each rule takes up a significant amount of screen real estate, requiring admins to scroll extensively through long lists. It looks modern, but sometimes at the cost of usability.

Aruba ClearPass, in contrast, uses a different structure with Services, Enforcement Policies, and Profiles. The GUI is more compact, allowing admins to view more rules at once. The overall workflow feels intuitive and tidy, and default templates offer a useful starting point. However, rules cannot be named, which becomes a limitation when managing large or complex deployments.

Terminology differs slightly, but parallels exist:

• ISE’s Policy Sets = ClearPass’ Services
  
• ISE’s Authorization Policies = ClearPass’ Enforcement Policies
  
• ISE’s Authorization Profiles = ClearPass’ Enforcement Profiles

Functionally, they achieve similar outcomes, but if your team values naming rules for documentation and clarity, Cisco ISE is the stronger contender. If visual cleanliness and ease of scanning are your priorities, ClearPass makes policy-building less visually overwhelming.

READ MORE: CCNA vs Network for Cloud Administrator Role

Troubleshooting & Logs: Access Tracker vs Live Logs

A NAC solution is only as good as its ability to help you see what’s happening in real time. Whether you’re deploying new policies or investigating access issues, the logging and troubleshooting interface plays a major role. This is another area where the ClearPass vs ISE comparison reveals subtle yet significant differences.

Aruba ClearPass offers a tool called Access Tracker, which logs every access attempt and presents detailed insights into what went right or wrong. One major advantage is log history: Access Tracker can display logs going back days, weeks, or even longer, depending on the filters you apply. While you might need to customize your columns to view all the information you want, ClearPass makes this easy and persistent across sessions.

Clicking into a log entry opens up a comprehensive breakdown of the authentication and enforcement steps, including policy matches, credentials used, device posture, and attributes pulled from Active Directory. It’s intuitive, and everything happens in a single workflow.

Cisco ISE, by comparison, uses the Live Log. It provides similar levels of detail on authentication attempts but comes with a notable limitation: it only stores logs from the past 24 hours. If you need to investigate older entries, you’ll have to generate a custom report using the Reporting Tool, which introduces more steps and complexity, especially for less experienced admins.

For real-time visibility and extended log access, ClearPass takes the lead. In large environments where constant troubleshooting is the norm, Access Tracker can save hours each week. However, if your organization already has structured workflows involving Cisco’s reporting features, the Live Log may be sufficient.

Visit tolumichael.com now to take your first step towards career transformation. Start earning multiple six figures with confidence. Don’t miss out!

Clearpass vs ISE: Vendor Compatibility & BYOD Support

Modern networks are rarely made up of devices from a single vendor. That’s why vendor compatibility and BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) support are major deciding factors when choosing between ClearPass vs ISE.

Aruba ClearPass is widely praised for its vendor-neutral architecture. It integrates smoothly with a wide range of switches, access points, firewalls, and mobile device management (MDM) solutions. 

Whether you’re using Cisco, Juniper, Ruckus, or others, ClearPass is built to handle multi-vendor environments. This flexibility is especially valuable in organizations where infrastructure has evolved over time or where mergers have created a patchwork of technologies.

In BYOD scenarios, ClearPass also shines. Its onboarding capabilities allow users to self-register their personal devices, automatically pushing policies, profiles, or even certificates to them. The platform makes it easier to assign different access levels based on device ownership, OS type, or compliance status, without overwhelming the IT team.

Cisco ISE, in contrast, works best within Cisco-heavy environments. It supports non-Cisco equipment, but integrations can be clunky or limited. Some features, like profiling or device compliance, may not function as smoothly when tied to third-party infrastructure. 

If your organization is already invested in Cisco hardware and software, this might not be an issue. But for mixed environments, ISE could introduce constraints.

When comparing Cisco ISE vs Aruba ClearPass vs Forescout, Aruba offers the most open integration. Forescout is also agentless and highly adaptable, but can be more expensive and complex to implement. In contrast, ISE offers tighter control and consistency within Cisco stacks but lacks the out-of-the-box flexibility that ClearPass brings.

If you’re managing a diverse, BYOD-heavy network, ClearPass is likely the more adaptable solution.

SEE ALSO: ​​What Is Mitigation Control in SAP GRC?

Pricing & Licensing Models

Cost is often the final decision point when comparing ClearPass vs ISE, especially for small to mid-sized enterprises. Both platforms are premium solutions, but their pricing structures, and long-term costs, differ significantly.

