Every enterprise network team eventually hits the same wall: too many devices, not enough visibility, and a growing list of laptops, badge readers, cameras, and unmanaged phones that nobody remembers approving. Network Access Control (NAC) is the layer that is supposed to fix that, deciding who and what gets onto the network, under which identity, and with which privileges. Three platforms dominate that conversation in 2026: Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE), Aruba ClearPass from HPE Aruba Networking, and the Forescout Platform. Each takes a different route to the same destination, and the gap between them shows up in licensing cost, deployment effort, and how much the product leans on agents versus passive network visibility.
This comparison breaks down specs, pricing, security track record, and real deployment scenarios for all three, using Cisco’s own release documentation, Forescout’s newsroom, and independent NAC market research published in 2026. The goal is simple: help a network or security architect pick the right platform without wading through three vendor sales decks.
Don't miss new tech stories on Google
Add Tech Insider once in the Google app and our stories appear in your news suggestions.
Cisco ISE vs ClearPass vs Forescout: The Quick Verdict
Cisco ISE is the default pick for shops already running Cisco switches, Catalyst Center, and Cisco’s broader security stack, since its pxGrid integration ties policy decisions directly into Cisco’s threat intelligence sharing framework. Aruba ClearPass wins on multi-vendor flexibility, built to sit on top of Aruba, Cisco, Juniper, and other 802.1X-capable switching gear without forcing a single-vendor network. Forescout is the agentless specialist, built for environments where installing a client on every device is not realistic, think hospitals full of medical equipment, factory floors full of OT sensors, and retail chains full of point-of-sale terminals.
None of the three is universally cheaper. Third-party pricing estimates compiled by comparison site tutorsbot.com put Cisco ISE subscriptions at roughly $70 to $300 per endpoint depending on tier, while ClearPass Access runs an estimated $30 to $90 per device and ClearPass Policy Manager Pro climbs to $50 to $180 per device. That puts the top of the ISE range about $120 ahead of ClearPass Pro at the high end, though neither vendor publishes an official list price, and discounting through resellers and enterprise agreements is common. Forescout licenses by managed device count across its eyeSight, eyeControl, and eyeSegment product tiers, with no public per-device figure available for 2026.
What Each Network Access Control Platform Actually Does
Before comparing specs line by line, it helps to understand what problem each platform was originally built to solve, because that history still shapes how they behave today.
Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE)
Cisco ISE is the policy engine at the center of Cisco’s identity-based networking strategy. It handles 802.1X authentication, RADIUS accounting, device profiling, guest access, and posture assessment, then shares that context with the rest of Cisco’s security portfolio through pxGrid, Cisco’s platform exchange grid for sharing contextual data between security products. According to Cisco’s own release notes, ISE 3.1 cumulative patch 12 became generally available on September 15, 2026, and Cisco’s September 2026 hardening advisory confirms that the supported, fixed software levels span ISE 3.1 patch 12 through ISE 3.5 patch 4, with 3.5 representing the current major release branch. Cisco ISE 3.0 has already reached End of Software Maintenance, and a February 2026 end-of-sale notice set a final order date of November 3, 2026, for affected ISE 3.1 and 3.2 software and associated hardware, a signal that Cisco is pushing its installed base toward the newer 3.x branches. Cisco’s own guidance is to use the latest patch in the Cisco ISE 3.5 release-train to experience new features and fixes, and its Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) At a Glance overview is dated 10-Sep-2026.
ISE licensing runs on an endpoint-count, subscription-tiered model split into Essentials, Advantage, and Premier tiers, according to third-party comparison research. Essentials covers core 802.1X and RADIUS functions; Advantage layers in deeper profiling and posture; Premier adds the full threat-centric NAC feature set, including integration with Cisco’s broader XDR and SIEM tooling.
