No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Alcatel-Lucent ClearPass vs Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 2, 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

Alcatel-Lucent ClearPass
Ranking in Network Management Applications
23rd
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN
Ranking in Network Management Applications
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions (2nd), WAN Edge (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Network Management Applications category, the mindshare of Alcatel-Lucent ClearPass is 1.7%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN is 2.5%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Management Applications Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN2.5%
Alcatel-Lucent ClearPass1.7%
Other95.8%
Network Management Applications
 

Featured Reviews

Karthikeyan Ravi - PeerSpot reviewer
Vice President of Technology at Netcon Technologies India Private Limited
Has an automated feature for user onboarding and supports heterogeneous devices
We use the product for the automated onboarding of corporate users with secure network access. It helps secure IoT endpoints for specific networks. It allows us to control the devices, including posture, endpoint verification, validation, latest patching, and signatures The product’s most…
ND
Network Manager at HPCL
Faced complex visibility and policy challenges but have improved basic traffic routing control
I have found some other solutions more insightful and user-friendly as compared to Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN, but the basic SD-WAN functionality is good enough. I am using it only because it was done as a pilot project, specifically for my 60 to 70 sites. For the majority of the sites, I am using Fortinet's Secure SD-WAN solution and I found that more viable and more in alignment with my requirements. For example, there is not any Internet Service Database available in Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN intrinsically. If I want to write a policy based on applications, I am not able to write it, at least in Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Viptela deployment that we have done, and that is fairly easy to do in Fortinet. The second issue is the logging capability. I think the visibility that Fortinet Secure SD-WAN has is not even comparable. Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN does not provide that sort of insight or control as far as traffic steering is concerned. With respect to the SLAs, I barely know which sort of SLAs are violated in Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN, so I do not have clear visibility on where the traffic is moving from at my spoke or hub locations. I believe Fortinet gives me a very clear picture of where the traffic is going. Overall visibility, whether it is data traffic or logs, is much better in Fortinet compared to Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN. The complexity of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Viptela is noticeable and quite complicated to configure. If something breaks, you have to involve TAC and others to fix it. On the contrary, you can work with underlays. Even if your IPsec overlay tunnel is down, it does not impact your production. Thus, we find Fortinet's solution significantly better than Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN solution. I have used Application-aware Routing in Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN. However, I found it to be very complicated, especially regarding policy writing. For my breakout of VC traffic, we had to write a bunch of IP addresses for Zoom, Webex, and others. Presently, it can only identify Webex as an application, and I highly doubt whether there is any application identification for Zoom and other platforms, as we were not able to find it during our implementation. It is done through static whitelisting of the IPs, which is not a scalable solution since IPs can change at any time. Overall, the application-aware routing policies are not as flexible and scalable as the Internet Service Database feature of Fortinet provides. The struggles encompass policy writing, logging capabilities, traffic visibility, and complex configuration. There is also the issue of load balancing. We have faced considerable challenges with traffic load balancing between the links. Although the SLA targets are configurable, understanding how traffic flows is challenging, making troubleshooting exceedingly difficult. Overall, I find it a quite complicated solution with not that much operational usability.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It helps secure IoT endpoints for specific networks."
"Good user profiling and BYOD facilities."
"I think the best features are the user profiling and the BYOD facilities."
"Cisco does a great job managing its customers."
"The solution's application control and application traffic steering tool are its most valuable aspects in terms of how we utilize the product."
"Using SD-WAN to combine services can result in better up time, higher speeds, and much lower costs."
"I have been working with Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN for close to two and a half years now."
"If I have to give a neutral view of all the SD-WAN platforms that I have known so far, Cisco is good in routing."
"The deployment is quite simple and straightforward."
"When considering the most valuable features of Cisco SD-WAN, the decoupling of self-monitoring stands out significantly."
"It's a scalable solution."
 

Cons

"Lacks application level visibility on the dashboard."
"I think the solution would be greatly improved by adding application level visibility on the dashboard."
"There could be in-built end-to-end map integration features for IoT devices instead of using third-party tools."
"We have had some problems with the licensing model, and it is something that should be improved."
"They need to improve the licensing, definitely. It needs to be easier to license."
"The product could improve its pricing; they are very expensive."
"The deployment is complex, and Cisco makes everything complicated."
"Cisco SD-WAN is a good product, but as I said earlier, it's not priced competitively."
"The negative, or the downside of Cisco is the knowledge base; you need to be a little bit more tech-savvy and network-savvy to work with Cisco, while Juniper is a lot more user-friendly from what I can see, especially in terms of configuration and any kind of roll back."
"The initial setup was not very straightforward, but it gets easier the more deployments you complete."
"In the next release, Cisco should focus on simplifying the configuration of SD-WAN."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Alcatel-Lucent ClearPass is an expensive product compared to other vendors."
"Cost-wise, Cisco SD-WAN is comparatively high."
"The price of the solution is the only negative factor, it is much more expensive compared with the Cisco Meraki SD-WAN solution."
"Cisco's pricing is not entirely satisfactory when you compare the SD-WAN solutions in Asian markets — like the South Asian market in Sri Lanka — because there are several competing brands including Fortinet and Citrix, who provide much the same product for a generally lower price. And when it comes to firewall vendors like Palo Alto and SonicWall, they're also selling here. It's the same with VMware, too; they have much the same features."
"It is going to be on a yearly basis. There are no additional costs."
"Cisco is more expensive than FortiGate."
"We can only buy three-year licenses, not monthly. The cost seems high for us, especially since we're in Vietnam, which isn't a rich country. But we still like the product because it is good."
"Cisco SD-WAN is more expensive than its competitors."
"80 percent reduction in WAN costs. There are no MPLS or P2P circuits left in the organization."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Management Applications solutions are best for your needs.
885,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business44
Midsize Enterprise15
Large Enterprise44
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Cisco SD-WAN?
When considering the most valuable features of Cisco SD-WAN, the decoupling of self-monitoring stands out significantly.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco SD-WAN?
The pricing of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN is rated between eight and nine out of ten, where ten is the most expensive.
What needs improvement with Cisco SD-WAN?
I have found some other solutions more insightful and user-friendly as compared to Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN, but the basic SD-WAN functionality is good enough. I am using it only because it was done a...
 

Also Known As

Alcatel Lucent ClearPass, ClearPass Policy Management System, ClearPass
Cisco SD-WAN
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Blickle and Scherer, Loughborough University, CSF Inox, Caritas Speyer
Doyle Research, Ashton Metzler & Associates
Find out what your peers are saying about Alcatel-Lucent ClearPass vs. Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
885,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.