Aruba Networks Wireless WAN Reviews

The solution is being used as a SaaS IDL for connection. 

The security feature and the signal are good as they is dependent on our needs. 

The internet signal and the connection can be better. Previously, the solution had to be restarted if more than two users were using it at the same time. 

I have been using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for four years. 

It is a stable solution. 

It is a scalable solution. Presently, there are hundreds of users using the solution.

The initial setup is easy. The deployment takes a couple of hours. Only a single person is required for the deployment. 

The solution was installed by a third-party vendor. 

The pricing is cheaper in comparison to similar products. 

If the reset issue is resolved then it is a good solution. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. 

We are a system integrator, and we provide solutions to our customers. Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is a solution that we offer to our customers. It provides wireless connectivity and has several features.

The main reasons our clients choose Aruba Networks are its strong server performance and competitive pricing. Additionally, Aruba's customer support is prompt and helpful. These are the main factors that influence our choice of Aruba Networks.

Aruba makes quite a lot of business for my company and its stability is quite good. There is no need to constantly maintain/support our customers.

The site survey tool is fantastic and saved us a lot of time in the early stage.

Configuration User Interface could be enhanced further to easy to understand what kind of effects will be.

We have been working with Aruba Networks for more than ten years.

Generally, there aren't many problems with stability. It was good. Sometimes there could be configuration issues caused by users when they try to update or check the system.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

It is a scalable solution. Most of our clients are small to medium-sized businesses, and all are satisfied its scalability if they need to upgrade.

Aruba's customer support is prompt and helpful.

Positive

We previously used Fortinet and switched because our customer decided to use their solution.

The installation process was easy. Our engineers have extensive experience with Aruba Networks, so they are familiar with it and can handle any installation requirements.

Moreover, only two people are required for the maintenance of this solution. 

The deployment process depends on the customer's requirements. So, the deployment time may vary. Generally, the deployment process might take several days. Two people were enough for the deployment. 

I would rate the pricing model a three out of ten, with one being very cheap and ten being very expensive. We got a yearly license. 

The additional costs depend on the specific case and situation. There might be different costs.

We evaluated solutions from Cisco, Extreme, and Fortinet.

I would definitely recommend it.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

I am a system integrator and this is one of the solutions that I implement for my customers.

My customers use the Aruba Wireless WAN for Wi-Fi connectivity and network connectivity. It is typically used in an industrial setting.

The most valuable features are price, quality, and performance.

This solution needs different models that are more specialized for certain customers.

I have been using Aruba Networks products since they first were available in Spain, many years ago.

The stability depends more on the customers, their environment, and how they are using the product. The product is used frequently.

Our customers are medium-sized and large businesses.

I deal with the technical support team for Aruba and they are nice. The support is fine.

I have used many other similar solutions including those by Extreme Networks, Cisco, Ruckus Networks, and Huawei. Huawei is the market leader in this domain.

The initial setup of this solution is simple and I would say that it works fine. It only takes a few minutes to deploy.

We perform the installation for our customers.

The price of this solution is approximately 1,000,000 ESP ($6,750 USD).

Aruba has good enterprise solutions that I provide to my customers. I would suggest using it with it together with a good network that has the proper security set up.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

The main use case for this solution is in the education sector and public services.

Aruba Central seems to be a good way to go in cloud management. However, compared to Cisco Meraki, it's still very early days.

The product should improve Aruba Central.

I have been working on Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for five years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is very scalable. 

The initial setup is not difficult, but it has its limitations, with guest authentication. The deployment takes a couple of hours. It is very simple. However, it depends on how you do it. If you use the virtual controller, it is pretty easy. But it has got its limitations. If you do it by Aruba Central, it does take an awful amount of time.

With Aruba, you get what you pay for compared to the other vendors. Although Cisco is very expensive and their management is way better than Aruba Central. So, you have to consider what you are after. But price-wise, they are really good.

I can’t see Aruba helping me, but it does its job.

I would recommend this tool because it's stable, easy to deploy, and easy to manage. I would rate it nine out of ten. 

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN benefited my company because it increased mobility significantly. After all, users don't need to search for LAN cables in the conference rooms.

Adoption was also relatively fast in terms of user onboarding.

What I like most about Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is seamless integration from an endpoint perspective, for example, the core domain joined machine.

I also find the onboarding process for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN fantastic.

Another valuable feature of the product is authentication, as Aruba Networks Wireless WAN supports certificate-based authentication. It has remarkable security features, particularly in its machine and user authentication levels.

Device integration has room for improvement in Aruba Networks Wireless WAN. However, there has been a development where the access point can be deployed through cloud-based controllers. It can connect via the internet and doesn't require MPS connectivity, but that can be improved further.

I've been using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for around six years.

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN has good stability, so that's a nine out of ten for me.

The scalability of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is good. The only constraint is that the hardware comes with a fixed number of access point support, which becomes problematic if you have an on-premise deployment. Still, if you plan for the capacity in advance, then it's okay.

