Cisco Wireless Reviews

We use it for users within the company. We have a separate network for them. We have another network for outside people. 

It is good, and it works.

It requires a few tweaks in order to stabilize it. Its portal is complex. Cisco solutions are complex in general.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for about ten years.

We have to do a few tweaks in order to stabilize it. We have tweaked its configuration through their support center, and we even got a third-party vendor out here to kind of take a look at it, which improved it a little but not a hundred percent. We have several users who get dropped from the Wi-Fi every once in a while. APs also don't typically work. They just stop working. We have to reboot them, and they magically work. 

With all the testing that we have done with Aruba for the last six to seven months, we have not had this problem. This is one of the key points why we are switching over.

It is scalable. Pre pandemic, we probably had about 1,100 people. Post pandemic, we probably have a quarter of that because most people work from home now.

They have been supportive. We have opened tickets, and we got decent support. They are still not perfect in their support. 

It does take time to get through to them unless it is a down situation, which we really never had. Wireless is not a major asset when it comes to the network because most people are tethered into the local area network. It sometimes takes an hour or two for the tickets to get assigned. We have also opened support tickets with Aruba, and the ticket gets assigned and resolved within ten minutes. Aruba's technical support is definitely more responsive.

I wasn't here when they installed it, but I'm sure it was complex.

Cost is one of the reasons why we are switching to Aruba. Aruba is significantly lower than Cisco in price. 

We do the licensing on a three-year basis. Cisco makes licensing very difficult.

I would recommend Cisco Wireless based on the needs. You probably need a certification in order to run it effectively. If you are going to do it, do it, but just be aware of the complexity of their solutions. It is good, and it works. It is not a bad product, but they make licensing very difficult. It also takes a little while to get hold of somebody in technical support as compared to other vendors.

We are going to swap Cisco Wireless with the Aruba platform because of better stability, price, and technical support.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a seven out of ten.

We have over 5000 students in grades 1-12 and have on average 200 users on wireless during school hours with no issues.

We have had Cisco 3502, 3602 and 3702 access points, a total of 284 diploids. And for over five years, we've only had two access points that failed.

The configuration is simple. The controllers are reliable, and the support is second to none.  The system works for us.

Price is a concern. Although Cisco has an excellent solution, being competitive in the market is important.

We use it for Wi-Fi at home. We'll have all devices connected to this Wi-Fi router.

As for valuable features, it is tough, has a nice speed, and is quite reliable.

I would improve the Wi-Fi range. Sometimes, in some rooms the signal could be a bit better, a little stronger.

I've been using Cisco Wireless for a couple of years.

I have had no problems at all with stability.

The installation is very easy and straightforward. I did it myself.

It's a good device, and I would recommend it. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at eight.

Our primary use case is to provide enterprise wireless solutions for employees. We're a system integration provider, and we have a number of customers. Our customers deploy our wireless solutions in an active-standby mode for better network stability. We mostly have customers who have standalone wireless controllers.

I like that Cisco Wireless is easy to implement. If you get stuck with any issues, they have ample documentation on the internet. It's easy to implement, and Cisco documentation is easily accessible.

In the next release, I would like to see some AI capability deployed. Other competitors like Mist and Juniper already have it. So, AI features need to be introduced next year. Cisco is the defacto brand in wireless technology, and they're a little bit behind. They need to introduce some AI features so we can introduce the customer to these new features.

Some training will help because Cisco's new offering, 9800, requires a lot of hands-on experience. This is because the Cisco 9800 controller is new compared to the previous models, like 2504 and 3504. It requires more hands-on experience to get familiar with the terminologies used in 9800. This is because there are some AP profiles and site profiles, and all these things we aren't familiar with. It's a good tool.

I've been implementing Cisco Wireless for the last five years.

Cisco Wireless is obviously very stable, and there's no doubt about that. When you go for Airwave, it's very stable. The new IOx is going to be stable, and we're deploying it for a couple of customers.

You can deploy it for whatever your user wants and their AP count. It's very good when it comes to scalability.

Cisco technical support is great. Cisco is based in Texas and provides technical support in any manner. Cisco provides support to customers who require it for updates or break-fix IT.
Support is wonderful. We haven't had a problem.