Aruba ClearPass (HPE Aruba Networking)
ClearPass was built from day one to be vendor-agnostic. Where Cisco ISE assumes a Cisco-heavy network, ClearPass is explicitly designed to authenticate and police devices across mixed-vendor switching and wireless infrastructure, including Aruba, Cisco, and Juniper gear, according to 2026 comparison research. That makes it a common choice for universities, hospital systems, and enterprises that have grown through acquisition and ended up with a patchwork of network hardware. ClearPass licensing is structured around Client Access Licenses or endpoint-based tiers, with named products including ClearPass Access, OnGuard (its posture and health-check agent), and Onboard (its device provisioning and certificate enrollment tool). HPE’s current documentation names the platform HPE Aruba Networking ClearPass Policy Manager, and a TechDocs page last modified September 25, 2026 describes it working with HPE GreenLake single sign-on using SAML 2.0.
Forescout Platform
Forescout takes the opposite approach from both Cisco and Aruba: agentless-first. Instead of relying on an endpoint client, Forescout discovers and classifies devices through passive traffic monitoring, SPAN and NetFlow data, SNMP polling, and direct switch integrations, which is why it shows up so often in healthcare, manufacturing, and critical-infrastructure deployments where IoT and OT devices cannot run a software agent at all. Forescout’s product line is split into eyeSight (visibility and discovery), eyeControl (policy enforcement), and eyeSegment (network segmentation), licensed by the number of managed devices rather than by user seat. Forescout’s own newsroom published a first-half 2026 threat review covering vulnerability discovery trends, AI-driven attack techniques, ransomware activity, and a specific rise in attacks targeting specialized and unmanaged devices, the exact category Forescout’s agentless model is built to see.
Cisco ISE vs ClearPass vs Forescout: Full Specs Comparison
The table below lines up the core technical and commercial attributes side by side, based on Cisco’s own documentation and independent 2026 comparison research.
| Attribute | Cisco ISE | Aruba ClearPass | Forescout Platform |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core model | Agent-optional, identity-centric | Agent-optional, multi-vendor policy engine | Agentless-first, passive discovery |
| Current supported branch | ISE 3.5 (patch 4), with 3.1-3.4 also on fixed support levels | Latest ClearPass release (specific build not independently verified for 2026) | Latest Forescout Platform release (specific build not independently verified for 2026) |
| Deployment options | Physical appliance, virtual machine, cloud-delivered management | Physical appliance, virtual appliance | Hardware appliance, virtual appliance |
| Primary discovery method | 802.1X, RADIUS, profiling, posture agent | 802.1X, RADIUS, device profiling, OnGuard posture agent | Passive traffic monitoring (SPAN/NetFlow), SNMP, switch API integration |
| Multi-vendor switch support | Strongest on Cisco infrastructure | Explicitly multi-vendor: Aruba, Cisco, Juniper, other 802.1X gear | Vendor-agnostic by design, relies on network-level visibility |
| Security ecosystem integration | pxGrid data sharing across Cisco security products | Integrates with third-party SIEM/SOAR via APIs | Integrates with SIEM, SOAR, and vulnerability management tools via its Extended Module |
| Licensing tiers | Essentials, Advantage, Premier (endpoint-based) | Access, OnGuard, Onboard (CAL or endpoint-based) | eyeSight, eyeControl, eyeSegment (device-count based) |
| Estimated per-endpoint cost | ~$70-$300/endpoint (third-party estimate) | ~$30-$90/device Access; ~$50-$180/device Pro (third-party estimate) | No public per-device figure for 2026 |
| Best-fit environment | Cisco-centric enterprise networks | Mixed-vendor campus and healthcare networks | IoT, OT, and unmanaged-device-heavy environments |
| 2026 security disclosure | CVE-2026-76460, authentication bypass, CVSS 10.0, affecting ISE and ISE Passive Identity Connector | No independently verified 2025-2026 CVE identified in this research | No independently verified 2025-2026 CVE identified in this research |
| End-of-life signal | ISE 3.0 reached End of Software Maintenance; ISE 3.1/3.2 hardware EOL order date November 3, 2026 | Not applicable to current release in available research | Not applicable to current release in available research |
| Zero trust positioning | Identity-centric enforcement point for Cisco Zero Trust architecture | Policy enforcement layer for HPE Aruba Networking zero trust stack | Visibility and segmentation layer, often paired with a separate ZTNA broker |
Two rows deserve a caveat. Current ClearPass and Forescout Platform version numbers were not independently confirmed through vendor release notes in this research, so they are listed as “latest release” rather than a specific build number. Readers evaluating either platform for procurement should confirm the exact build against the vendor’s own release notes before signing a contract. The same applies to the CVE row: Aruba and Forescout may have had 2025-2026 advisories that simply were not surfaced in the sources used for this comparison, so absence here should not be read as a clean bill of health.
