Aruba ClearPass Reviews

We use the solution for basic user authentication, authorization, and accounting purposes.

The solution has the best-automated profiling feature. It helps us create granular policies based on device category. Also, its API-level integration with third-party systems works well compared to other vendors.

They should include features like Radius CoA for IoT and similar devices for the solution. Also, it would be great if they had SMP functionalities as well.

I have been using the solution since 2016.

The solution is highly stable. I rate its stability a ten.

The solution is highly scalable. I rate its scalability a ten. We can add as many subscribers as we require. We have at most ten solution users as our customers. They all are enterprise businesses.

The solution's GUI and configuration workflow could be clearer to understand. I rate its setup process a six. It involves analyzing customers' requirements and starting with a POC. Once it is done, we order equipment and a license. Next, we deploy the solution offline and integrate it with the production environment. The entire process takes around two to three months to complete.

The solution is costly. We have purchased its perpetual license. It is affordable for enterprise businesses. The medium-scale companies find it expensive. I rate its pricing an eight.

I recommend the solution to others. It is an excellent platform. I rate it as a nine.

I have a few customers that are using Aruba ClearPass.

The most valuable feature of Aruba ClearPass is the ease of deployment and integration with other equipment in the network.

Aruba ClearPass could improve the complexity of the initial usage. It takes some time to be good at it. It's not simple to build and connect the rules to the network you want to deploy them on.

In a feature release of Aruba ClearPass, they should add a more graphical way to deploy the rules.

I have been using Aruba ClearPass for approximately two years.

Aruba ClearPass is stable.

I rate the stability of Aruba ClearPass a nine out of ten.

The scalability of Aruba ClearPass could improve. It is easy to make room but some aspects are difficult.

We have approximately 2,000 to 3,000 users that use Aruba ClearPass.

The response time and the knowledge of the support could improve from Aruba ClearPass.

I rate the support from Aruba ClearPass a three out of five.

Neutral

The initial setup of Aruba ClearPass is straightforward. When you need to activate the rules it becomes difficult.

We have one person that is needed to use to support Aruba ClearPass.

The price of Aruba ClearPass is expensive. However, Cisco ISE was as expensive when we were comparing.

We compared Cisco ISE before choosing Aruba ClearPass. Aruba ClearPass is better to use, especially if you have a mixed environment from different deployers or different hardware, it scales better.

I rate Aruba ClearPass a seven out of ten.

We recently implemented ClearPass for a ministerial-level government agency with 2,500 users.

ClearPass prevents hackers from accessing the network. No one can get inside without authentication. It provides a lot of features we are missing. It's incredibly powerful and stable.

I have been using Aruba ClearPass for seven years.

Like most security products, ClearPass is difficult to deploy. You need to use the CLI to implement security products from any vendor, so configuring the authentication is complicated. Some have a GUI, but the CLI is more powerful. However, after you get the authentication protocols set up, you can forget about this device. It's stable.

I rate Aruba ClearPass 10 out of 10. I recommend ClearPass. You'll get a lot of benefits.

My clients primarily use the solution to control access to the network or their sites. If a computer is not recognized by ClearPass, it won't be able to gain access.

The solution is extremely stable.

We find that at the end of the projects we manage, all functionalities perform quite well. We've tested it a lot and find it to be overall a very good solution.

It's excellent in terms of securing local networks for our clients.

The solution needs to upgrade its user interface. Right now, it's not so user friendly, and it's an aspect that my clients' wish was improved upon.

The solution is quite large and complex in scope. If a person isn't familiar with the solution, they can quickly get overwhelmed with everything.

I've been installing the solution for one to two years now. The last project I worked on was around six months ago. 

We have never experienced any bugs, crashes, or glitches. In my opinion, everything is stable. It's excellent. I'd say it's quite reliable in that regard.

The solution is very scalable. A company will be able to expand the solution to meet their needs as necessary.

In the past, we have reached out to technical support. During the implementation process, all the way through the project, we only had just one or two specific instances where their assistance seemed to take a long time. However, overall, I would say we are completely satisfied with their level of support.

While the installation itself is not difficult per se, the process you need to go through before installing the solution is complex. There are a lot of configurations to do on the firewall network and it can take a while, depending on the company. 

While it's tedious before the installation, once you come to the actual installation itself, you'll realize it's not too bad.

We're working on a project right now that has ten deployments and that's taken us about four or five months. For this project, there have been five people involved in the deployment process.

We handle aspects of the implementation for our clients.

We've partnered with HPE and Aruba.

I work at a service company. I go and install solutions for customers. I just handle the install for my customers. I don't use the software myself every day or on a regular basis. My role is one of a project technician and director. I'm an architect.

Our organization handles all sizes of companies from small to large enterprises.

If there's a company out there considering the solution, I'd just caution them to be ready.  There is a lot of configuration to do on all of the infrastructure. Other than that, it's an excellent solution. It's great for securing a local network. Security, at the end of the day, shouldn't have a cost. It's imperative to protect your business and to not worry so much about price tags, because it's even more expensive when you are unprotected and things go wrong.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

The most valuable feature for us it the granular, logic-based nesting of objects which gives highly customizable control over AAA for TACACS+ and RADIUS.

