Aruba Wireless Reviews

• 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.

We are using Aruba Instant in four remote branch offices. We chose this solution at the time because of its controllerless feature and easy setup.

It provided an easy WiFi solution for our branch offices to deploy. We could usually have them up and running from out-of-the-box in about 10 minutes.

The controllerless feature. It will randomly pick one of the APs to be the designated master. If that access point fails, the role is moved to another AP. This saves a lot on management and infrastructure costs.

There is plenty of room for improvement. Reliability of a flawless upgrade after the 4.x releases is rare. There is a lot of manual intervention required lately due to random bugs. If you have a mix of APs using different firmware, it takes nothing short but an act of god to upgrade successfully. 

The product’s performance got worse with newer releases as well. It seems like they are adding more frivolous features and sacrificing stability and speed. The latest design of their APs removes the console port and requires purchasing an expensive proprietary cable just to access the console.

Occasionally, it needed to be rebooted. I used to have issues with DHCP. It is extremely buggy and difficult to upgrade with different firmware versions/models.

I do not know what the maximum number of APs in a cluster can be (for the Instant series), but I never seemed to hit a limit. At one site, we had 12 clustered together.

It seemed to be good when we needed it. This was before HPE purchased them. I have not had a need to contact support since then.

The other way around, we have switched away from Aruba to Ruckus. Aruba’s poor performance and random upgrade issues caused too much time consuming maintenance and troubleshooting. Ruckus Unleashed has been flawless; performance almost doubled, and it is far easier to configure.

The initial setup was very simple. There were some settings which were confusing and unlabeled when trying to use the online help with the newer firmware.

Trial different solutions and compare pricing to how well they perform, their stability, how easy it is to maintain, etc.

At the time when we first started using them, we did not evaluate other options. They seemed to be only ones back then who could cluster APs without requiring a separate controller.

Perform a site survey and get a model that supports the latest AC technology.

At first, the product was a solid 10. As time went on, and newer firmware was released, the product has dropped significantly to maybe a four or five rating out of 10 due to various bugs and design issues. We no longer use Aruba for any new sites and are slowly phasing them out from our locations with a different controllerless product that has drastically increased reliability and performance.

I have found the most valuable features are the new Wi-Fi six technology and it also integrates with triple-A solutions. It has good bandwidth and virtual control.

I would like to see the management improve.

I have been using Aruba Wireless for the past two to three years.

The stability is excellent and ranks a nine on a scale of one to ten.

The scalability is very high with Aruba Wireless.

Technical support is very helpful and response time is good.

Positive

I have used all three solutions Aruba Wireless, Cisco, and Ruckus.

The initial setup is straightforward and easy to set up. Simply plug and play and it will automatically block calls. You can change it every Friday or by favorites.

The setup is generally in-house and we support it.

When you look at the price it is a higher price than Cisco.

I have used all three and Cisco is more complicated than Aruba Wireless.

I would rate Aruba Wireless an eight on a scale of one to ten.

We have 150 clients who are using this solution.

The solution is deployed on-premises.

The wireless controller and access points are valuable features.

The console is difficult to use. The firewall settings could be improved.

I have been working with Aruba Wireless for two years.

It's a stable solution.

The scalability is okay.

We had some complications with the controllers, so we received help from technical support when we couldn't find any tutorials online.

I would rate technical support as five out of five. They're very fast.

We have also used Cisco. Aruba's database is better compared to Cisco. We chose Aruba because the pricing is better.

Setup is straightforward.

Aruba is less expensive than Cisco.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten.

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.

Aruba Wireless' network is the primary connection method used for connectivity to the university network. We use a master/local setup of controllers. On each of the three campuses we have two local controllers supporting the wireless network.

Wireless affords people the ability to stay connected. Mobility allows people the freedom to move about and not rely on being tied to an Ethernet cable only.

Cost reduction in wiring would be one valuable feature. Another would be the freedom of not being tethered to a cable. Mobility is a major plus. It takes a little time to learn and understand the tree and leaf hierarchy but is easy to manage once understood.

Sometimes you are not able to get an engineer on the phone on first call. There have been instances of waiting for a callback.

I would rate this product at nine out of 10. Aruba provides great service when a call is placed for assistance. One drawback for me is the language barrier. Sometimes it is a little difficult to understand the technician on the phone.

We provide Aruba Wireless in over 30 schools in Southeastern Wisconsin.

It has improved overall IT efficiency across the board. This has resulted in fewer wireless issues encountered and a more stable environment.

ClientMatch and AirWave: These have increased management purposes, reporting, etc.

Some additional reporting features about the clients would be nice when not combined with the AirWave management package.