Aruba Switches Reviews

I work in the hospitality and medical industry.

Aruba Central is valuable. I use it for management.

The solution must improve the switch models. It has only one type of switch in the CX 4100 series.

I have been using the solution for three years.

I rate the product’s stability a ten out of ten.

Our clients are enterprise businesses. I rate the product’s scalability a ten out of ten.

I rate the support a seven or eight out of ten. We do not have local solutions in our country. Most people in the companies do not know English, and it is difficult for them to speak with the technical support team. It would be good if the solution provided on-site support in Turkey.

Neutral

I rate the ease of setup a nine out of ten. The deployment takes three to four days because we work with big companies. The deployment is sometimes difficult.

I rate the pricing a seven or eight out of ten. The tool is a little expensive for customers from other countries. We have a lot of Chinese customers. Aruba is expensive for them.

I am a distributor. I don't use the tool for security because every company has a firewall. We only use AI in Aruba Central. I will recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

Our clients use Aruba Switches for networking.

The most valuable features of Aruba Switches are the routing protocol and the basic functionality.

Aruba Switches could improve the monitoring and increase the scope of their online portal to cover cloud and on-premise deployments.

I have been using Aruba Switches for approximately two years.

The performance of the solution has been good for all our customers.

One of our clients has approximately 2,000 customers using the solution in the multiple-story business.

Most of our clients are enterprise-sized companies.

I rate the scalability of Aruba Switches a nine out of ten.

I have not had an issue to need the support for.

I have used Cisco and Juniper. Cisco has a high price.

The initial setup of Aruba Switches is straightforward. The full deployment took approximately two months. Some of the factors that increased the time were solution delivery and the customer's use case.

Cisco has a higher cost than Aruba Switches.

I rate the price of Aruba Switches an eight out of ten.

I rate Aruba Switches a nine out of ten.

The solution is high quality, reliable, and can handle heavy workloads.

I use Aruba switches to provide a stable and comfortable industrial environment.

Aruba switches are more flexible, easy to use, have a good topology and are self-managing.

I have an opinion about Aruba controllers. Aruba access points do not require any controllers. Aruba controllers have different VLANS and there is no need to configure the access points, rather only the controller. You can put different VLANs on the same controllers. You don’t need to reconfigure it. This is a good feature that would be a good vehicle to use in the next release.

I have four years of experience using Aruba Switches.

We didn't experience any stability or scalability issues until now with Aruba Switches

We actually are the technical support because we are from HP. We give Aruba support and LT support to Aruba customers and users.

So, because my basic profile is network only, I have experience with wifi solutions like Aruba, Cisco, Ruckus and switches also dealing with Cisco and Aruba Switches and HPE switches also— 3Com. I also work with voice environments like Siemens IP PBX, HiPath, Siemens data and Jira. I also worked with Avaya PBX and Nortel PBX.

I was in HP for more than four years where I was the team leader, managing 14 locations and area network and voice leader.

I have four years of experience working with Aruba but I have more than 10 years of experience with Cisco. If you are working in the manufacturing industry or in an environment with high heat and high temperatures, then I would recommend Aruba Switches, but if you work for a small business, then Cisco would be best.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Aruba Switches a nine. We do not give out ratings of 100% quality on any products.

We primarily use the solution for extra switches on campuses and consecutive exchange of existing access switches. 

The zero-touch provisioning made it possible for electricians to install and wire the switches that allows for the continuation with the zero touch provisioning mechanism afterward. It has really helped us to save our manpower within the network support group.

The solution's most valuable aspect is that it integrates with ClearPass, which allows us to use the same management for wireless LAN and wired LAN. 

The written documentation, all the available documentation, is often a little bit hard to find. The solution lacks documentation of recent features. We have access directly to Aruba, Germany, so they are always helpful, but if you start, for instance, with something a little bit more complex like zero-touch provisioning, that would require a more comprehensive written piece. 

The available REST API is invaluable for elegant integration with the core and distribution network.  