Aruba ClearPass pricing follows a perpetual licensing model. You purchase the license once and retain it permanently, with optional support and maintenance renewals. While the initial cost can be high, it’s generally considered more cost-effective in the long run. 

Organizations appreciate the predictability and simplicity, especially those looking to control recurring expenses. This model also aligns well with capital expenditure (CapEx) budgeting strategies.

In contrast, Cisco ISE uses a subscription-based licensing model, which can drive up operational expenses (OpEx) over time. Cisco offers multiple tiers and bundles depending on the number of endpoints, feature sets, and deployment size. 

However, many customers find ISE’s licensing complex and hard to estimate accurately, often requiring help from Cisco partners just to understand what’s needed.

Return on investment (ROI) also varies by organization size. Larger enterprises with extensive Cisco infrastructure might find ISE’s deep integration and policy precision worth the cost. Smaller companies or those using a mix of vendors often lean toward ClearPass for its lower total cost of ownership and simplified licensing.

In side-by-side comparisons like Cisco ISE vs Aruba ClearPass vs Forescout, many buyers point out that Forescout is even more expensive, especially at scale, despite its flexibility and visibility features.

If you’re weighing Aruba ClearPass pricing against long-term subscription costs, the winner depends on your budget strategy. For one-time investment and long-term affordability, ClearPass offers better control. For feature depth in Cisco environments, ISE’s higher price might be justifiable.

MORE: What Is Best Plan for Data Loss Prevention (DLP)

How Do Alternatives Like Forescout, PacketFence & openNAC Compare?

While ClearPass vs ISE dominate most NAC discussions, they aren’t the only players in town. Organizations looking for alternatives, either due to budget constraints, vendor neutrality, or specific features, often evaluate Forescout, PacketFence, and openNAC as viable options.

Forescout

Forescout is known for its agentless approach, meaning it doesn’t require software to be installed on endpoints. It excels in visibility, identifying, classifying, and monitoring devices across IT, OT, and IoT environments. It’s particularly popular in large enterprises and critical infrastructure sectors. 

However, it comes with higher implementation complexity and cost, which can deter smaller teams or organizations without deep security expertise. When evaluating Cisco ISE vs Forescout, Forescout offers broader visibility, but Cisco provides tighter policy control within the Cisco ecosystem.

PacketFence

For teams on a budget or those with open-source leanings, PacketFence is a strong candidate. It’s free to use, fully open-source, and has an active development community. It supports a wide range of authentication methods, including RADIUS, captive portals, and MAC authentication. 

However, the trade-off is usability, setup, and maintenance require significant technical know-how. In the debate of PacketFence vs ClearPass, Aruba wins in polish, documentation, and ease of use, while PacketFence offers unbeatable pricing for those who can manage its complexity.

openNAC

openNAC is another open-source NAC platform, focused on lightweight deployments and ease of integration. It’s suitable for small to mid-sized organizations that want basic access control without the price tag of commercial solutions. However, openNAC vs PacketFence often ends with PacketFence having the upper hand in community support and feature richness.

Which NAC Is Right for You?

Choosing the right Network Access Control (NAC) solution comes down to more than just features; it’s about compatibility, manageability, scalability, and long-term value. The ClearPass vs ISE comparison reveals two powerful, enterprise-ready tools with distinct strengths and trade-offs.

If your organization is deeply embedded in the Cisco ecosystem, values tight integration, and requires granular control over access policies with robust certificate management, then Cisco ISE is likely the best fit. Its advanced CSR handling, policy naming, and multi-node Active Directory integration make it a favorite in large, complex environments.

However, if you prioritize ease of use, vendor flexibility, and a faster, smoother interface, especially in mixed-vendor environments, Aruba ClearPass is a strong contender. It may lack some of ISE’s granular naming features, but it shines in real-world operability, faster UI performance, and a more predictable Aruba ClearPass pricing model.

When compared against other solutions like Cisco ISE vs Aruba ClearPass vs Forescout, or open-source tools like PacketFence and openNAC, the decision often hinges on budget, in-house expertise, and infrastructure needs. Forescout offers unmatched visibility but at a premium. PacketFence is great for open-source purists, while openNAC works for lightweight control with minimal investment.

Bottom line:

• Choose Cisco ISE for tightly controlled, Cisco-native deployments that need depth and precision.
  
• Choose Aruba ClearPass for flexible, user-friendly setups with strong multi-vendor support and lower long-term costs.
  
• Consider Forescout, PacketFence, or openNAC only if your team has the specific use case and the technical maturity to manage them effectively.

No NAC solution is perfect, but the one that fits your network, team, and future roadmap is the one that will serve you best.

FAQ