Aruba Networks Wireless WAN Reviews

My clients use it for the employees to log in to the Internet.

Once we install it, we don't get any complaints or adverse feedback from the client. They use it. It's seamless connectivity. And in case any failure happens, there is a long warranty period. So once we've got the access point replacement also done for one of the clients, that experience also was good.

There is room for improvement in the pricing, it's quite a premium. There are a few other brands that are coming up which are offering lower pricing. So maybe Aruba could think about being a more competitive price point.

I'm a system integrator. I've been selling it to my clients who use it in their offices.

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. It is very scalable. There are more than a thousand users in my client's organisation.

The initial setup is easy. If we need to deploy 10 to 15 devices, that can be set up in about half a day.

It is expensive. I would rate the pricing an eight out of ten.

I would highly recommend using the solution. Aruba is one of the best. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten 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.

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. 

We primarily use the solution as an instant access point with a built in virtual controller. It's a wireless product.

No other wireless product has the same capabilities. With Aruba, users just need access points and do not need a controller. Access points can act as controllers. With 50 to 60 access points, we can use another Aruba product to help with management below 50 or 60 access points. If we have thousands of access points, at that point, we would need to go for a controller. 

The solution can scale.

It is stable.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

Depending on the level of support you have (paid or standard), they are responsive. 

We'd like to have a bit more artificial intelligence incorporated into existing products. It would give them more market gain and make their product more robust. 

I've been using the solution for five to six years. 

The solution is quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable. 

If you have a small setup, it's quite easy to manage. You don't need to have the big hardware in place. If you have a very large infrastructure setup you might need to have a traditional WiFi setup.

It is quite scalable. How easy it is to expand depends on what scaling you are doing. For example, if you are adding more hardware or more access points. A small setup is quite easy to manage as you don't have so much hardware. However, a bigger setup might require additional WiFi expansion.

You can scale it to a great extent. 

We're a small company. We have less than 50 users. That said, we also have clients that use the solution. 

We do not have plans to increase usage. 

We've used technical support. They are pretty good. However, it depends on if you have a standard or paid support. Paid support allows you to call directly. Standard support is slower, and you need to communicate via email. 

We also use Cisco. I'm familiar with Juniper as well. 

The initial setup isn't too difficult. You just need to have a bit of background knowledge. It's pretty straightforward. 

The deployment depends on if you will use Aruba Central, a centralized could management platform, which makes the deployment easier. If you don't use that, you do need to do everything from scratch. The length of time it takes to deploy depends on the size of the setup. The physical mounting is always something that takes time. For the configuration, if you have configuration planning already in place, it won't take too long. It might take a week to a month for a smaller setup of 50 access points. 

If you have all the test points mounted up and they have all been cabled towards POE switches, and they have the necessary firmware and everything in place, and you have also planning in place including what are the access IDs and what security measures will be taking place, then it will be quite fast to do it.

You only need one or two people to handle the initial setup.

I've not witnessed any ROI.

They have various types of licensing to choose from. They have licenses for security and firewalls, et cetera. There are different licenses for products and different types of features as well. 

Most licenses are subscription-based. There are a few perpetual licenses as well. 

I was looking at Juniper Mist and noted that this product has more AI. Aruba is not too evolved when it comes to AI. 

We're not necessarily on the latest version of the solution. We are due for an upgrade.

If someone has a smaller setup, Juniper may be a good option. However, with bigger setups and more unique features, Aruba is a good choice. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

We use it for wireless access in our sales offices. It is a wireless access network.

It works well. It is reliable. 

We just upgraded it to 6G. The main reason why we chose Aruba is that we are an Aruba partner and we get significant discounts on Aruba.

The initial setup is straightforward and simple. 

It is scalable. 

It's providing us with the coverage that we need. The speed is good. Basically, you set it up and forget it, which is good.

We're not very sophisticated with it. We just use the wireless and it just does what we need it to.

It works. We don't look at it any deeper than that and don't find any features ar missing. 

We had one problem with one of our remote sites. We opened up a ticket and it turned out there was a problem with one of the end users' desktop. It needed to be patched and support was very good about it. They told us about it and we did it and it worked. It was nothing to do with the product itself, really. 

