Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Portnox vs Ruckus Cloudpath comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 15, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Portnox
Ranking in Network Access Control (NAC)
6th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
ZTNA (11th), Passwordless Authentication (1st)
Ruckus Cloudpath
Ranking in Network Access Control (NAC)
10th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Network Access Control (NAC) category, the mindshare of Portnox is 3.9%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ruckus Cloudpath is 1.9%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Access Control (NAC)
 

Featured Reviews

Scott Kerr - PeerSpot reviewer
It is seamless and integrates well with our Azure setup
We use devices like PLCs and controllers, and when we receive a request to allow one on the network, we bypass typical authentication, associate it with a group account, and push it to a firewalled VLAN. However, problems arise when the same MAC address is requested for a different project. Our current system only finds authenticated MAC addresses, making it difficult to troubleshoot when the same device is used for multiple purposes. Ideally, we should be able to search for any MAC address in the database, regardless of its authentication status, to see all its associated groups and potential conflicts.
Mohammad Abdur Rahim Sarker - PeerSpot reviewer
Long-range capabilities and robust security have empowered seamless and reliable connections in diverse environments
Our primary use case for Ruckus Cloudpath is within the hospitality industry and educational institutions, such as large hotels and universities. We implemented the solution in the infrastructure to provide services to customers and students. Specifically, we use it in premises like student labs…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"I am impressed with the solution's voucher capability and authentication. The tool is integrated with Active Direct storage."
"This is a self-sufficient network monitoring and security product that saves time and employee resources."
"The cloud-based feature is very nice."
"One of the features I enjoyed the most about Portnox was the ability to dive in with proper details on an endpoint."
"The minute people have issues on their network, we can see what is happening right away."
"I like the fact that you can take your device anywhere and still have that visibility from anywhere because it's agent-based."
"The cloud-based feature of Portnox is excellent."
"Previous to the deployment we didn't have complete visibility of all the endpoints, all the devices that are connected to the network. But with the deployment of portnox, we could see all the devices and where they're connecting. We can equally segregate and apply different rules, policies to each location that we didn't monitor specifically."
"Ruckus Cloudpath is effective for network security since it points out errors, especially when working with APIs."
"The ease of use is great, and the automation wizards can do a lot."
"Ruckus technical support is very good and helpful whenever we need them."
"The most valuable features of Ruckus Cloudpath include its long-range capabilities, smooth and uninterrupted service, and reliability."
"The solution has good features for authentication, policies, and allowing users to self-provision devices for network access via their logins."
"The solution is easy to use, well designed, robust, and has good traffic capacity."
"Ruckus Cloudpath is very stable."
"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."
 

Cons

"The solution did have some stability issues, however, all I had to do was restart it."
"Allowing for a search of MAC addresses in the interface, whether they are authenticated on the network or not, would be beneficial. Currently, it only finds authenticated MAC addresses, which complicates troubleshooting when the same MAC address is used for different requests."
"The integration between Portnox CORE and Portnox CLEAR can be better. These are two different systems, and there is no unique console for both devices. Portnox CORE is agentless, whereas Portnox CLEAR is not agentless."
"In terms of operational efficiency, things are more complicated now. It takes more time to get devices on the network, but we increased security quite a bit."
"We have been having some issues with it. That's why we're considering migrating to Portnox Clear due to some limitations with CORE."
"The product should consider more integration with vendors like Huawei. It should also improve visibility. The solution should offer a partner portal that can provide customers training on the in and out of the solution."
"Portnox CORE can improve on support for unmanaged switches (or hubs) and other brands of network devices. These kinds of devices are still in use in organisations, especially SMEs who cannot afford to buy a managed switch."
"As there are no agents in Portnox Clear, the customers of the product cannot download any agents on their devices, making them unsure if the product offers proper security."
"The setup process is a bit complex."
"The hardest part we've had to deal with is trying to find some physical product recently as everything is going like hotcakes."
"The setup had a few initial small problems, however, everything was resolved and it is very good now."
"The scalability could be better."
"Ruckus Cloudpath needs more API features and enhanced automation capabilities."
"I believe the solution is missing some great features which are present in other solutions like Aruba, UiPath, and Cisco ISE."
"There is room for improvement in deployment. I would like to see more effort put into troubleshooting."
"The solution could improve by adding more detailed information that customers have available on the dashboards."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing is quite reasonable."
"The solution is very expensive and I would rate it 10 out of 10."
"The users are not very happy with the new licensing option where there is only a subscription license. There is no perpetual license."
"We pay for port licensing and support on a yearly basis, and it's not cheap."
"Portnox CORE's pricing is adequate and cheaper compared to other complex solutions. Its licensing costs are yearly and include support. Cost is calculated per device."
"Pricing is not cheap. It is based on licenses per port. After licensing is purchased, you only pay for support."
"The pricing is a bit high, possibly due to the cloud features and running instances across regions like the US, Asia, and Europe."
"It's not cheap. It's not expensive. It's in the middle."
"The licensing of the solution is user-based and the price is good."
"The pricing is a little bit high."
"I would rate the tool's pricing as a seven on a scale of one to ten. Compared to others, it's not overly expensive, but it does come with a cost. Since it's a licensed-based product, it can become expensive, especially if there is a need for additional licenses."
"The cost was somewhere around $700 for the access points, however, there was a discount."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Access Control (NAC) solutions are best for your needs.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Healthcare Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
17%
Computer Software Company
11%
Construction Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Portnox CORE?
It's easy to manage and troubleshoot thanks to the lightweight components.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Portnox CORE?
It's not cheap. It's not expensive. It's in the middle, so I'll probably give it a seven out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.
What needs improvement with Portnox CORE?
We have been having some issues with it. That's why we're considering migrating to Portnox Clear due to some limitations with CORE. At the end of the day, Portnox Clear's capabilities are much more...
What do you like most about Ruckus Cloudpath?
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 an...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Ruckus Cloudpath?
The pricing of Ruckus Cloudpath is on the expensive side. I would rate the pricing as an eight out of ten, with ten being very expensive.
What needs improvement with Ruckus Cloudpath?
Ruckus Cloudpath needs more API features and enhanced automation capabilities. I would like to improve the automation aspect, ensuring that if any issues arise or alerts are detected, the cloud pla...
 

Also Known As

Access Layers Portnox, Portnox CLEAR
No data available
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Data Realty, Royal London, Wales Millennium Centre, McLaren Construction Group, EL AL Israeli Airlines, 
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Portnox vs. Ruckus Cloudpath and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.