Pricing and Licensing: Cisco ISE vs ClearPass vs Forescout
None of the three vendors publish a public, universal price list, which is standard for enterprise network security software sold through resellers and systems integrators. The figures below come from third-party comparison research and should be treated as planning estimates, not quotes.
| Platform / Tier | Licensing model | Estimated cost range | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cisco ISE Essentials | Per-endpoint subscription | Low end of the ~$70-$300/endpoint range | Core 802.1X/RADIUS functionality |
| Cisco ISE Advantage | Per-endpoint subscription | Mid-range of the ~$70-$300/endpoint range | Adds profiling and posture assessment |
| Cisco ISE Premier | Per-endpoint subscription | High end, up to ~$300/endpoint | Full threat-centric NAC plus pxGrid integrations |
| Separate lower estimate (ISE) | Per-endpoint, per year | ~$15-$25/endpoint/year | A different third-party source gives a materially lower range, illustrating how much term length and volume discounts matter |
| ClearPass Access | Client Access License or per-device | ~$30-$90/device | Core policy manager and authentication |
| ClearPass Policy Manager Pro | Per-device | ~$50-$180/device | Adds OnGuard posture and advanced policy features |
| Separate lower estimate (ClearPass) | Per-endpoint, per year | ~$12-$20/endpoint/year | Again, a different source gives a lower annualized figure |
| Forescout eyeSight / eyeControl / eyeSegment | Per managed device | No public 2026 figure available | Typically quoted directly by Forescout or its partners based on device count and modules selected |
The spread between the two Cisco ISE estimates, roughly $15 to $25 per endpoint per year on one end and $70 to $300 per endpoint on the other, is wide enough to matter for budgeting. That gap most likely reflects differences in contract term, support level, bundled hardware, and whether the estimate includes Cisco’s Premier tier with full pxGrid and XDR integration versus a stripped-down Essentials deployment. The practical takeaway: get a formal quote from a Cisco, Aruba, or Forescout reseller before building a budget line, and ask explicitly whether the number includes support, hardware refresh, and professional services for the initial rollout, since NAC deployments routinely run over budget on the services side rather than the license itself.
Deployment Models: On-Prem, Cloud, Hybrid, and Virtual
All three platforms support physical appliance and virtual machine deployment, which matters for organizations that want to run NAC policy engines inside their own data center or virtualization cluster rather than standing up dedicated hardware. Cisco ISE adds cloud-delivered management on top of that, letting network teams centralize policy administration while keeping the actual policy service nodes distributed across sites, a pattern common in large, multi-site retail and branch office deployments. ClearPass follows a similar physical-or-virtual pattern, with its management and policy enforcement components typically deployed as a cluster for redundancy. Forescout is most often deployed with a central appliance paired with distributed sensors at each network segment, since its agentless discovery model depends on seeing traffic at multiple points in the network rather than a single, centralized vantage point.
None of the three vendors has published a confirmed 2025-2026 fully SaaS, cloud-native-only NAC offering in the sources reviewed for this comparison. That matters because a growing share of the broader network security market, including SASE platforms, has moved toward pure cloud delivery. NAC remains more hybrid by necessity: the policy engine has to make real-time decisions about devices physically connecting to switches, access points, and VPN concentrators, which keeps a meaningful on-premises or edge component in the architecture even when management is cloud-hosted.
Security Track Record: CVEs and Patch Cadence
Security track record is one of the most concrete ways to compare NAC vendors, since a flaw in the platform that decides who gets network access is about as high-stakes as a vulnerability gets. Cisco publishes a dedicated ISE vulnerabilities page that lists supported, fixed software levels across every active branch: ISE 3.1 patch 12, 3.2 patch 11, 3.3 patch 12, 3.4 patch 7, and 3.5 patch 4. That level of granular, publicly tracked patch history is itself informative, it shows Cisco actively maintaining five parallel release branches rather than forcing every customer onto the newest version immediately.
