Aruba Access Points Reviews

We use Aruba Access Points as a Wi-Fi access point for office users. The solution supports our Wi-Fi needs very well. You can connect several users and laptops to it. Also, the guest Wi-Fi access can be managed centrally by Aruba Central.

The solution's support, stability, scalability, and good redundancy features are beneficial for our network management. The solution supports all the authentication features available in the market. It also has a good dashboard and GUI.

The solution should be made more robust. Aruba can come up with more models or standards much earlier.

I have been using Aruba Access Points for six years.

Aruba Access Points is a stable solution.

I rate the solution ten out of ten for stability.

Aruba Access Points is an easily scalable solution. You need to buy APs, take up the licenses, and add them. Around 4,000 users are using the solution extensively in our organization, and we have plans to increase the usage.

I rate Aruba Access Points ten out of ten for scalability.

The solution's technical support is very good. They are setting up a good standard in the industry.

The solution’s initial setup is straightforward.

We implemented the solution through an in-house team. The solution's deployment time depends on the offices. You can deploy the solution for a medium-sized data center in two or three days with the mounting.

You need to mount all the APs and then connect them back to the central switch. You also need to add them to the Aruba Central API group that you have configured with the settings. It automatically takes a leader or the main access points. From there, it should be good to go.

The solution gives you a good Wi-Fi solution for all your endpoints, like laptops, robotic devices, and mobile devices. It also gives you guest access, which is restricted very well.

Users have to pay a yearly subscription for Aruba Access Points. The solution's pricing is nominal and not as costly as Cisco's. It's not cheap, but it is not too expensive either.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten.

We don't have a use case where the solution supports remote users. The solution does a good job for the mobile clients.

The security aspect of Aruba Access Points has done a good job of protecting our network against threats. We can configure the guest Wi-Fi with their landing page portal as well. That's a pretty easy setup where we don't need to deploy anything in-house or locally or take a cloud subscription. Security-wise, the solution is good, and you get many features that can be implemented to safeguard your environment.

Around 78 people, including managers and engineers, would be required to deploy and maintain the solution for 4,000 people in around 50 offices. I recommend Aruba Access Points to other users. The solution is scalable, easy to deploy, and provides really good technical support. The solution's failure rate is lower, and the redundancy works well.

The solution's reliability is really good. The failover mechanism works well. The coverage is also good, so we don't need to worry much about its reliability.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I use Aruba Access Points in my company to support IoT network architecture.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its stability.

The disadvantage of Aruba Access Points is experienced by me when I need it to offer me a long range of coverage. When it comes to some devices, where maximum users connect with Aruba Access Points, the range of coverage area it provides is reduced. When a large number of users join Aruba Access Point, they are provided with a very small range of coverage. The aforementioned aspect related to the product is an area where improvements are required.

In the future, I want Aruba Access Points to provide more scalability options. The scalability part of the solution comes into the picture, especially when considering the product's performance issues. More scalability options are required in the solution, especially during times when my company needs to switch users or shift them to some other area.

From an improvement perspective, Aruba's technical support team should consider providing a faster response to the queries raised by users.

Training for users related to Aruba's upcoming firmware releases should be provided.

Aruba Central is a good product, and users need similar capabilities in Aruba Switches and Aruba Access Points at a very low price point. Aruba provides its users with a lifetime hardware replacement, and I want the same thing in Aruba Central, wherein users get lifetime product support and switches. In short, Aruba should make it possible for users to incur a one-time cost for Aruba Central.

I have been using Aruba Access Points since 2017. I am an end-user of the product.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a out of ten.

Aruba Access Points is a scalable product.

My company has 55 end users of the product.

The support provided by the technical team of Aruba Access Points is neither good nor bad, meaning it lies somewhere in the middle.

I use Cisco and Aruba in my company. I have been using Cisco since 2008. I would describe Cisco and Aruba as products that are very similar to each other.

The product's initial setup phase was easy.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

The solution can be deployed in less than 30 minutes.

I can take care of the product's deployment phase by myself.

Aruba is cheaper than Cisco.

My company needs to pay yearly for the licensing costs attached to the product. There are no additional payments towards the solution apart from its licensing costs.

Currently, there is no maintenance required for the solution.

I recommend the solution to those who plan to use it.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is to provide public Wi-Fi services initiated by the government. This includes deploying the solution in both indoor and outdoor venues. We demonstrate the use and speed of Wi-Fi 6E access points as part of this initiative.

The controller software, which can control multiple access points remotely, is very convenient. It makes the provisioning process simple and efficient. The controller comes in two models: a local controller and a cloud-based one.

There should be enhancements to support open Wi-Fi technology for seamless authentication across different access points.

I have used the solution for about five years.

The stability of the Aruba Access Points is quite high. I would rate it at a nine out of ten.

The scalability of the Aruba Access Points is excellent. I would also rate it at a nine out of ten.

Technical support is generally good. However, it depends on whether it is handled by the company's engineer or the agent engineer. I would rate the support as eight.

