Clustered data -- where units of observation are nested within higher-level groups, such as repeated measurements on users, or panel data of firms, industries, or geographic regions -- are ubiquitous in business research. When the objective is to estimate the causal effect of a potentially endogenous treatment, a common approach -- which we call the canonical two-stage least squares (2sls) -- is to fit a 2sls regression of the outcome on treatment status with instrumental variables (IVs) for point estimation, and apply cluster-robust standard errors to account for clustering in inference. When both the treatment and IVs vary within clusters, a natural alternative -- which we call the two-stage least squares with fixed effects (2sfe) -- is to include cluster indicators in the 2sls specification, thereby incorporating cluster information in point estimation as well. This paper clarifies the trade-off between these two approaches within the local average treatment effect (LATE) framework, and makes three contributions. First, we establish the validity of both approaches for Wald-type inference of the LATE when clusters are homogeneous, and characterize their relative efficiency. We show that, when the true outcome model includes cluster-specific effects, 2sfe is more efficient than the canonical 2sls only when the variation in cluster-specific effects dominates that in unit-level errors. Second, we show that with heterogeneous clusters, 2sfe recovers a weighted average of cluster-specific LATEs, whereas the canonical 2sls generally does not. Third, to guide empirical choice between the two procedures, we develop a joint asymptotic theory for the two estimators under homogeneous clusters, and propose a Wald-type test for detecting cluster heterogeneity.