The most serious 2026 disclosure covered in this research is CVE-2026-76460, an authentication-bypass vulnerability affecting Cisco ISE and the ISE Passive Identity Connector, reported with a CVSS score of 10.0, the maximum possible severity rating. Coverage from ground.news, aggregating reporting on the disclosure, characterized it as the second critical zero-day affecting Cisco ISE infrastructure within the same week, underscoring that identity and access infrastructure has become a high-value target precisely because compromising the NAC layer can unlock everything behind it. Cisco’s own September 2026 hardening advisory notes that its most recent hardening release bundled only critical Security Impact Rating fixes rather than the full set of available hardening changes, a detail worth knowing if a security team is deciding how aggressively to patch.
For ClearPass and Forescout, this research did not surface an independently verified 2025-2026 CVE with a comparable severity rating. That is not the same as a clean record, it reflects what the available sources documented rather than a confirmed absence of vulnerabilities. Any organization evaluating these platforms should check the National Vulnerability Database and each vendor’s own security advisory page directly as part of procurement due diligence, since CVE visibility varies by how aggressively a vendor publishes and how much third-party security research targets a given product.
Zero Trust, SASE, and Where NAC Fits Now
NAC used to be a standalone checkbox: plug a device in, authenticate it, let it on the network. In 2026, it increasingly functions as one enforcement point inside a broader zero trust architecture, sitting alongside SASE platforms and identity providers. Gartner’s own category description for network access control, as referenced in available 2026 research, explicitly covers both user-oriented devices and IoT devices, reflecting how NAC’s job has expanded from “authenticate the laptop” to “continuously verify every device type on the network, managed or not.”
That expansion is exactly why Forescout’s agentless model and Cisco’s pxGrid-based intelligence sharing have both become more relevant rather than less. A zero trust architecture depends on continuous verification and context sharing between the identity layer, the network layer, and the security operations center. A NAC platform that cannot see unmanaged IoT devices, or cannot share what it sees with the rest of the security stack, becomes a blind spot rather than a control point. This research did not surface a verified, specific 2025-2026 enterprise zero trust adoption percentage, so no precise figure is cited here, but the qualitative direction, NAC as a zero trust enforcement layer rather than a standalone gatekeeper, is well supported by how all three vendors now position their products.
Third-Party Benchmarks and Analyst Comparisons
Independent, head-to-head NAC comparisons are harder to find than the password manager or antivirus space, since enterprise network security products rarely get the same consumer-facing lab testing. Three sources inform the comparison used here. Third-party technical comparison site tutorsbot.com evaluated ClearPass against Cisco ISE on licensing structure and feature depth, which is the source of the per-endpoint pricing ranges used in this article. A second comparison guide published by blog.it-learn.io, aimed at solutions engineers, evaluated Cisco ISE, ClearPass, and Forescout across deployment complexity and multi-vendor support, concluding that ClearPass’s vendor-agnostic design is its clearest differentiator against ISE’s Cisco-centric approach. A third resource, a NAC shootout published by cisco.getuniqcli.com, framed the three-way comparison specifically around agentless visibility, where Forescout’s passive discovery model was positioned as the strongest option for environments with large numbers of unmanaged or IoT devices that cannot run a posture agent.
Gartner’s own peer-review category page for network access control, cited in NAC market research published in 2026, lists Portnox as a cloud-native, zero-trust-focused NAC specialist worth benchmarking against the three incumbents covered here, particularly for organizations that want a lighter-weight, cloud-delivered alternative to the appliance-heavy architectures that Cisco, Aruba, and Forescout all still rely on to varying degrees.
Real-World Deployment Scenarios
Specific, named 2025-2026 customer case studies for these platforms were not independently verified in this research, so the scenarios below are illustrative deployment patterns grounded in each platform’s documented architecture and target use cases, not confirmed named deployments.