That could be a constraint from a large deployment when the access point only lasts two or three years. I don't want to put a high number or high capacity on the hardware on the first day, so scalability-wise, I rate Aruba Networks Wireless WAN as five out of ten.

The technical support for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is good. That area is an eight out of ten.

Positive

I'd rate the initial setup for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN as six out of ten.

One of my Aruba Networks Wireless WAN deployments took two and a half months. Deploying the product entailed site-specific surveying, identifying access point location, how my controller will be set up on-premises, the IP schema to be utilized for the access point, IP allocation, and which access IDs I'm going to broadcast.

My team and I deployed Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

I enjoyed almost fifty percent of the cost reduction from Aruba Networks Wireless WAN because it helped reduce the LAN infrastructure, such as switching hardware, LAN cables, etc. I no longer needed to deploy the switches and LAN cables for every point, which resulted in an almost fifty percent reduction in costs compared to the past cost computations.

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is pretty cost-efficient than Cisco ISE when my company did a PO, but for a single-party tender, its pricing was on the higher side, so it depends. I rate the pricing for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN as six out of ten.

I have experience with Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

My company has a 7200 series Aruba controller, almost five hundred access points, and Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager.

My company's existing database is deployed on-premises, including the controller, access point, and the Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager.

A team of five people, including myself, deployed Aruba Networks Wireless WAN. It was a process of putting and mounting access points. I also had two members in charge of configuring the switches while I configured the controller and the Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager. Once access points become visible on the controller, my team will proceed to the template configuration deployment for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

The deployment team consisted of five L1s, three L2s, and me, so a total of nine. My unit deployed five hundred access points to six thousand end users. My team of eight takes care of administration.

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN requires maintenance, for example, upgrading the controller or the Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager and then posture agent deployment for six thousand users. Any agent upgrade means deployment for the users as well.

I'd tell anyone looking into implementing Aruba Networks Wireless WAN that it's a good solution with many advantages, such as mobility, flexibility, and scalability, so I suggest using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN to enhance user experience.

My rating for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is seven out of ten.

My role is similar to an integrator of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

My company is an Aruba Networks customer.

We use Aruba Wireless at a big trading center in two ways. One use case is a corporate network with restrictions, and another is for customers. For our corporate use case, we have around 30 people on various devices, like laptops and mobile phones. In the second case, we provide access to around 1,000 users. 

An engineer with enough experience can tune the network however they want. It's crucial. It's good to customize our information security how we like it and configure the solution to achieve the level of stability we need.

Support is a little expensive. It's also a little tricky to configure Aruba sometimes. For example, if we want to whitelist a device, it works in unexpected ways. I want to allow this device to connect somewhere, and it lets it connect to any device in the network.

Let's say I want to allow my phone to connect to the network printer, but if I add my phone to the white list, I automatically allow my phone to connect to any other devices, and it's not secure.

I've been using Aruba Wireless for a year and a half. 

My team is highly experienced, so I haven't needed support so far. 

Setting up Aruba Networks is a little difficult, but experienced professionals can handle it, and we have help from partners, so it's not a problem. In Ukraine, there are several companies with expertise in Aruba. We can pay them for the initial setup and some training.

We pay every year for Aruba Central. It's a subscription. In other cases, we use Aruba AirWave on-premise, and that's a one-time payment. 

I rate Aruba Networks Wireless WAN nine out of 10. It's a stable solution with advanced technical capabilities. We never need to worry if it's going to work. 

Like any professional solution, you need to do some evaluation before implementing it in a project. The customer must fully understand the project requirements before they buy and implement it. 

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is used for wireless network conductivity.

The most valuable feature of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is that it is easy to configure. Additionally, with the same configuration with Cisco and Ruckus, we can receive  55 to 60 percent more out of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

If you're unwilling to purchase or spend money on a controller, you can opt for a virtual console base solution that offers up to 120 access points. This approach is highly cost-effective, as you won't have to raise your budget, and it's easy to set up.

When it comes to configuring rules for file security tests, any issues that arise can be referred to as "glitches". Despite the extensive configurations required, the process itself is not overly complicated.

I have been using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for approximately three years.

When I open a support ticket with Aruba, it goes to their team in Bangalore, India. While I cannot say they are the worst, I am not perfectly happy with their support. Recently, I closed a ticket with them that took over seven days to resolve a simple issue of adding a MAC address to the control. This slow support process can be a problem, especially if the customer has a live network. However, I have noticed that their CCAs are now more professional than they were three years ago. Sometimes, Aruba avoids alerting by opening tickets after their official time, which goes to the European team. Similarly, we do the same for Cisco to reach their European team for faster and more knowledgeable support. Currently, Aruba's support is not as scalable as Cisco or Roper, although Roper's team is also in Bangalore. 