It's easy to set up and implement this solution. For a basic implementation, you can deploy it within two or three hours. This is for a basic deployment for publishing SSID and testing. At a granular level, you may need a week to deploy this solution. This is because, in wireless scenarios, you need to do tests and try different testing scenarios. It's a very good basic solution for deploying to the cloud.

From a pricing point of view, it's a little bit expensive compared to competitors like Aruba and others. But the product is also very promising and very stable. The hardware is wonderful. As a system integrator, it's okay, but you'll probably see it as expensive as a customer.

I would advise potential users to implement Cisco wireless if they're implementing Airwaves. The old models like 2504 and 5508 work well with Airwaves. But it requires some specific knowledge to take that to the controllers and unplug the device. Some connectivity is derived from the core to the controller. You need to know what type of connectivity is required, what kind of access, and all those things. Cisco 9800 is a pure IOx, and it has a very straightforward configuration. It's very easy when compared to Airwaves.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Wireless a ten for stability and performance. I don't have any issues with that.

Our primary use case for this solution is the provision of standard wireless access.

Service delivery is critical in our organization. Wireless access has enabled users to be mobile and as a result, more productive.

The most important feature for us is the standard service delivery. Once configured correctly, it is 95% reliable.

The cost model is expensive. The new licensing has no added value and seems to be Cisco's effort to take advantage of customers.

Cisco has good support services.

Simplification in terms of deployment would be good. The need for different boxes should be improved as well.

The architecture is becoming complex. It's not a three-layer architecture; it's only two layers, and the access is based on the leaf and spine. However, there are lots of components, and we need to add more components and more licenses for services. This ends up becoming costly.

I have been working for almost seven years with Cisco Wireless.

Cisco's technical support is good.

Because the Cisco architecture is quite complex, you may end up having to add more components and licenses. So, the cost could go up.

Cisco is quite complex compared to Aruba Central, which is more user friendly and easy to handle. I would rate Cisco Wireless at seven on a scale from one to ten.

Right now, this is our primary connection for the network. We have all of our end devices connect to that. All workers connect to wireless, rather than a wired connection, so they all have laptops. 

The most valuable feature for us is management of the systems. We can easily access all features.

Probably more in terms of how much power it's using. Right now it just seems like it doesn't have enough power. Maybe that is all indicated, but says exactly how much power it's using.

When it comes to wireless controllers you have issues where you want to take an access point computer to a wireless controller, you have to configure the iOS for it. That's just cumbersome and it takes time. It just is not as convenient so not having to do that would be nice. I think it's a little more complicated than that to convert the iOS file when you're doing the wireless controller where you're going to have them converted.

The stability of the power was an issue for us recently. The access point seems to have enough power, but it turns out it did not have enough power.

I did not use technical support. After an hour of trouble-shooting, I figured it out on my own.

We have prior experience with Cisco Meraki, which is a powerful solution.

It's fairly straightforward. They are not always wireless, and that can cause some complications. But, otherwise it is not complicated at all.

• Scalability
• Enterprise Wireless Mesh
• Number of interfaces
• High Performance Video

In our company we have employees spread across multiple floors which requires more APs than we originally have. This new WLAN Controller accommodates us very well. It also has the great feature of grouping APs to specific VLANs which gives us a lot of flexibility.

Overall i haven't had any major complaints. I have noticed though when grouping interfaces, sometimes if you need to delete a previously created interface group there can be glitches. The GUI can be improved on.

This specific model (Cisco 5508 Wireless Controller ) - 1 year

Cisco WLAN controller in general - over 10 years

No. The setup was pretty simple and straight forward.

None encountered.

None encountered.

They do just fine.

Very good. On the 2 occasions that I had to contact support I got immediate assistance and the reps were very knowledgeable and able to resolve my issues in little to no time.

We have always used Cisco.

The intial setup was very straight forward. Like most of Cisco devices the initial setup asks you some questions and you can select what you want to use as default or change. I did the preliminary setup then everything else from the GUI.

Implementation was done in-house.

The increased productivity and low downtime from the wireless network is worth every cent spent. The different teams can roam the building while staying connected.....100%

The initial set-up cost including the device was approximately $7500. There is no day-to-day cost besides the power it uses since the device just about maintains itself. Unless adding new APs or subnets to the wireless network there is no need to touch the controller really.

No, we stuck we Cisco since that's what we have been using all these years.

No, we stuck we Cisco since that's what we have been using all these years.