Positive

Before Aruba Access Points, we used Lucas APs. Currently, we use both Aruba and Lucas, with the majority being Lucas. We sought out Aruba for their latest Wi-Fi 6E version.

The setup is straightforward and user-friendly. I would rate it almost as a nine, indicating it's fairly easy.

We considered Lucas and domestic products alongside Aruba.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We use the tool for our devices. We use it for laptops, wireless phones, and tablets.

The product helps find issues in devices.

The stability must be improved. Sometimes, the user gets disconnected from the network.

I have been using the solution for four years.

The tool’s stability is good. I rate the stability a seven out of ten.

The tool is scalable. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten. We have 300 users. It is not extensively used.

The technical support is perfect.

The setup takes a long time. We took three months to complete the setup. The deployment process is the same as Cisco’s.

We used consultants to deploy the solution. We had an issue with the access ID for the captive portal. The engineers couldn’t solve it at that time. It took too long. We used a pre-shared key. We needed three engineers and technicians for the deployment.

The product is cheaper than Cisco and Huawei. We pay a yearly license fee.

I will not recommend the tool to others. I wouldn’t want people to go through the issues I went through. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The product is quite accessible and reliable. It needs less or no maintenance. Once you install the solution, it keeps working. It needs very few upgrades. Aruba devices are quite reliable. We have found no defaults in the devices so far. The product is easy to use and easy to set up. Its durability is quite good.

The product should provide more coverage. The coverage provided should be equivalent to that of Cisco. It will be good if the product’s device provides coverage of at least 50 to 60 feet. The solution should increase security. The devices need to be more secure. Anyone who wants to hack or access the product can easily do it. The users do not receive any alerts if somebody is trying to access the tool.

I have been using the solution for the last five years.

The stability is quite good. It is excellent. We bought the devices two to three years ago, and they still work constantly without any failure.

The solution’s scalability must be improved. It should cover more number of people and area. I rate the scalability a seven out of ten. It will be great if scalability is increased a little more.

We have not contacted support yet. If we have any problems, our local vendor is capable of supporting us. The product’s support would be great. If a local vendor can support us, then if I contact someone directly from Aruba, they would definitely be able to support us.

Aruba and Ruckus work similarly. Cisco is a bit advanced in terms of security and manageability. We manage Cisco access points through one particular console. If anything goes wrong, then we can identify it easily. Cisco products are a little better in manageability. We frequently receive updates, but we can manage them well in advance through the console.

The initial setup is quite easy. It is not a problem at all. We need not do much. We need an expert to set up Cisco. Deploying Aruba and Ruckus is as easy as plug-and-play.

The deployment doesn’t even take ten minutes.

The pricing is reasonable. The product is also good. I would rate the pricing an eight or nine out of ten. For four devices, we pay around INR 30,000. We only pay for the license and the device. There are no additional costs associated with the tool.

The solution is fairly good. Anyone can use it. I will recommend Aruba. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We use Aruba access points for wireless connectivity, like connecting 30 to 40 users' laptops to the office Internet through WiFi access points.

Model 556 is a very stable and good product for users to access the Internet without any interference and disturbance while getting good speed. WiFi technologies are growing day by day. Where we had 2.4GHz and 5GHz earlier, OEMs now give devices that support 6GHz.

Aruba access points protect connectivity, and we don't get interference. The hardware is a throughput point and handles the required number of users. The product's capacity is proper, and we are not facing any challenges.

These days, every OEM gives services on their cloud. We want to move the wireless controller to our cloud. If a company has multiple offices in multiple locations, we need to direct connectivity without depending on any other location. Going with a cloud solution will make dependency no longer a challenge from a connectivity point of view. If you move an account, you get the freedom. You're not dependent on any other locations selling the same product.

I've worked with Aruba Access Points for approximately ten years.

I rate Aruba access points' stability an eight out of ten. We've been using the product for a long time, and it is a very stable product.

If you go with the cloud version, it's a good endpoint for user scalability. In-house you'll need to upgrade or change the hardware if the number of users or company size grows. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten. Approximately 500 users are using Aruba access points 24/7.

I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten because the deployment is easy.

The deployment was a physical deployment that involved cabling parts, physically mounting the product on walls, and installing the AP on a roof. If you set up the product in an office, it will take one to two days.

While we needed one man to deploy the solution, we needed three or four people to handle the physical cabling and mounting. One person is sufficient for maintenance.

We implemented the product in-house.

I rate the pricing a six out of ten because it's not cheap or expensive.

Someone considering using Aruba access points' cloud solution can choose it with WiFi 6 connected. As for the on-prem version, it depends on their requirements. If it's not a large setup, without many APs, they can choose the in-house solution.

I rate Aruba access points an eight out of ten.