- A Cisco-centric financial services campus: an organization running Catalyst switching end to end, already invested in Cisco’s security portfolio, deploys ISE Premier to get pxGrid-based context sharing into its existing SOC tooling, prioritizing deep integration over vendor flexibility.
- A multi-vendor university network: a higher-education IT department inherits Aruba wireless, Juniper core switching, and Cisco edge switches across different buildings and budget cycles, and standardizes on ClearPass specifically because it does not require ripping out non-Aruba hardware to get consistent policy enforcement.
- A hospital system with thousands of unmanaged medical devices: infusion pumps, imaging equipment, and patient monitors cannot run an 802.1X supplicant or posture agent, so the security team deploys Forescout’s agentless eyeSight and eyeControl modules to discover, classify, and segment those devices without touching the devices themselves.
- A manufacturing plant converging IT and OT networks: programmable logic controllers and industrial sensors sit on the same physical network as corporate laptops, and Forescout’s eyeSegment module is used to build microsegmentation policies that isolate OT traffic from the rest of the network without requiring a redesign of the plant floor wiring.
- A mid-size retail chain with branch offices: dozens of store locations need consistent guest Wi-Fi and point-of-sale network policy without a full-time network engineer on-site, so the team leans on Cisco ISE’s cloud-delivered management to administer policy centrally while keeping lightweight policy service nodes at each site.
Migration Guide: Moving Between NAC Platforms
Switching NAC platforms, or deploying one for the first time, is a network-wide project, not a software install. Here is the general sequence that applies whether the destination is Cisco ISE, ClearPass, or Forescout.
- Inventory every connected device. Before touching policy, get a full picture of what is actually on the network today, managed laptops, IoT sensors, printers, cameras, badge readers, and anything with a MAC address. This is also the point where Forescout’s passive discovery, if available even as a trial, pays for itself as an audit tool.
- Classify devices by risk and management status. Split the inventory into managed endpoints that can run a posture agent, unmanaged but identifiable devices, and unknown or unclassified devices that need manual review.
- Build a parallel policy environment. Stand up the new NAC platform in monitor-only or audit mode alongside the existing environment, so policy decisions are logged but not enforced yet. This catches misconfigurations before they lock out a hospital imaging machine or a factory sensor.
- Migrate authentication sources. Connect the new platform to existing identity providers, whether that is Active Directory, Entra ID, or Okta, and validate that RADIUS and 802.1X authentication flows resolve correctly for a representative sample of device types.
- Pilot with a single site or VLAN. Roll enforcement out on one building, one floor, or one VLAN first, not the entire network at once. This is especially important for ClearPass deployments spanning multiple switch vendors, since RADIUS attribute handling can differ subtly between Cisco, Aruba, and Juniper gear.
- Expand enforcement in phases, starting with the lowest-risk segments. Guest Wi-Fi and conference room ports are lower-stakes places to flip from monitor to enforce mode than core data center or OT segments.
- Decommission the legacy platform only after a full policy audit. Keep the old NAC environment running in a reduced, standby capacity until the new platform has handled at least one full business cycle, including any seasonal spikes in guest or contractor device volume.
Budget real time for this: enterprise NAC rollouts routinely take three to six months for a mid-size organization and longer for anything spanning multiple sites or regulated environments like healthcare and finance, where posture policy has to account for compliance requirements on top of basic network access.
Pros and Cons of Each Platform
Cisco ISE
- Pros: deepest integration with Cisco’s broader security and networking portfolio via pxGrid; actively maintained across five parallel release branches with publicly documented patch levels; cloud-delivered management option for distributed sites.
- Cons: strongest value is tied to running Cisco switching infrastructure; per-endpoint pricing estimates vary widely between sources, making budgeting harder; 2026 brought at least one maximum-severity CVSS 10.0 vulnerability disclosure, a reminder that identity infrastructure is an active target.
Aruba ClearPass
- Pros: explicitly built for multi-vendor switching environments; modular licensing through Access, OnGuard, and Onboard lets teams buy only what they need; well suited to organizations with inherited, heterogeneous network hardware.