Device profiling for basic/intermediate NAC is also highly useful.

Providing granular control over which devices are permitted to join our corporate wireless network, as well as in-depth AAA (accounting, in particular) for TACACS+ sessions, is huge. We can refer back to these logs at any time, which are especially useful when we undergo organization-wide audits.

Having a global business presence, CPPM helps us to ensure all sites are compliant with a unified set of standards passed down from our corporate headquarters.

• I'd like to see greater ability to customize backups – locations, transfer protocols (SCP/SFTP, etc).
• Small tweaks like scroll bar distances within large Enforcement Policies. More customization for SNMP traps (types), a well as published MIB files so that we can utilize our network monitoring environment more heavily with polling specific aspects of CPPM.
• Hardware requirements for VM templates we use (CP-VA-5K) are, quite frankly, absurd (very high disk storage requirements).

I've used it for just over three years.

I don't recall any issues with deployment.

I don't recall any issues with stability.

I don't recall any issues with scalability.

Technical support was not all that great, actually. They are responsive, but oftentimes are VERY reluctant to initiate a screen-sharing session or give in-depth answers. URL links to knowledge-base articles are very typical for initial answers, which (1) slows resolution, and (2) increases frustration.

It seems, in general, that technical support is more interested in closing new cases than they are in actually solving the root issues. 90% of the questions I’ve had I’ve had solved (for free, mind you, without any maintenance fees) using Aruba’s Airheads online user-based forums.

The solution was implemented before I gained ownership of it. I'm not sure of the history behind it.

A local vendor was used.

Do your due-diligence in understanding how the product works before you deploy. CPPM (and many like it – Cisco ISE and ACS) are very complex in the way they are configured and operate.

If you can design the solution before implementation, you have a much better chance of scaling well, easily, and with little down-time as you grow the product throughout its life cycle in your organization.

Our primary use case is providing services for this solution. We've done a big proof of concept for Clearpass in our company. And another recent case I prepared was a proposal for one of our biggest customers regarding a solution for network access control. Clearpass was practically the heart of that solution.

My position in the company is independent. The company sells end products and services from various vendors and Aruba is one of them. We do the implementation. 

One of the most valuable features of the solution is the maturity of the product and, of course, the functionality is also very good. 

Possibly some of the functions could be improved, but it's hard to say. Generally, Clearpass is considered the leader in its field and it's a very good product. 

I've been using this solution for about half a year. 

We have quite good support from local representatives and we have our own team in the company for maintenance. A lot is available online.

Initial setup of the solution is relatively straightforward. There are a lot of videos and documentation available on the internet.

We looked at Pulse Policy Secure as a possible option. In some areas it has more flexibility than Clearpass but Clearpass came out on top in the end. Policy Secure has some ability issues and lack of good support. 

I would rate this product a nine out of 10. 

The most valuable features are planning and analytics.

It is simple to deploy.

It is transparent for the users to come in through ClearPass.

In the future, I would like to see plugins for AI and machine learning. If it did pattern analysis then it could help to determine our requirements automatically.

We have been using ClearPass for a couple of months. 

ClearPass has been very stable and there are no hiccups or any issues that we are experiencing.

It is modularly scalable and I don't see any issues with it.

I've got a lot of people connecting to my facility from outside of the organization, and they all connect through ClearPass. The combined external and internal user count is around 500.

The support that I have had from Aruba on this solution has been very nice. It's very easy to access support and the documentation is self-explanatory. You won't need much guidance from the Aruba team.

When it comes to the initial setup, as a customer, you need to prepare your own decision matrix. Once the matrices are in place, the rollout of ClearPass is seamless. It is easy. However, if you don't do your introspection and homework then it could be a challenge for an organization.

This is a solution that I would strongly recommend.

We are very happy with the support and the product overall. Although it meets our satisfaction and requirements 100%, you can never give a 100% mark. There is a little bit of room for improvement in all things.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The primary use case of ClearPass is for network access control, wireless access and policy enforcement. We use it for authentication, verification and authorization, and then patch it to our users. We are system integrators. 

The advantage of Aruba is that it is open to any operating system or mobile app. The compatibility of Aruba ClearPass is a key valuable feature and makes it a stronger product than Cisco ISE in this area.

The cost of Aruba is very, very high. It's the biggest challenge we have with this product. It would be helpful if Aruba would integrate the SDN controller into the solution. Cisco is moving towards that in order to create one platform. 

We've been using this solution for 10 years. 

Scalability depends on the design policy. One device has a scalability provision of 20,000 but you might only use 5,000 licenses initially so it really depends on your needs.

The technical support is excellent. 

The initial setup is easy and there is no need to install anything whether you buy the virtual platform or the appliance. It's all very open and clear and a matter of configuring for policy enforcement. 

There are licensing options but this is a very expensive product. 

Forescout and ClearPass are both trying to build their system as an open platform for everyone which is why their reachability is very high. If you're using ClearPass or Forescout, you can use any open switches on the market. Cisco has a limited category that it has developed for its own products and infrastructure. If you use different switches and different Wi-Fi, it doesn't provide the pure solution inside. 

I rate this solution 10 out of 10.