Aruba Wireless Reviews

For me, its security features are the most valuable, helping us to reduce a lot of complications. For example, there are security code issues we have to address when enterprise users bring their own iPads, iPhones, notebooks, or any mobile device, and they want to access our network. They may need to access our network resources, but there can be complications because they are our enterprise users or guests with unique user names, passwords, etc. Aruba is able to address those complications by providing the security for that network access. 

I work as an IT infrastructure manager. WiFi is in our scope of responsibilities, so we prepare the implementation projects for the general areas and for our enterprise users. 

We asked for tenders from Aruba, Cisco, and Meru Networks. At the end of the day we decided, or rather I decided, on Aruba because of its security features. We performed a lot of tests to reduce the number of certificates needed, the access point requirements, IPS features, spectrum analyses, etc. After that, we decided that Aruba would be best for us. 

We have been using it for two years and we are very, very satisfied with the features because there are no security problems. We continued using Aruba, not just with that project, but for different projects in other companies.

For other projects, we ask for tenders, and if HP wins, Aruba will also win because we will not buy separate WiFi solutions. We will buy solutions under the local area network site. We combine the solutions because we believe that if you are using wired and wireless networks, the one utilizing UNIX systems should be the deciding factor. At the same time we want a program with NOC solutions, BYOD, MDM, and ATM location services. We want all that to work together in our program designs.

Sometimes there's some small problems, but this is the nature of technology.

We've not had any issues with deployment.

In our two years of use, there haven't been any big problems.

We've had some scalability issues because of the way we're scaling our hardware base. For example, we started with 64 access points although our controller supports only 6 core access points. We've scaled incrementally, though, as we then went to 128 and then to 200, whereas our competitors start high.

Out of the box, we had 1000 access points licensed, but that amount depends on your own license. If you buy 120, you can support 120. There's no change to the control site up to 1000 licenses. Compared to Cisco in this regard, Arube is not as flexible.

The initial setup was not complex. There's a CLI, much like Cisco. Aruba's certification is also very similar to Cisco's, which is not very difficult.

I implemented it myself.

We primarily use the solution due to the fact that the architecture is suitable for management and engineers.

The user interface is great.

We have found the pricing to be reasonable. 

Technical support is pretty good.

It's very easy to set up the solution. 

The certification for licensing could be better.

I've been using the solution for seven years. 

The solution is stable and reliable. While we have noticed many bugs in other offerings, Aruba has been issue-free. The performance is good.

The solution can scale if you need it to. It's not a problem. 

We have 20,000 people, including network engineers, using the product in our organization. Right now, we do not have plans to increase usage.

I've used technical support in the past and find them to be helpful and responsive. They are better than, for example, Cisco, when it comes to assisting us.

We also use Cisco. We find Aruba's technical support is better.

I've been a part of the implementation process and found it to be quite straightforward and simple. It's not an overly complex or difficult process at all. 

We can have it deployed in an hour. It's pretty quick to get everything up and running.

We are able to handle the implementation process ourselves.

It's not an overly expensive solution. However, I cannot speak to the overall costs involved in buying or operating the product. I don't handle the licensing aspects. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. We've been fairly happy with its capabilities. 

We provide services for clients, so it's always a different use case. For example, we work with a retailer and we focus on electronic tasks. Another is corporate offices in a bank, one of the biggest banks in Mexico. Another is massive events like the Olympics with different sponsors. There's a big difference in the type of use cases.

In the case of the contacts or the callers, Aruba Wireless offers a good user experience. For example, there are a lot of the contacts in the retail store, we are talking about 100,000 users connected at one time. After evaluation, Aruba Wireless was considered best for large numbers of users like this. 

The network times for protocol synchronization can be improved. Sometimes it's complicated, and we need to tweak it to coordinate or synchronize it to the clock at the network access point.

I have some issues with the introductory domain with the frequency that we use. For example, it's very common to have a box with a frequency channel with the introductory domains in Mexico. The access points have some issues in this release; I think it's version eight.

Sometimes the documentation is confusing. You have to figure out a lot of different placements on your own because of the outdated information.

I have used Aruba Wireless for about five years. 

Aruba Wireless seems to be very stable. I don't remember having any issues with stability. 

Aruba Wireless is scalable. You can add more people. You can use the same configuration for 50 or 2,000, or 5,000 users.

Aruba Wireless technical support is too slow, or it used to be. For example, to test a domain in Mexico, they would spend about three months.

The initial setup is complicated because you have to modify many options, and you have to spend time handling those options, and sometimes you need attendants for these options.

We always evaluate options to see what's best. For example, sometimes, the ARM is more relative, and Aruba is more efficient than others. Cisco has the same functionality, but sometimes the main link will disconnect the users. You don't have that problem with Aruba Wireless. 

For those interesting in using Aruba Wireless, I would recommend taking a simplified approach to the license. They should analyze options relevant to their systems as it can get more complex. At this moment, there are a lot of licensing options.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Aruba Wireless a nine.

Doctors offices, car dealerships, and small business. It is used to provide internal, guest access.

We originally were using SonicPoint and had tons of connectivity issues. We switched to Aruba to fix all the issues with all my clients.

I like the IAP line and being able to have a true mesh without the need of a controller. The features included in them are also very nice with a built-in website for ToS for guest access.

The price point is pretty high compared to Ubiquiti and other equipment.

None, which is why this product turned into my go to solution.

