Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN Reviews

Our primary use case for the Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN solution is providing Internet access, particularly for guests and remote environments. It enables us to implement controls such as a hospitality landing page for guest authentication, enhancing security and user experience.

The product's coverage area could be expanded. It would help ensure better connectivity.

We have been using Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN for three months.

I rate the platform's stability seven out of ten. Sometimes, there might be network outages or power shortages. The SSID remains safe; however, you may need to switch off your Wi-Fi and switch it back on the network to resolve connectivity issues.

The scalability is quite satisfactory. I rate it around seven or eight, but not a perfect ten. I have deployed it for over 150 users.

The technical support services are good.

Positive

The product is easy to deploy. It took a few minutes to complete.

The platform is highly priced. We have purchased its five-year license.

Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is quite helpful in supporting remote work environments. It's easy to manage and provides a clear network view, allowing efficient navigation down to the network details.

The most useful feature is the ability to determine and control traffic flow. Additionally, the reporting features are valuable. Since I manage the system through the cloud setup, the cloud management feature is quite easy to use. It has a network efficiency of 60%. The platform is stable and easy to deploy.

I rate it an eight out of ten.

We use Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN for wireless networks.

We use the solution's bandwidth shaping, URL filtering, and group policy configuration features.

The solution’s pricing could be improved.

I have been using Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN for six months.

I rate the solution ten out of ten for stability.

The solution's scalability is limitless and can meet our organization's growth. Around 200 users are using the solution in our organization.

I rate the solution ten out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s initial setup is easy.

Two people deployed Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN in our organization within a few hours.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten.

We use the solution to support the IT workforce in the wireless network. The solution has simplified management and seamless connectivity. The solution provides security from viruses and reduces my bandwidth overhead.

We have two types of monitoring. We use a third-party tool to monitor my entire network. In the Meraki dashboard, we use Meraki monitoring for the wireless client. Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is deployed on the cloud in our organization. I would recommend Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

We use the solution for user-end connectivity. 

The tool's most valuable feature is report generation. Its dashboard helps me a lot with user analytics.

Despite being enabled, I've encountered an issue where the alert main dashboard fails to detect when any of the devices go down. Hence, the tool's notification feature should improve. We have also faced issues with integration. 

I have been using the product for five years. 

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

I rate Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN's scalability a nine out of ten. My company has three users. 

Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN's tech support is problematic and takes time to respond. We don't even have contact numbers. 

Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN's deployment is simple. 

Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN's pricing is high. 

I rate the product a nine out of ten. 

The main company is a hotel resort with around 120 rooms. They have approximately 90 devices deployed throughout the complex, and they haven't had any issues with the streamlined version or established information.

Cisco offers a service where they provide internet access to clients. This allows for greater mobility and speed, and it's one of the features most people like.

The cost of the devices and the solution itself could be more competitive.

There is room for improvement in pricing. We manage the price for Ruckus and haven't received any quotes from Meraki yet. We requested Meraki quotes directly from the distributor to compare the solutions' prices.

We have been using it for six years. 

We rarely encounter any issues. The solutions have been very stable.

The scalability is actually fine. I thought it might not be as scalable as other brands, but it's been working well for us.

My experience with customer service and support was nice.

Neutral

We have several clients with different brands, including Cisco, Fortinet, Aruba, and Ruckus. We work on a project that requires a wireless connection. My colleague suggested Cisco, but my work brokers proposed Aruba. That's why I need to compare Cisco Meraki to Aruba.

The first time was difficult because it was new to me, but subsequent installations have been very easy.

The time taken for the process depends on the size of the deployment. For example, if it's a small office with three access points, it could take two to three hours.

We initially required assistance from a third party, but I got certified by Cisco and learned how to do it myself through online resources.

The licensing costs depend on the environment. In comparison to other brands, it is expensive. 

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

I've been working with schools for about 20 years. I previously worked in a school with four campuses and about one thousand students, where I managed all four campuses' wireless networks with Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN.

The solution's most valuable features at that time were the ease of managing on the cloud without having a server and the authentication using RADIUS integrated with the server on the cloud. It will be authenticated by MAC address, and access will be provided through that.

Updating the equipment and the scheme they use to bill for the license could be improved. We once had to move some access points from one campus to another. Since each campus has its own specifications, we had to delete the access points from one and reschedule them on the other, but we spent money on a new license. That was a management problem we faced.

We tried to implement the single sign-on with Google, which was a bit complex.

Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is a very stable solution. We had issues with models, and at that time, it was very sensible to glitches on the internet network. Since we completely depend on the internet network, any problem with the network will cause issues.

Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN has huge scalability because everything will be compatible with it.

The solution's technical support depends on the local supplier. You can contract a simple support system with the local supplier. You can also buy support with Cisco, but it's really costly.

Positive

Each product is deployed with a specific target. Aruba is more specific for security, and Ruckus is more network and wireless-focused. Aruba is the best option if you want ten access points. If you make a network of 20 to 40 access points, Ruckus will give you the best management because it has some software that makes it easier to implement and manage.

If you want to integrate everything with voice-over IP and video, Cisco is the best option because it gives you more granularity on how you can configure it.