- Cons: like Cisco, still leans on posture agents for full device visibility, which is a gap for unmanaged IoT; publicly available 2025-2026 version and vulnerability data is thinner than Cisco’s, making independent verification harder for buyers.
Forescout Platform
- Pros: agentless-first design is the strongest fit for IoT, OT, and medical device environments where installing a client is not an option; eyeSegment adds microsegmentation without requiring a network redesign; active 2026 threat research output shows continued investment in detecting attacks against unmanaged devices specifically.
- Cons: no public per-device pricing available for 2026, making upfront budgeting harder without a direct vendor quote; passive, traffic-based discovery depends on proper network tap or SPAN port placement, which adds architectural complexity compared to a straightforward 802.1X deployment.
Who Should Choose Which Platform
Five scenarios cover most of the decision tree network and security teams actually face in 2026.
- Choose Cisco ISE if: the network runs predominantly on Cisco Catalyst switching and the organization already uses Cisco security products that benefit from pxGrid context sharing.
- Choose Aruba ClearPass if: the switching infrastructure spans multiple vendors and ripping it out to standardize on one brand is not realistic in the next budget cycle.
- Choose Forescout if: the environment includes large numbers of IoT, OT, or medical devices that cannot run a posture agent, and agentless visibility is the priority over deep identity-provider integration.
- Choose Forescout’s eyeSegment specifically if: the immediate driver is network segmentation for compliance reasons, such as isolating payment card systems or OT networks, rather than general access control.
- Choose Cisco ISE’s cloud-delivered management if: the organization has many small branch sites and needs centralized policy administration without a dedicated network engineer at every location.
- Consider a lighter-weight, cloud-native alternative like Portnox if: the organization is small to mid-size and the appliance-heavy architecture common to all three platforms covered here is more infrastructure than the team wants to manage.
The NAC Market in 2026: Size, Growth, and Vendor Share
Market sizing for network access control varies significantly by research firm, mostly because firms draw the category boundary differently, some include adjacent zero trust and endpoint access tooling, others stick to narrow, traditional 802.1X-style NAC. Value Market Research puts the 2025 global NAC market at $5.63 billion, growing to $6.82 billion in 2026 and reaching $31.63 billion by 2034, a 21.14% compound annual growth rate. Global Market Insights gives a more conservative figure: $4.5 billion in 2025, $5.2 billion in 2026, climbing to $16.23 billion by 2035 at a 13.7% CAGR. On the higher end, Reanin estimates the 2025 market at $10.26 billion, projecting growth to $68.69 billion by 2032 at a 31.2% CAGR, while Research and Markets puts 2026 at $7.46 billion, reaching $21.52 billion by 2030 at a 30.3% CAGR.
| Research firm | 2025/2026 market size | Forecast | CAGR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Value Market Research | $5.63B (2025) / $6.82B (2026) | $31.63B by 2034 | 21.14% |
| Global Market Insights | $4.5B (2025) / $5.2B (2026) | $16.23B by 2035 | 13.7% |
| Research and Markets | $7.46B (2026) | $21.52B by 2030 | 30.3% |
| Reanin | $10.26B (2025) | $68.69B by 2032 | 31.2% |
| Coherent Market Insights | $6.35B (2026) | $25.86B by 2033 | 22.2% |
Despite the spread, every single estimate agrees on direction: strong double-digit growth through the end of the decade. Global Market Insights’ 2025 data also puts a number on market leadership, estimating that Cisco holds more than 17.78% of the global NAC market, with the top five vendors, Cisco, Fortinet, Huawei, Aruba Networks, and Forescout, holding a combined 42.44% share. That leaves well over half the market split across smaller and regional vendors, including cloud-native challengers like Portnox, which signals a market that is growing fast enough to support both the entrenched incumbents covered in this comparison and newer entrants building cloud-first alternatives.
The Verdict: Which NAC Platform Wins in 2026
There is no single winner here, and any vendor claiming otherwise is selling something. Cisco ISE is the strongest choice for Cisco-standardized networks that want tight pxGrid integration with the rest of their security stack, backed by a publicly tracked, actively maintained patch cadence across five release branches, even though that visibility also means its 2026 security record includes a maximum-severity CVSS 10.0 disclosure. Aruba ClearPass is the pragmatic choice for anyone running mixed-vendor infrastructure who cannot justify a rip-and-replace just to get consistent NAC policy. Forescout is the clear pick when the real problem is visibility into devices that cannot run an agent at all, which, as IoT and OT device counts keep climbing, is an increasingly large share of any modern network.
