Why do you think that the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) and the Cherokee didn't have success? All three had extensive territorial claims at various points in their history (Haudenosaunee territory, circa 1700, Cherokee territory circa 1750, Comanche territory circa 1780). Of the three, the Comanche were the most recent group to form - they branched off the Shoshone in the late 1600s/early 1700s. In 1680, the Pueblo Revolt drove the Spanish out of New Mexico for a decade, and in the process resulted in horses flooding the "market" on the Plains. The Comanche were early adopters of these new horses, which provided them with a significant advantage over their neighbors. As far as colonial power were concerned, Texas in the 1700s and early 1800s was sparsely populated. One of the reasons Mexico encouraged settlers from the US to move to Texas was to help build up a large enough population there to defend against the Comanche. You may want to check out Pekka Hämäläinen's The Comanche Empire for more information (I recommend avoiding "Empire of the Summer Moon" - which is more of a sensationalist pop-history book about the Comanche).

That "Empire" designation is controversial though. The political structure of the Comanche at the time was nebulous at best. There was no central authority and numerous Comanche bands operated independently of each other. This contrasts with the both the Haudenosaunee and the Cherokee, which had national level councils that were in charge. Well, in theory, at least. Both had issues with groups of the fringes of their territory doing their own thing. But what government can't say that?

I could go on about the Haudenosaunee and the Cherokee, but it would be useful to know what you think made them less successful so I can focus my answer more specifically.