We've used the solution for ten years or so. 

The stability, in general, is good. We have problems from time to time; however, for those cases, most of the time, it's related to users. They might have patches that need to be installed or things like that.

It's generally reliable and there are no bugs or glitches. 

It meets our needs. We find it to be scalable. 

We have maybe 20 to 30 people using the solution at this time. 

We do not have plans to increase usage as we don't have any other locations for anything.

Tech support is efficient. If we have a problem, we open up a ticket and they help.

The solution is easy to set up. It is straightforward and simple. It's not overly complex. 

We have one person on staff that can deploy and maintain the product. They are a network admin. 

I wasn't involved in the process of looking into ROI, if that was even considered.

The pricing is good for us. As a partner, we get discounts. 

I don't have any information in regards to the exact costs we pay. 

We are resellers of Aruba. We don't do a lot with the wireless. We consume it. We don't sell it.

The solution works well and it does what we need it to do. 

It's a good product. Cloud management works very well. I would recommend cloud management to others any day.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. 

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. 

There is a clustering feature, so the APs immediately switch back to the next available controller. The users will not notice any impact and will feel connected to the network. They will not notice any disconnection.

The AirMatch feature is also very useful. If the radio channels and the power being utilized in the RF environment are filled up, it will update all of those channels and power transmission.

They have to work on their Aruba Central cloud platform. There are still some glitches such as not showing proper user details.

When we removed the AP from the Aruba Central cloud, it showed up as being connected to Aruba Central. They need to fix these issues.

I would like to see artificial intelligence and machine learning in the next release. Other vendors already have artificial intelligence and machine learning capabilities in their cloud platform-based wireless solutions.

I've been working with this solution for the last six years.

It is a stable solution.

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN's technical support was very good in 2017 and 2018. Now, the calls go here and there, and we don't get an immediate response.

The initial setup was very easy. It's not that complex.

Compared to Cisco, Aruba Networks Wireless WAN's user interface is very nice.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this solution at nine.

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is deployed for communication, and we have about 13 sites controlled in a centralized location. We have next-step security authentication, and it supports end-user secure connectivity. The combination and mechanism of multiple servers are used to authenticate the user to connect to the network securely.

Our whole company uses this network, providing wireless connectivity on all sides. So this solution impacts our day-to-day tasks.

The most valuable feature is security, which is important to the company and end user. In addition, the solution's strong security mechanism and user-friendly web console are great. The software and hardware are excellent, and we can efficiently deploy and manage these devices.

Regarding additional features, the solution currently has a Windows update problem. As a result, the solution requires daily Windows updates and installations as well as launches of new patches. It also requires updates to the iOS firmware to support the day-to-day patches submitted by Windows.

Because we work out of Pakistan, we sometimes have to deploy this solution in areas with a lot of dust. So, it would be great if Aruba improves the environmental hardware materials to mitigate troubleshooting and decrease the amount of dust it accumulates.

We have been using this solution for seven years and recently deployed the latest version. It is deployed on a local network.

It is a stable solution.

The solution is scalable. We have a lot of users, most of whom are IT specialists. For example, we have four people required for maintenance in the IT department and two junior network engineers continuously controlling the solution.

The technical support for this product regarding the vendor is great. Our principal or local vendor is available to facilitate any issues that arise.

Before using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN, we had been working on Cisco and Awale, which are somewhat competitors of this solution. We also deployed Awale, which works fine, but Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is widely used in our company.

The initial setup was straightforward, and it took about two days to deploy. We used a third party to deploy the network and performed day-to-day tasks easily. There was no issue with installation, and deployment on a large scale was painless.

Regarding licensing costs, our procurement and finance departments are directly involved, and we evaluate the functionality of this product. Based on the market comparison, Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is cheaper than Cisco, and the web experience is great. As a result, its functionality and performance are practical.

If we were not using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN, we would use Cisco. Cisco and Aruba have the same solution and provide a controller-based network and ISE. The functionality of both devices is the same, and the key difference is the vendor and branding. The dependability and scalability of both products are good too.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten.