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)
9th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.7
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Network Access Control (NAC) category, the mindshare of Portnox is 4.2%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ruckus Cloudpath is 1.9%, down 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

"The cloud-based feature of Portnox is excellent."
"One of the features I enjoyed the most about Portnox was the ability to dive in with proper details on an endpoint."
"It's a stable product."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"It's easy to manage and troubleshoot thanks to the lightweight components."
"The Portnox dashboard is very easy to use, and the UI is simple."
"The product is a valuable solution within zero-trust architecture, enhancing network security and visibility."
"The most important feature is that this solution is agentless. So, you don't have to install any agents on endpoints."
"The ease of use is great, and the automation wizards can do a lot."
"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."
"The most valuable features of Ruckus Cloudpath include its long-range capabilities, smooth and uninterrupted service, and reliability."
"The solution is easy to use, well designed, robust, and has good traffic capacity."
"I find the solution to be very rich in features."
"The wireless devices are used to control access, transmit messages, and integrate with the main system."
"Ruckus Cloudpath is effective for network security since it points out errors, especially when working with APIs."
"The solution has good features for authentication, policies, and allowing users to self-provision devices for network access via their logins."
 

Cons

"It might be beneficial to improve the ease of integrating the product with firewalls."
"Their filtering system tends to lag quite a bit, so when I'm doing filtering at times, it doesn't filter the items properly."
"The licensing is based on a per-port price, even when you are not using all of the ports, and this is something that could be improved."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Now, the way security is viewed, maybe including something like AI, to automate some of the things that are required to be done would be great."
"The price could be better."
"Ruckus Cloudpath needs more API features and enhanced automation capabilities."
"The setup had a few initial small problems, however, everything was resolved and it is very good now."
"I believe the solution is missing some great features which are present in other solutions like Aruba, UiPath, and Cisco ISE."
"The setup process is a bit complex."
"There is room for improvement in deployment."
"There is room for improvement in deployment. I would like to see more effort put into troubleshooting."
"The tool needs to support multi-vendor environments. Currently, my experience with it has been primarily within Ruckus environments. However, I haven't explored it for multi-vendor scenarios. It would be great to see newer builds that are multi-vendor capable of full integration."
"The scalability could be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licensing module should be reviewed to count the number of devices instead of port numbers of total switches. There is a case for this where not all ports for a switch are used by devices. Unused ports are calculated in the license, then the customer pays for license for those unused ports."
"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."
"The users are not very happy with the new licensing option where there is only a subscription license. There is no perpetual license."
"The cost of Portnox Clear is reasonable."
"The tool is more expensive than Fortinet."
"We pay for port licensing and support on a yearly basis, and it's not cheap."
"Pricing is quite reasonable."
"Pricing is not cheap. It is based on licenses per port. After licensing is purchased, you only pay for support."
"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 licensing of the solution is user-based and the price is good."
"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.
865,576 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Healthcare Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
18%
Computer Software Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Media Company
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?
The user interface of Ruckus Cloudpath needs some enhancement along with the support process, requiring more qualified engineers to support this product. The pricing of Ruckus Cloudpath needs a lit...
 

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: July 2025.
865,576 professionals have used our research since 2012.