As an on-site engineer, I sometimes open support tickets when I suspect a configuration mistake, but it can be confusing when the supporting engineer has less knowledge than me. It is also challenging to escalate the ticket in front of the customer I am installing for, so we have to maneuver a little to reach another engineer. Overall, Aruba's support is not as frustrating as before, although sometimes I feel the need to change the engineer.

I have used many other network solutions, such as Cisco and Ruckus.

Ruckus stands out in its ability to provide connectivity to users through its access points even when the controller is unavailable or cannot be reached. In contrast, if the controller goes down with Aruba or Cisco, the entire infrastructure will be affected, unless you switch to Mobility-based or virtual-based software.

One disadvantage of Aruba is their access point bracket, which is not standardized across all their devices, such as Cisco's brackets. This makes it difficult to identify and mount access points in different locations, as they may require different types of brackets based on the mounting method and physical location. Additionally, Aruba's console cable is not standardized across all models, unlike Cisco's console cable which can be used for switches, access points, and RJ4 devices. Furthermore, Aruba's console cable is not included in the box, which can make it challenging to access and control an access point through the serial port without having to find and purchase the specific cable required. In contrast, Cisco has a standardized console cable that can be used for all their devices.

The initial setup of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is simple.

To deploy Aruba Networks Wireless WAN, we use various tools for server setup and generating heat maps, typically employing models 505 and 515. The 505 model is cost-effective yet powerful, supporting fixed Wi-Fi and over 100 concurrent users as well as handling 100 voice clients. Once we generate the heat maps and present the external version, we include customer pricing and other details for approval. Upon approval, we proceed with the deployment.

I create heat maps, which are becoming increasingly in demand these days. I use multiple models of devices from Cisco, Ruckus, and Aruba depending on the physical location. For example, if it's a warehouse with high ceilings, I use the Aruba 515, while for office areas, I use the 505. For outdoor locations, I use the 565 or 575. However, I haven't utilized Nest connectivity with any Cisco, Aruba, or Ruckus routers yet.

The price of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is less expensive than Ruckus and Cisco.

The maintenance of the solution is not difficult, I have been doing it for a long time.

Aruba's controller is an integrated system, whereas Cisco has separate devices and services that are not too integrated. Ruckus also has separate devices and services. When customers buy Cisco or Ruckus devices, they are buying all the devices together to get the best service. However, after the sale, nobody calls for support or assistance.

In the case of Aruba, if the controller goes down, the access points can be converted to a version of the software that allows them to work with a virtual controller. However, there are physical issues with Aruba, such as confusion with the access point bracket and console cable. Even if there are multiple console types, it would be fine as long as they are provided in the box.

I prefer Ruckus solutions, but it is expensive for customers.

I rate Aruba Networks Wireless WAN a seven out of ten.

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is very stable and reliable. In the solution, the first part is obviously its security part because security is what is concerning in any Wi-Fi situation. In the aforementioned scenario, Aruba Wi-Fi solutions are very secure. They have some Triple DES or whatever security standards are there. So, corporate people are comfortable using Aruba Wi-Fi, especially in any enterprise or SMB segment.

The price for the license could be a bit improved since it is the only area with an issue.

I have experience using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for years. I used to supply Aruba even before HP acquired Aruba. So, I used to supply it from eight to ten years ago.

Aruba is a very stable system.

Most of the enterprise customers, big names, buy it without giving any second thoughts.

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

I'm not aware of its scalability, but I have seen that a big complex, maybe a 14 to 15-story or 20-story building, can be covered up. Many hotels are covering it up. Also, they have around 10,000 users. Aruba Wi-Fi is very good.

Though not all are my customers, I am aware that many of the big hotels, like Marriot, work using Aruba. Few of the five-star hotels in and around Bombay.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Though I am not aware of the customer support, I am assuming it will be as per HP standards, which is quite good.

The initial setup of the solution is simple, and the setup is as per industry standards. Hence, everybody has to follow the setup phase.

Regarding the time needed for deployment, the survey takes time, first of all. Then, you have to set up the Wi-Fi. Actually, if you talk about the installation part, installation takes time because different rooms and false ceilings are there, and so the installation of Wi-Fi takes time. Once the installation is done, the setting up of the Wi-Fi takes maybe a couple of hours. In short, the installation takes more time since it's more on the infrastructure side.

The solution is deployed on-premises.

Aruba has an annual subscription, and they have three years and five years costs. People generally take the three years' cost. It has to be taken because, basically, licenses are needed more from the security perspective, nothing else.

It is expensive, but it is also very competitive. So I wouldn't say it is very high on the price. It can compete with many, many local players as well as equivalent players.

I rate the pricing a seven or eight on a scale of one to ten, where ten is the highest and one is the cheapest.

Aruba has a very good reputation. Aruba products are very stable, and they give regular updates. Whatever Aruba has mentioned in their literature, regarding their bandwidth, etcetera, is correct. One can rely on what they write in their literature.

I would definitely recommend the solution to those planning to use it. In the Wi-Fi space, Aruba is an extremely good product.

For Aruba's software and hardware, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.