We performed a comparison between Cisco Wireless WAN and Ubiquiti Wireless based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Wireless WAN solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features of Cisco Wireless WAN are its security functionality. We have a lab environment and we have to provide different authentications to the users which are easy to manage. Additionally, there is a lot of useful automation embedded into the system."
"The most valuable features for me are the ease of operation and scalability."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"Provides good visibility and insights into what is happening."
"The solution also allows us to increase the power when it's too low."
"I like that it has integrated the cost of our network access."
"Stability is one aspect that I find very valuable."
"I use Cisco because of its reliability."
"The stability and performance are great."
"The failure rate is very low on these devices - I've had them installed for five years and have only lost one out of a hundred."
"It is very stable and the equipment lasts quite a long time."
"The ease of the setup is one of its most valuable aspects."
"It is a highly scalable platform."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is a simple and useful tool that offers good performance."
"The solution has an easy configuration."
"This is a high-quality solution that allows us to provide wifi access points in challenging areas."
"Improvements can be made in the wireless fabric."
"The firewall integration is not great."
"The setup of Cisco Wireless WAN needs an expert. You need someone with experience to be able to work with Cisco Wireless solutions. It took approximately one to two weeks to implement the solution."
"We would like to have the lead times improved."
"The new platform of Cisco Wireless WAN I did not like, there weren't many features available. The online platform has more options."
"The cost and support should be improved, and there should be support for the 6E standard."
"Cisco Wireless WAN is expensive."
"In terms of improvement, there is always something that could be enhanced. For example, we can't change wireless channels in Cisco Meraki due to a recent standard update."
"The strength of the routers could be improved. When it comes to serious routing, the solution doesn't measure up to the big guys like Juniper and Cisco, but we don't expect it to."
"The solution needs to improve its features and offer more to the customer."
"It's hard to get stuff delivered on time."
"In Ukraine at least, it's a problem when it comes to buying the hardware. For example, I made a request for 20 switches a few months ago. The solution needs to have worldwide availability."
"Ubiquiti Wireless could improve by being more user-friendly and easy to use."
"The cost is on the higher side and could be lower."
"The accessibility to technical support could be better."
"The technical support services need improvement."
Cisco Wireless WAN is ranked 4th in Wireless WAN with 61 reviews while Ubiquiti Wireless is ranked 1st in Wireless WAN with 68 reviews. Cisco Wireless WAN is rated 8.2, while Ubiquiti Wireless is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Wireless WAN writes "It's a reliable, user-friendly solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ubiquiti Wireless writes "It's cheap and easy to use but isn't suitable for large deployments or complex use cases ". Cisco Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium Networks Wireless WAN and Fortinet FortiExtender, whereas Ubiquiti Wireless is most compared with Ruckus Wireless WAN, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, Cambium Networks Wireless WAN and Aruba Wireless. See our Cisco Wireless WAN vs. Ubiquiti Wireless report.
See our list of best Wireless WAN vendors.
We monitor all Wireless WAN reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.