On cost, the picture is genuinely murky: third-party per-endpoint estimates for Cisco ISE range from roughly $15 to $300 depending on tier and term, and ClearPass estimates span $12 to $180, while Forescout publishes no public figure at all. That is the strongest argument in this entire comparison for getting a direct, written quote from each vendor before deciding, since list-price guesswork is unreliable enough to flip a budget decision in either direction. With a NAC market growing at a CAGR estimated anywhere from 14% to over 30% depending on the research firm, and with 2026 having already delivered at least one maximum-severity vulnerability in a market-leading platform, the real takeaway is that NAC is no longer a set-it-and-forget-it purchase. All three platforms require ongoing patch management, policy tuning, and periodic reassessment against a growing attack surface.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Cisco ISE, ClearPass, or Forescout the cheapest NAC platform?
There is no definitive public answer. Third-party estimates put Cisco ISE at roughly $15 to $300 per endpoint depending on source and tier, and ClearPass at roughly $12 to $180 per device. Forescout does not publish a per-device figure. Actual cost depends heavily on contract term, volume discounts, and which tier or module set is required, so a direct vendor quote is the only reliable way to compare pricing for a specific deployment.
Can Forescout work without installing agents on every device?
Yes, that is Forescout’s core design principle. It discovers and classifies devices through passive network monitoring, SPAN and NetFlow data, SNMP polling, and switch integrations rather than requiring a software agent, which is why it is commonly deployed in healthcare, manufacturing, and other environments with large numbers of IoT and OT devices that cannot run a traditional endpoint client.
Does ClearPass only work with Aruba networking hardware?
No. ClearPass is explicitly designed to support multi-vendor environments, including Aruba, Cisco, Juniper, and other 802.1X-capable switching and wireless infrastructure, according to 2026 comparison research. That vendor-agnostic design is one of its main differentiators against Cisco ISE, which is most tightly integrated with Cisco’s own switching and security ecosystem.
What is CVE-2026-76460 and does it affect Cisco ISE?
CVE-2026-76460 is an authentication-bypass vulnerability reported in 2026 affecting Cisco Identity Services Engine and the ISE Passive Identity Connector, with a reported CVSS severity score of 10.0, the maximum possible rating. Organizations running Cisco ISE should confirm their deployment is on a supported, patched software level and review Cisco’s security advisory directly for remediation guidance.
Which NAC platform is best for a hospital or healthcare network?
Forescout is the platform most commonly associated with healthcare deployments because of its agentless discovery model, which can identify and classify medical devices like infusion pumps and imaging equipment without requiring software installation on equipment that is often regulated, locked down, or simply incapable of running a posture agent.
How big is the network access control market in 2026?
Estimates vary by research firm, ranging from roughly $4.5 billion to over $10 billion for 2025, with 2026 estimates generally falling between $5 billion and $7.5 billion depending on how narrowly NAC is defined. Growth projections across firms consistently point to double-digit compound annual growth through at least 2030, with some forecasts reaching above 30% CAGR.
Can I switch from Cisco ISE to ClearPass or Forescout without downtime?
Yes, if the migration is planned in phases. The standard approach is to run the new platform in monitor-only or audit mode alongside the existing NAC deployment, validate authentication flows against a device inventory, pilot enforcement on a single site or VLAN, and only decommission the legacy platform after a full policy audit and at least one complete business cycle on the new system.
Is there a cloud-native alternative to Cisco ISE, ClearPass, and Forescout?
Gartner’s peer-review category for network access control lists Portnox as a cloud-native, zero-trust-focused NAC vendor, positioned as a lighter-weight alternative to the appliance-heavy architectures that Cisco, Aruba, and Forescout all still rely on to varying degrees, which can appeal to smaller organizations that want to avoid managing physical or virtual appliance clusters.