The largest implementation that I was able to do was about 15 APs, with no issues.

I have never had to use technical support. The product is very simple to use.

I used SonicPoint. The connection stability was very poor. Though, the firewalls worked well.

The initial setup is straightforward. Configure one IAP and all the rest self-configure to that one.

Price is fairly expensive, however it is worth it. If the “master” fails, another AP can take over the role.

We evaluated Ubiquiti, Hive, Netgear, Cisco, and Meraki.

Grab a couple and test them out. The features that these things have available and the ease of setup are fantastic.

We are using different versions depending on the customer. We have about 400 or 500 customers. Some of them are Aruba, some of them have other technologies. Different versions are deployed all over. We use it as a wireless device manager where appropriate.  

There are only so many features in Wireless controllers. The fact that Aruba has a virtual controller onboard the internet access points makes it cheaper than to buy Aruba Central licenses or Meraki Cloud licenses. That probably makes it most valuable.  

Aruba Wireless is among the leaders in the market. We are not talking about basic access points. As a leader, they keep ahead of the field.  

We have been using it for a year-and-a-half.  

The stability is very good.  

It is very scalable.  

The technical support is good. My impression is that pre-sale support is very good with Aruba. Their global presence is important. I do not have to deal with any other technical support because they have a follow-the-sun type of system that uses different support teams. When I ask for support, we get it and we get it during regular business hours. I never phoned anywhere else but the North American team. They are good and responsive.  

Installation is pretty straight forward.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Aruba wireless eight-out-of-ten. Nobody would get a ten.  

I have a small office with about five APs. It has a good central management system to help manage my wireless devices, just to ensure that everything is working correctly.

It makes things easier because it's SD-WAN. With the central management system, I'm able to access each device. I can configure one device and then it provisions all the other devices with the same configuration, rather than my having to configure them one by one.

The central management system. It's called Aruba Central, which allows you to manage the APs, the switch, and the controllers, etc.

The management system would be better if it were more polished, if it had a better interface like, for example, Meraki.

Scalability is pretty good. I believe they recommend having up to 50 APs per cluster, but it can scale even more than that. I don't really need that in particular, although it's an enterprise-standard product. The throughput is pretty good.

I haven't used technical support as of yet.

I used to use Meraki but with Meraki, if you stop paying for the licenses, you basically don't own the device. Once you stop paying for the licensing, the device is pretty much dead.

The initial setup was pretty much straightforward to be honest. You only configure one AP and when you plug the other ones into the network, it recognizes that that AP is the master and gets the configuration off that.

I did look at Ubiquiti because the price point was cheap. But after looking further into it, the main reason I chose Aruba was because they have a lifetime warranty on their APs.

My advice would depend on the needs. It depends on what size of business you have and what you are looking to accomplish. In general, I'd recommend Aruba Wireless. 

The only other thing I would let you know is that, if you want a centralized management system that is able to manage all your networking devices such as the wireless, the switch, the routers, and the firewall, then Aruba may not be the one, because Aruba doesn't do firewalls. For example, with Meraki, you can have a full Meraki network with the switches, routers, firewall, APs, all managed on one central network. With Aruba, if you have a firewall, you'd have to use a separate management system to manage that.

The most important criteria when selecting a vendor would be

• support
• durability of the device
• brand reputation
• ease of use.

I would rate Aruba Wireless at about eight out of 10. I haven't had any issues with it to date, and it's a pretty robust product. The reason I won't give it higher than that is because of the GUI. They need to make it more polished like Meraki's. But other than that, I've been pretty happy with it and I like all the additional features there.

• Branch and campus access
• Guest and employee access
• Device onboarding and device access
• Guests are divided into groups. 

• Providing WiFi access to employees and guests.
• Traffic segregation
• WiFi roaming
• Digital branch 

• Superior WiFi access and RF management
• WiFi security via WiFi Firewall 
• Access control
• Integrations with other systems

• Needs integrated wired, which is not traditional HPE.
• The new 8400 failed at Lab, plus its integration with Aruba Central. 
• Needs a good enterprise story, including branches and campuses.

Integrated firewall, integrated WIDS/WIPS on the controllers and the ability to tunnel LAN traffic from the switches through the controllers to set consistent 802.1x and access controls that are consistent across both wired and wireless LANs.

It improves security by helping us to centralize access controls and dot1x and set common policy across both wired and wireless LANs without having to install additional components.

The controllers used to include heat map functionality. This was removed in a recent release. To get this functionality now, you need to be using Airwave (AWMS), which adds additional cost. On the other hand, Airwave can be used to manage a multi-vendor environment, so there may be some other benefits to having it deployed, but it would be nice to have the heat map back in the controller.

I've been using it for five years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

It's excellent.

It's excellent.

Default settings are sufficient to get a functioning wireless network up and running fairly easily. Complexity increases add vLANs, security policy, dot1x, redundancy, etc.

At my previous employer we had a relatively large wireless installation so we worked with a vendor team. The network at my current employer is small enough that I could handle it myself.

Licensing has improved. In the past all redundant controllers required licenses for all the access points. They've not implemented a centralized licensing model so that you only need to license your access points once.

We evaluated Cisco. Cisco's solution, at the time, required additional components to provide the same functionality. For example you'd need external firewalls, IDS/IPS, and authentication servers. Aruba controllers had all this built in. I haven't looked at Cisco's current offerings, so this may not still be the case.

I'd recommend you do the training.