There are some new multicast features coming up, but they are just in the process of preparation by IEEE, and I would like to see them as soon as possible.

The solution's stability is really great. We found it very solid. 

The scalability of the solution is good. With the management of ClearPass, it's great. We've been using the feature of building stacks with it, and its really, really easy to handle a large scale environment.

Technical support has been great. Together with the consultant, we set up a regular phone call with Aruba to discuss the issues surrounding setting up the whole system. They always came up with quick solutions, called us back and they've been really, really helpful overall.

We previously used Brocade. The switches portion of the organization was bought by Extreme Networks. The company broke down, which is why we had to switch. The hardware of Brocade was brilliant, but at some point, the development and the stability of firmware lacked, since developers may have moved on before the company broke down.

The setup is mostly straightforward. Deployment, together with the WiFi, took about a month. We had three people on our side assisting with the implementation and have three people currently handling maintenance.

We did the initial set up with the help of a service provider of Aruba. We wrote templates and did the first template with the service provider, who was experienced and was really helpful.

With their assistance, the experience was optimal. We had been really late with our decision to purchase Aruba and we, with the help of the consultants, have since been able to bring up the whole system in time so that the existing schedule for opening the hospital was never endangered. 

We just had all the licenses for five years included in the bidding process. Since the competitive nature of the resulting contract, our actual costs might not reflect the standard market prices. Due to the visibilityof our project, Aruba has been generous with the included amount of licenses, which will serve us for years to come.

As a public hospital we are obliged to implement a public bidding process. We had been in discussions with many companies, including, for example, Cisco. 

In the end, it came down to financial issues. Once you have your requirements fixed, every Vendor has the chance to give you a proper offer through ist sales channel. With all the requirements, including for example common management of wired and wireless access, WLAN integrated Bluetooth capabilities  Cisco failed to meet the offer of Aruba.

We've been implementing, with the help of Aruba, with zero-touch provisioning in a newly opened hospital. Roughly 450 switches have been put into operation using zero-touch provisioning (ZTP). It was challenging;  even Aruba probably hadn't done such a large scale project before using ZTP.

In terms of advice, I'd say if you are entering the next stage of switch hardware, of network hardware, just have a look at Aruba. It's really, really helpful having an open API to use Python or other script languages to modify configurations and to automate exchange of state changes with neighbouring structures.

We try to keep as close as possible to standards. There are some areas where standards aren't available, for instance stacking of network Access switches, whre no vendor-independent standards is existing yet. So look at the whole package including the switch hardware, the licenses, the license for management and bear in mind the transceivers. 

When using Aruba switches, stick with the automation tools, don't let yourself be seduced into going back to manual configuration.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. They would be perfect, but there's a noise once they are on under heavy load in a warm environment. It might be the case that they are not usable for installations where the loudness damping between the installation room and office is not sufficient.

I use Aruba wired and wireless switches as part of my network infrastructure.

The most valuable features are stability, ease of management, and the monitoring tool.

These switches offer high availability and support stacking.

The audit feature gives me the ability to trust Aruba. 

The layer three switches are very scalable and very reliable.

The command-line interface could be easier to use, perhaps having voice control.

I have been working with Aruba Switches for a year and a half.

Our network environment is very stable with these switches, including wireless coverage.

I have approximately 100 switches and serve about 2,000 users.

The support team has a very fast response and they are very useful.

Our old environment was also built from Aruba products, which means that all of the components are compatible with each other.

The initial setup is very straightforward and very easy. In the last project that we deployed, I and one engineer configured about 100 switches in two days.

Our network team includes two people who are responsible for deployment and maintenance.

The pricing is perfect.

Overall, this is a good product that has all of the features I need. I plan on continuing to use these switches and I can recommend them to others.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use it mostly for data center switches such as the CX Series 6405 and 6300 as a distribution or TurboRock. We also use it for access switches like the 2000 and 6000 series.

Aruba's SameNet platform allows for a seamless transition from the data center to access switches, unlike Cisco, which has different operating systems for each. Additionally, Aruba offers zero licensing fees for Layer 3 features, and their solution is known for its stability.