I could do most of the deployment by myself. It was a one-man job instead of a team. Otherwise, you will need an expert in each campus. I deployed the solution on one campus during one summer vacation, and the next summer, I deployed it on another campus. The next summer, we deployed it on the third campus, and so on. Everything was deployed after a couple of years, and we could use it.

You could say we deployed the solution in a couple of months because the actual deployment happened during the summer vacations.

The solution's pricing is a little higher. Earlier, you didn't have many options. Currently, Cisco's pricing is still high, but there are other options available. All the other brands, like Aruba and Ruckus, are catching up. Pricing is becoming more of an issue with Cisco because it's still very high compared with other products. The other products are implementing the technology that Cisco has.

Meraki has a lot of levels of security implementation. The first one is very limited because you can only block ten web pages with it, and it's not very granular. If you want to do something else, you have to buy another product specifically for security and put it on the network.

Meraki now implements access points and switches and has a security brand element. It depends on what level of security you want to put in, but each one of those, on a price basis, is still a little higher than any other brand.

I would recommend the solution to other users based on their needs. If you need some specific issues addressed or if your implementation is small, you should probably go with Aruba. If your computation is middle-sized or if you're planning to grow a lot, you should probably start looking at Ruckus or Cisco.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I deliver daily corporate line services and guest services, along with BYOD services for our office users, totaling ten individuals, utilizing Meraki.

The solution ensures seamless connectivity as users move within the office. Six installed Meraki APs provide excellent coverage for around three hundred users, offering reliable speeds. 

Additionally, the system allows guests and users with priority devices to connect using their SAP ID. The traffic is managed through D and G controllers to meet the specified requirements for continuous connection and speed.

Currently, with Meraki, a controller is required to direct guest and user traffic to the internet. Improvement is needed in the portal for enhanced visibility into activities. Additionally, addressing multiple bugs, especially those arising with new releases, is crucial to ensure system stability.

I have been using Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN for the past one and a half years.

I rate them a nine because they are highly responsive, and we are satisfied with their service.

I would rate it a nine; it's highly scalable.

I haven't personally engaged with Cisco Meraki; instead, two individuals from our team handle direct interactions. I raise queries to them, and they communicate with Meraki. However, there have been instances where Meraki didn't provide clear information, which our team has consistently highlighted during their interactions with Meraki technicians.

Neutral

Regarding the initial setup experience, I would rate it a ten for Cisco Meraki wireless. The setup was easy and seamless, earning full points for simplicity and integration with their cloud.

Regarding the return on investment with Cisco Meraki wireless LAN, we have seen positive results so far.

I haven't conducted a price comparison yet, but based on information, it appears to be more affordable than the current environment. Therefore, I consider the price to be reasonable.

My recommendation is to test Aruba Wireless if it offers better service for their requirements. If they seek a more affordable solution, Cisco Meraki could be a suitable choice as both can meet the needs of a small organization. However, for larger-scale operations, a thorough POC is necessary before opting for Meraki.

On a scale of one to ten, with ten being the best, I would rate Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN as an eight. The slightly lower score is due to the comparatively lesser support.

We primarily use the solution for wireless connectivity for our wireless network.

The connectivity is very good. 

It's a robust, stable solution. We haven't had any issues at all.

The graphic user interface is very nice. It makes using it very easy.

The product is simple to manage. 

It is not too expensive. 

The setup is easy.

It is stable.

The solution can scale. 

I don't really need any changes to be made. 

It may be expensive for smaller setups.

We'd like to have better mapping to showcase low-coverage areas. 

This is a recent installation. We did this installation towards the end of last year. We've used it for less than one year.

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. I'd rate the stability ten out of ten. 

The solution can scale. That said, I've never reached the limit of our deployment. We haven't tested the scalability too much. 

We have about 100 users in our office.

We do not have plans to increase usage. We may decrease the number. 

We've never contacted technical support. 

We previously upgraded from Cisco's 2500 series. 

The initial setup is straightforward. However, it is a global configuration and handled by another unit. I did not set it up myself. We got it out of the box and just needed to put it up. My understanding is that it would be relatively easy to set up. 

While it is on-premises, it does have some cloud reporting features. 

We received the solution partially configured. Therefore, I cannot speak of the setup process from end to end. 

We have four members in IT in our office and are supported by a bigger team at our company's headquarters. 

The cost isn't too high for an enterprise setup. 

We pay a license for three years for support and maintenance. 

While I would recommend ht eh solution to others, it does depend on the environment and usage. If it is a small setup, there are other options that are less expensive. Meraki works well in an enterprise environment. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use the solution for our 100-plus access points.

Cloud management, wireless infrastructure, and implementation are all valuable features.

The wireless infrastructure scalability has room for improvement.

We have been using the solution for seven years.

I give the stability an eight out of ten.

Our ability to scale is determined by our licensing and can be easily managed through cloud consoles. However, the wireless component of our end users poses some scalability challenges.

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment was completed by the system integrators and engineers which took less than one week.

The implementation was completed in-house.

There are multiple licensing options including three months, six months, and one year.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

We have around 120 access points which support around 70 users at a time for a total of around 7,000 users.