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
5th
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 May 2026, in the Network Management Applications category, the mindshare of Alcatel-Lucent ClearPass is 1.8%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN is 2.5%, up from 1.7% 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 ClearPass1.8%
Other95.7%
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."
"I think the best features are the user profiling and the BYOD facilities."
"Good user profiling and BYOD facilities."
"Cisco SD-WAN has separate OMP routing."
"We recommend the solution, not only because of the functionality or the technical support, but also because of the delivery of the solution, and the docking and upgrading capabilities."
"The solution is great at aggregating the traffic and then sending it in one direction."
"Cisco is always good with technical support, it's easy and the contact is fast when you really need it."
"When we have had power outages for a few hours we have had no issue with Cisco SD-WAN coming back online and functioning."
"The most valuable features are zero-disk provisioning and link load balancing on an application basis."
"The solution is good to use and easy to handle and manage from the centralized location or from the cloud."
"Troubleshooting is swift, allowing for fast turnaround times whenever we encounter an issue."
 

Cons

"I think the solution would be greatly improved by adding application level visibility on the dashboard."
"Lacks 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."
"The price could be better. From a technical side, and everything's working smoothly. Cisco SD-WAN could be cheaper."
"The solution is not cheap. Most customers are now moving from an APEX spending model to an OPEX spending model."
"The solution could be a bit cheaper."
"SD-WAN itself is vendor locked in."
"There should be more security features in the hybrid and on-premise deployments of Cisco SD-WAN. The cloud has most of the security features."
"Cisco SD-WAN could improve the integration with the cloud."
"The platform needs to be updated to be more stable and simple."
"The solution is a bit buggy, which makes it slightly unstable."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Alcatel-Lucent ClearPass is an expensive product compared to other vendors."
"80 percent reduction in WAN costs. There are no MPLS or P2P circuits left in the organization."
"There is a monthly subscription to use this solution."
"Cisco SD-WAN is more expensive than its competitors."
"There is no license required for this solution."
"Licensing is on a subscription basis."
"Cisco is more expensive than some competing products."
"It's expensive. If you compare Cisco with Fortinet and Juniper, you'll find that Cisco is more expensive than other vendors."
"We pay for the Cisco Customer Care support, which is a couple of hundred dollars."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Management Applications solutions are best for your needs.
894,738 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
8%
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 Enterprise46
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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...
What is your primary use case for Cisco SD-WAN?
I have used Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN as a customer. I am a customer of Cisco, and I have been a customer rather than a partner of Cisco.
 

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: April 2026.
894,738 professionals have used our research since 2012.