Cisco Wireless Reviews

We use this solution to provide network access and to manages wireless network devices.

The LAN network conductivity is good.

I have been using this solution for approximately two years.

The solution is stable but it could be improved. However, this could be because there are not enough APs.

The solution is scalable and we have 1,000 users using this solution in my organization.

The support is good.

The implementation and maintenance are done by our five-person technical team.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco Wireless seven out of ten.

We use this solution in our enterprise offices where some access points are installed.

Some of the valuable features of this solution are security, the controller is simple to configure, devices are easy to install, and we use the software to administrate all the APs. 

The integration with our CM and other technologies could improve this solution. If it could detect other networks better, when it comes to security, and have the ability to mark or block the suspicious activity when known would be a benefit and should be in an upcoming release.

I have been using the solution for 10 years.

There are a few issues initially with the stability but they were resolved quickly by Cisco.

The solution is scalable, it is easy to grow the infrastructure. We have approximately 10,000 uses using the solution.

The technical support is very quick in responding to our issues and returning a solution. Additionally, customer service was good, they provided us with some training on the solution.

We used HP products before we switched to Cisco. The reason we switched was that this solution was more secure, the price was better, it was easier to implement, and the integration with our infrastructure from LAN and WAN was superior.

The installation is easy.

We did not have any problem with the implementation of the solution it is straightforward. It took approximately one week. We do implementation ourselves but sometimes we use an integrator. We have approximately three engineers doing the maintenance of the solution.

The price of this solution is a little more than competitors.

We did evaluate Aruba, which is from HP, before choosing this solution. The main reason why Cisco is better is the security model. They are easy to configure and have better technology. However, they are not as cheap a solution compared to others. We are currently evaluating Cisco ISE and are using the demo. 

When we are opening up a new location we are going to continue using the solution. This solution is standard with our organization. Even though Cisco tends to be more costly than other solutions you get more than you pay for. 

I rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

I mainly use Cisco Wireless for the core switch and access switch, the router, the firewall, and the access point.

The most valuable feature is the firewall.

This solution is very expensive, which means we often have to go for cheaper options instead.

I've been working with this solution for twenty-two years.

This solution is very stable, we don't have any problems with it.

We've had no problems with scalability - the intra-network is about 20 gigabytes on our campus without any issues.

I'm very satisfied with Cisco's technical support.

The initial setup was very, very simple and took three months and three weeks for the whole campus.

We used Jimma University as a consultant and had a good experience with them.

Because of Cisco's expense, we also use Huawei and Ruckus devices, and the interoperability between these three vendors is good. I would give this solution a score of ten out of ten.

I'm a senior technical consultant and we are service providers. 

Cisco Wireless is scalable and very stable. They offer good technical support. 

I'd like to have better voice security. What they offer now is not good enough to protect us from an attack or a hacker. The solution requires a firewall body inside a wireless controller so that we can define a few more things and prevent attacks. 

I've been using this product for 12 years. 

The stability of this product is good. 

Scalability is good with Cisco Wireless - we have close to 500 users at just one of our sites and no problems. 

Technical support could be improved but it's fair and they do a reasonably good job supporting us when we have issues. 

All solutions in this market are more or less the same, it's just that Cisco is less cost-effective which is why we're currently testing HP. I've also worked on Aruba Access Points and HP switching systems and find them easier to configure and manage, while still providing good performance. 

People need to be aware that everything is going wireless in the next couple of years and it's a good idea to move to wireless now so that there's a familiarity with how it all works. 

I rate this solution a seven out of 10. 

We use the solution for laptops, smartphones, and for both intranet and internet communication.

Some of the features I find valuable are the FlexConnect and overall it is a good global solution.

Before deploying a wireless solution, you have to read and plan every role, every windows system, put in your access point, and then make the audit. This solution is not the best one to do this. We use another solution that is called Eko. In the future, if this solution could have better auditing capabilities it would be better.

I have been using the solution for eight years.

The solution is stable.

We have added some access points for conductivity which have integrated well and have been fine scalability-wise, we have not done other types of scaling. Our whole company is using this solution.

You can have a setup that is simple but my company is big, with a lot of regulations to adhere to. I would say out we had a difficult installation but this is not directly related to the solution but more related to the policy of our company.

I would recommend others to use this solution.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

We are implementing Cisco Wireless in various environments including hospitality (controller-based deployment along with room AP in 90+ room property), and corporate (both standalone and controller-based).

The wireless system has been integrated into the hotspot for guest access and enterprise authentication has been used for the employees. For authentication, both the inbuilt database and integration to FreeRADIUS has been used. We have also used AD in the corporate environment for authentication. The controller has been deployed in HA.

It has helped to provide mobility with committed throughput and performance.

Additionally, Cisco wireless solutions are very stable. This, with its rugged nature, has helped for overall efficiencies in information processing and daily operations.

It has enhanced the security of the enterprise and has given single-pane visibility for network monitoring.

It has provided excellent mobility and load balancing of the wireless endpoints to various APs, based on the built-in algorithms, both in 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz.

The most valuable features are the controller, single pane for the configuration, as well as the operation and monitoring of the wireless system.

Other important features are the detection of the rough AP, programmable API, network analytics, and the RF planning tool.

The product is very stable. The infrastructure is scalable and very durable.

With excellent support from the Cisco support team, this solution can be deployed in no time.

It is easy to troubleshoot and zone-based profiling is another excellent feature. Auto power calibration between AP sensing the environment is also a valuable feature. 

The regulatory domain seems to be hardcoded into the system and we need a simple way to change it in wireless APs.

Power level improvements and increased antenna dBi are needed when compared to other competitor vendors like Ruckus and HP Aruba.

The product pricing should be competitive compared to other vendors, as many products are coming up with good features like Cambium, Edge, and Core.

The controller pricing is high compared to other vendors like Ruckus. Pricing should be lowered to target the SMB market, where many other vendors have dominance. 

We have been using Cisco Wireless for 10 years.

The stability is excellent.

Cisco Wireless is very much Scalable, based on the forecast you have and the controller you choose. It's just about adding the license.

The technical support is excellent.

We have been using other products like Cambium, Ruckus, and HP. Before we implement Cisco, we had read a lot of reviews of its stability and durability, and indeed, it was true.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The installation team was highly skilled and certified.

The ROI is excellent.

The pricing depends on the requirement, so proper planning and an RF analysis help to properly size the solution and get the best pricing.

We previously evaluated Cambium and Rukus.

My advice is that this product should be the first choice to adopt when deploying a wireless solution. If cost is a factor then proper sizing will help to reduce it.

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.

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.