Its client match feature is crucial as it helps ensure that devices are optimally connected to the network. It enhances the quality of service by prioritizing media traffic and reducing potential disruptions. The roaming features are also essential and primarily managed through the MCC technology. It focuses on maintaining the quality of service during media traffic, ensuring a seamless user experience. When connecting multiple Access Points, users can independently select their feature controller technology. This simplifies management and deployment, as you only need to configure one AP, and it can then replicate settings to others. Another valuable aspect is integration with other technologies, as it can be incredibly useful when replacing or upgrading systems.

We encountered some challenges when deploying different models of access points, particularly as our network expanded. Initially, using smaller models like the 200 or 300 series worked well, but as the network grew, issues related to signal strength and coverage became noticeable. The newer models, such as those supporting Wi-Fi 5 and Wi-Fi 6, had stronger standards but suffered from slower signal penetration, which resulted in dead spots. Another concern is that when clients wish to migrate to higher-end models, it necessitates running additional cables to address these coverage gaps, mainly due to the higher models having less penetration. I would appreciate for the higher-end models to offer the same signal strength as the older, smaller models, even while maintaining the latest standards, as this would enhance the overall network performance and coverage. There was an issue with equipment delivery where a different model was received, resulting in signal coverage gaps due to differences in signal strength compared to what was initially tested. Having stronger signal strength in the higher-end models, similar to the lower-end models, would be a valuable improvement.

We have been working with it for three years now.

It provides exceptional stability and reliability. I would rate it ten out of ten.

The scalability is highly satisfactory and it is a straightforward process to expand the network. If you're using a centralized mobility conductor architecture and you have ten thousand clients, and you want to add another ten thousand, it's as simple as adding another mobility conductor. You can set up this new conductor as a multiple instance, ensuring active redundancy, and then you add additional controllers and access points. The key benefit here is that you only need to configure one mobility conductor initially, so adding new ones is relatively painless. You can migrate configurations and add more control planes to accommodate the growing network seamlessly.

They provide good customer support.

Positive

I have experience working with both Cisco and Aruba, and I noticed some key differences, particularly in the context of client deployments and the flexibility of the two systems. With Cisco, the deployments are typically smaller, involving just a few access points. One noticeable difference is that Cisco requires additional licensing for features like security and DTC encryptions, and to fully utilize the capabilities of a Cisco switch, you often have to purchase separate performance licenses, which could be somewhat complex, especially when dealing with high-performance switches. Aruba's approach is more straightforward and flexible and the licensing is more user-friendly. It's a one-time purchase, and there's no need for additional licensing for various features.

The initial setup is straightforward.

When it comes to configuring virtual instances, the difference in time efficiency between using a mobility controller and a mobility connector is significant. With a mobility controller, the process takes longer because you need to configure the controller first, and then provision the access points individually. This step can be time-consuming, as you have to configure the controller and then proceed with the provisioning of each access point. With a feature controller, you save a significant amount of time, as you only need to configure the first access point as the feature controller, and the subsequent access points are provisioned automatically. This streamlined approach means that setting up the feature controller typically takes less than an hour, making it a much quicker option for deployment. For monitoring the access points and switches, there are typically two phases: configuration and ongoing monitoring. Self-configuration can be quite efficient while monitoring ongoing operations can be managed effectively. In situations where you're deploying a substantial number of access points, having multiple team members working in parallel, perhaps as many as ten people for more than five hundred access points, can expedite the process further.

The pricing has been quite favorable. As partners, we often engage in negotiations with Aruba, which enables us to secure discounts, making the pricing even more attractive. Overall, I would say the pricing is reasonable and meets our expectations.

It offers remarkable client-handling capacity. Specifically, the Aruba 505 can accommodate up to 266 clients, which is a significant advantage. The speed and performance of these access points are highly commendable, making them well-suited for various applications, including educational institutions such as schools. Additionally, Aruba has introduced gateway technologies, which are handy for multiple branches. By deploying gateways in these branches, you can use technologies like SD-WAN to efficiently manage and route traffic over the Internet while being centrally managed from the headquarters. This enhances scalability and flexibility, ensuring that the network can easily adapt to expanding requirements.

We use them for internal or external wireless LAN, and indoor or outdoor access points. We have on-premises controllers, switches, access switches, installation switches, and core switches. The network is big.

We have many projects, and this is a good product.

The integration with their other products, like ClearPass, and the security features they have. These are good features.

The ICT dynamic is important. Every other vendor is innovating with new features and ideas. They need to compete and implement these things to stay ahead.

So, I would suggest Aruba continue to gain the competitive edge. 

I have been using this product for 10+ years.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. It is a stable product.

It is a scalable product. It is easy to scale. I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. It is okay. 

We have enterprise-level clients. 

The customer service and support are good.

Positive

I also have experience with ExtremeWireless (Extreme) and Ruckus. I have parallel experience with Cisco, HP, Aruba, and Huawei.

The initial setup is easy. Our customers mostly opt for on-premises deployment. Customers aren't interested in cloud-based solutions because they need that on-premises control.

The deployment depends on the client's site. For around ten access points and wireless controllers, it takes less than two days. 

The pricing is competitive. It is neither cheap nor expensive. It is moderate. It offers better price than Cisco and other competitors. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.