Network access control · November 2026 Edition
Fortinet FortiNAC vs Forescout
One of fourteen models named Fortinet FortiNAC first on the direct prompt; zero named Forescout. Fortinet FortiNAC was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Forescout by twelve and Fortinet FortiNAC carries 31 labels and Forescout 27, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Named in three categories this edition.
First-choice share6%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate16%30%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#6A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels3127A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Fortinet FortiNAC reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Portnox Cloud was named alongside these two in eleven of the fourteen direct answers. Portnox Cloud vs Fortinet FortiNAC · Portnox Cloud vs Forescout · PacketFence vs Fortinet FortiNAC
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
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Fortinet FortiNACFirst choices, of fourteen modelsForescout
Direct102 against Forescout
Paraphrase213 against Forescout
Comparative111 against Fortinet FortiNAC
Budget-constrained001 against Forescout
Scale-constrained002 against Forescout
Negative004 against Fortinet FortiNAC
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, Fortinet FortiNAC and Forescout were named in the same answer forty-three times, of the 82 answers naming Fortinet FortiNAC and the 100 naming Forescout. In those answers Forescout took the first choice one time and Fortinet FortiNAC one.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Fortinet FortiNAC and Forescout stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | | | ||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | ||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | | ||
| Perplexity Sonar | | | | |||
| Grok 4.20 | | | | | | |
| 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 | | | | |
Fortinet FortiNAC Forescout first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Fortinet FortiNAC on the left and Forescout on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Fortinet FortiNAC and Forescout stood in it.
Fortinet FortiNAC first, Forescout not the choice
1 of 14 modelsForescout was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Claude Haiku 4.5Fortinet FortiNAC alternatives: Microsoft Entra, Palo Alto Networks Prisma Access
Neither was the first choice, one was named
6 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.GPT-5.4 miniCisco Identity Services Engine alternatives: Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager, Cisco Access Manager, Forescout, InfoExpress EasyNAC, Portnox Cloud
Gemini 3.5 FlashPortnox Cloud alternatives: Cloudflare Access, Fortinet FortiNAC, HPE Aruba ClearPass, SecureW2 JoinNow, Twingate
Grok 4.20Portnox Cloud alternatives: Forescout, HPE Aruba ClearPass
DeepSeek V4 FlashPortnox Cloud alternatives: Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC
Qwen 3.7 FlashPortnox CLEAR alternatives: Fortinet FortiNAC, HPE Aruba ClearPass
Muse Glimmer 30BPortnox Cloud alternatives: Cisco Identity Services Engine, Fortinet FortiNAC, HPE Aruba ClearPass, OPSWAT MetaAccess, macmon NAC
Neither was named
7 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Perplexity SonarPortnox Cloud alternatives: Aruba ClearPass, Cisco Identity Services Engine
Mistral SmallOPSWAT MetaAccess, Portnox Cloud alternatives: NordLayer NAC
Llama 4 MaverickPortnox Cloud alternatives: NordLayer NAC, OPSWAT MetaAccess, PacketFence
Kimi K2Portnox CLEAR alternatives: Aruba ClearPass
GLM 4.7 FlashXPortnox Cloud alternatives: Aruba ClearPass, FortiNAC, NordLayer NAC
MiniMax M2.5Portnox Cloud alternatives: NordLayer NAC, OPSWAT MetaAccess
GPT-6 LunaPortnox Cloud alternatives: Cisco Identity Services Engine, FortiNAC, HPE Aruba ClearPass
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
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Level: the same share of first choices.
Fortinet FortiNAC0%#9 of 11Forescout0%#10 of 11Mid-marketThe figures above
Fortinet FortiNAC leads by four points.
Fortinet FortiNAC6%#3 of 10Forescout2%#6 of 10Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
Fortinet FortiNAC0%#6 of 7Forescout0%#5 of 7What the models said about Fortinet FortiNAC
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“its legacy software architecture has suffered multiple high-severity unauthenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerabilities” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Fortinet FortiNAC is also mentioned as a solution to be cautious about, especially if you have older network infrastructure” Llama 4 Maverick · negative prompt · soft negative
“Limited value outside the Fortinet ecosystem, reported declining innovation and support, fewer advanced features” DeepSeek V4 Flash · comparative prompt · soft negative
“For most modern organizations, FortiNAC, Aruba ClearPass, or Palo Alto Prisma Access offer the best balance of features and flexibility.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · comparative prompt · first choice
“Most mid-sized B2B companies find Aruba ClearPass or Fortinet FortiNAC offer the best balance” GLM 4.7 FlashX · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Fortinet FortiNAC - Good balance of features and ease of use” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · first choice
What the models said about Forescout
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of seven in this category shown.
“Skip Cisco ISE, Aruba ClearPass, or Forescout unless you have specific needs” Grok 4.20 · budget prompt · hard negative
“Forescout is highly regarded, though it's typically more suited for larger or more diverse environments” Mistral Small · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“Some enterprise NAC platforms (e.g., legacy Cisco ISE or Forescout) can take months to deploy correctly.” Kimi K2 · scale prompt · soft negative
“For large enterprises with complex networks, Cisco ISE or Forescout remain strong choices.” MiniMax M2.5 · comparative prompt · first choice
“I'd suggest looking at Fortinet FortiNAC or Forescout” Claude Haiku 4.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Forescout is excellent for agentless visibility and control, though it's often positioned as more enterprise-oriented and can be pricier.” Grok 4.20 · paraphrase prompt · alternative
Also compared
Portnox Cloud vs Fortinet FortiNACPortnox Cloud vs ForescoutPacketFence vs Fortinet FortiNACPacketFence vs ForescoutFortinet FortiNAC vs NordLayer NACFortinet FortiNAC vs HPE Aruba ClearPassFortinet FortiNAC vs Aruba ClearPassFortinet FortiNAC vs Cisco Identity Services EngineNordLayer NAC vs ForescoutHPE Aruba ClearPass vs ForescoutForescout vs Aruba ClearPassForescout vs Cisco Identity Services EngineAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full NAC standing
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.