PacketFence vs Aruba ClearPass
Zero of fourteen models named PacketFence first on the direct prompt; one named Aruba ClearPass. PacketFence was named by eight of the fourteen models and Aruba ClearPass by eleven and PacketFence carries 10 labels and Aruba ClearPass 21, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in one category this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the network access control page.
By framing
PacketFenceFirst choices, of fourteen modelsAruba ClearPass
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, PacketFence and Aruba ClearPass were named in the same answer nineteen times, of the 37 answers naming PacketFence and the 79 naming Aruba ClearPass. In those answers Aruba ClearPass took the first choice one time and PacketFence ten.
Every model, every framing
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | ||||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | |||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | |||
| Perplexity Sonar | | |||||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | | ||||
| Mistral Small | ||||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | | |||
| Llama 4 Maverick | ||||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | ||||
| Kimi K2 | | | | | | |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | ||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | ||||||
| GPT-6 Luna | | |||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | |
PacketFence Aruba ClearPass first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, PacketFence on the left and Aruba ClearPass on the right.The direct prompt
Aruba ClearPass first, PacketFence not the choice
1 of 14 modelsPacketFence was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Neither was the first choice, one was named
1 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Neither was named
12 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
PacketFence16%#2 of 9Aruba ClearPass5%#3 of 9PacketFence15%#2 of 10Aruba ClearPass2%#4 of 10Aruba ClearPass6%#5 of 7PacketFence0%#– of 7What the models said about PacketFence
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“a well-configured open-source PacketFence or a modern zero-trust network access (ZTNA) solution beats any legacy appliance” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · first choice
“PacketFence offers the best value as it provides enterprise-grade NAC features completely free” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
“I'd recommend starting with PacketFence (self-hosted) if you have some technical expertise” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · first choice
What the models said about Aruba ClearPass
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“What to Avoid - Cisco ISE and Aruba ClearPass – While excellent solutions, they are typically expensive and complex” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · hard negative
“Avoid Cisco/Aruba/Forescout – these are enterprise-priced” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative
“Support ticket resolution delays; challenging to identify responsible support teams; additional costs for maintenance and regional service” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Best overall: Aruba ClearPass” GPT-5.4 mini · direct prompt · first choice
“Choose Aruba ClearPass for multi-vendor flexibility with mature policy capabilities” Kimi K2 · comparative prompt · alternative
“ClearPass is famous for its flexibility and ability to handle complex BYOD” Qwen 3.7 Flash · comparative prompt · alternative
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.