There is room for improvement in the customer service and support team. 

I have worked with Aruba Switches since 2013. But once I convert to the sales sections, I'm not using it anymore.

I have had a great experience with it. I'm currently working with a partner platinum partner with Aruba.

I would rate the stability a seven out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. 

I've had experience with Aruba technical support. In some cases, we have opened robust support tickets for critical customers, and the first layer of engineers took a long time to solve the issue. They didn't know how to proceed, so we had to escalate, which also took time.

Neutral

I like Aruba switches. There's no specific reason for the switch, but I prefer the configurations on Aruba switches over HPE.

It's very easy, not complex at all. Moreover, it offers seamless integration. It has good third-party integration. It's very good in this case. It is easy to customize. For example, with the CX series, we can use Python scripting and API.

For the deployment process, I usually place the order and communicate with the vendor about the delivery time. Moreover, maintenance is not difficult. 

It's not cheap or very expensive, but I think the price has increased recently.

Mainly, customers need to consider whether they need switches for data centers or access networks. Also, they should consider the name ID. Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We use industrial switches called Moxa switches for our Edge devices and our Edge networks. For the backbone, we use Aruba switches because of the throughputs.It's much cheaper to put in an Aruba Switch than putting in a Moxa switch. We use it for CCTV cameras and we have about 150 to 200 cameras on the system. 

For each of our clients who use this switch, we assign one of our engineers for maintenance. Our service level agreements determine the type of support they receive and how many of our engineers are needed. One of our engineers handles about four or five clients.

This solution is really easy to use. It is much easier to use than Cisco. It's got a nice web interface for stepping up and an added warranty. We need this limited lifetime warranty on the switches because we also have service level agreements with our clients and I want to make sure we provide them with the best product.

This solution could be improved if it offered long term support on a specific model or product. What we find in the market is that companies bring out too many new models, and if you still have an older model on your project, you do not get support. 

In a future release, we would like to see MQTT protocols added as well as OPC. We have this functionality on other industrial switches and some of our clients like that feature. Using those two protocols, we can provide cloud based monitoring of their systems.

I have been using this solution for six years. 

This is a stable solution. I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

This is a scalable solution but we have experienced challenges with availability of certain versions of the solution that allow it to be used at scale. 

I would rate it a five out of five for scalability. 

I've dealt with them once or twice but most issues have been sorted out by our distributor. It it is a bigger query, I submit it to HP for resolution. 

Neutral

I would rate the initial setup a four out of five. We had some issues with high-level protocols that you use for redundancy. You have to set it up via a console, like MST and RSDP. If your network is not complex, it's very easy to set up.

We have two engineers or two technicians who usually complete the installation and this takes one week. 

I wouldn't say we have experienced ROI but I would say that we have saved money on our service level agreements. Because of the stability, we do not need to do any replacements.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

We are using these switches for our office network and site-to-site connectivity.

Their technical support is great. I have used Cisco products, and as compared to Cisco, Aruba's command-line syntax is not as complex. The command-line interface of Aruba switches is quite intuitive. It also has a graphical user interface. With Cisco, using the graphical user interface for configuration can be complex, whereas Aruba simplifies it, and you can easily use the graphical user interface. The configuration is secured. Their graphical user interface is quite robust.

There is a feature where you can use Bluetooth. You can set up a Bluetooth pairing connection and do the configuration through your phone.

There is an issue with Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), but it is escaping me. We aren't using this feature yet, but it is something we are considering.

It has been a little over a year.

It is very stable. One time, I had a VSF problem, but that was in the hardware, and they replaced it. We have so many devices, and that was the only one with which we had an issue.

Their technical support is great.

There are just two of us for its deployment and maintenance.

Cost-wise, you get some good savings as compared to Cisco. 

Aruba switches are pretty good. They are robust, and they do pretty much everything that Cisco is doing. 

I would rate these switches a nine out of 10.