Cisco Wireless Reviews

We use Cisco Wireless for mobile WiFi connectivity to the end-users. It provides mobile device connectivity. They don't need any LAN connectivity to access the network. They can connect any mobile device or wireless device to access the network.

Cisco is one of the leading vendors and is at the top of many lists. The access software is robust, and the performance of the devices is excellent.

Cisco Wireless could improve if they had some kind of social media integration. There is some limitation with social media integration and wireless interaction. They need to add some additional components to their wireless devices to complete the solution or requirements.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for approximately 17 years.

Cisco Wireless solutions are highly reliable.

The solution is scalable.

Cisco technical support is excellent. Cisco is well known for its superior support.

I'm taking care of the Cisco Wireless designs. I'm not into the implementation right now. I work designing suitable solutions for our customers. I provide consultancy to our customers and design the solution based on the customer's requirements. I used to work on the implementation, but for the last six years, I'm not into this field of implementation.

Pricing is a little higher for Cisco Wireless than all other vendors. Cisco should work on improving the pricing because there are some other vendors out there in the market which may have the same features or equivalent features that Cisco has at a lesser price.

Cisco Wireless has a large portfolio and is used in many places, such as school campuses. They have many types of deployments, such as on the cloud. Most of the features are available and they're supporting the latest technology.

I rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

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.

These devices are being used for a large number of sites. We have around 3,000 APs.

For WLC, we are using 5508 and 7500 devices. We will be using 9800 devices soon.

Its stability is most valuable.

It is not easy to use. It should be made easier to use. They can maybe migrate it to the cloud so that we can manage the WLCs together.

I find the licensing part very hard to understand. Cisco is now moving towards smart licensing, so this issue will be addressed soon.

I have been using this solution for eight years.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable.

Their technical support is fine.

It is easy to install. The deployment duration depends on different scenarios. It depends on the site, the number of users, and the technicality of the site, but overall, it doesn't take very long.

I am a consultant. 

Its licensing is hard to understand.

I would absolutely recommend this solution. I would rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is wireless infrastructure for retail and enterprise usage.

This solution has improved our organization.

The most valuable features of this solution are the Cisco CleanAir and Cisco RRM.

I would like to see less dependency on other products such as ISE and Prime for certain implementations.

Please always keep the Spectrum Expert (SE) connect mode. I feel is useful when troubleshooting.

The primary use case is for enabling the users to connect wirelessly to the network, to give them seamless mobility if they go to a meeting room. It's always-on connectivity.

Having Cisco switches in the network also benefits the wireless. Having both in the same network has advantages in regards to compatibilities. It's also pretty easy to get it up and running in a short time, so that's a big advantage. Having the same vendor, Cisco, for switches and wireless, we can roll out more features without having to worry whether they will be supported or not.

The Guest feature is pretty good.

Sometimes I've seen some issues come up with the interference. That's an issue users face at times. It becomes very complex when you have a lot of wireless interference in the area, or in your office. It's because of the environment of Cisco. Maybe, in the future, they can work on this area, and fix this issue.

The wireless controller runs smoothly, without any issues.

For Cisco Wireless, you need to have Cisco access points and a Cisco controller to get it running, but if you want to expand your infrastructure in Wireless, you just need to buy a new AP and get it installed. It's pretty easy.

Tech support for Cisco Wireless has been pretty good. They have helped us through problems.

The setup was straightforward. It's a very complex switch, but if you have a person with the ability to follow the steps, it will be up and running.

Cisco wireless is a pretty good product. I would definitely recommend buying it. If you are looking for a wireless solution I would definitely recommend going with Cisco Wireless.

I rate Cisco Wireless at about eight out of 10. It's pretty good, it's very compatible with other Cisco products.

We use it to distribute our internet connection. We use it in some departments for accessing systems, but in the main, it is for internet access. The performance of the network, the connection and stability, are very good. Perfect.

The main features are that it's secure and it's easy to distribute the SSID and control it. I also like the controller.

There is a problem with the controller. When we have to restart the controller, it does not show the time. We have to manually configure the time when we restart it. I have read about this issue, to get some information, and all answers are about having to connect it with a time server, which is very difficult.

As a wireless solution, it's very stable.

No issues with scalability.

I tried to get support, to get a solution for this "time" problem I mentioned. We have other Cisco products and the support is perfect. But for the wireless, we haven't gotten an answer to this problem.

We were using another option. It was not professional, something like D-Link. We had to configure each router separately. That's why we use Cisco, because I like the controller.

There is a company here, a Cisco partner or distributor. They advised us to use the system, and they brought it to us.

I have also used another Cisco product but at another company, Cisco Meraki. It's easier in terms of the configuration and the cloud. I liked it.

You only have to set up the controller and everything is working; all the configuration. I like it.

It's good to compare pricing, but it's Cisco and I trust Cisco.

I would strongly advise any company, but especially in business, to use this wireless solution.

I rate Cisco Wireless at nine out of 10 because, as I said, I like the performance, stability, the easy implementation and the controller. There is just that one problem with the controller, so that's why I gave it a nine and not 10.

I implement this solution in restaurants with an external aerial or near the beach. I also deployed this solution in big warehouses.

Managing a large warehouse requires the use of advanced technology that facilitates work in the warehouse, usually through tablets, laptops, and mobile phones, all of which are connected to the management system via the wireless network. Mobility in a large warehouse requires continuous connection to the computer system.

The CISCO wireless network allows all end units to be managed as a single network with a security code. The transition from one access point to another is done smoothly and according to the intensity of absorption.

The most important thing for me is 0 disconnections while working, and that all access points are in one group and will use one access code. The units are easy to install and set up

Guidelines and recommendations on where and how to install the units for perfect coverage.

Any utility to test the signal strength. Today every time we install equipment, certain times are forced to change its location due to poor reception.

And seamlessly integrate with products from other suppliers. It will also help if they include a device diagnostic feature in the next release.

I have been dealing with Cisco Wireless for three or four years.

I have a problem with the small device. Product from Series 300. Sometimes you have to reset this device. Maybe the buffer is overflowing, But after I reset the devices, it's work okay.

I have used TP-Link Solution but the Devices hung every 1-2 days

The initial setup and deployment for small businesses are very simple. But for the one with the controller, you have to set up a controller which is not a GUI utility. You have to type a lot in the command line. If you have this with GUIs instead, it will be better. The deployment time depends on the size of the customer's project. This product doesn't require maintenance, just updates to the firmware. 

I install this solution for my customers. 

I think it's affordable. Maybe there are little differences, but it's not very expensive. But with all Cisco products, you have to pay more for the power supply. You'll have to pay for the PoE converter.

I would recommend this product to new users.

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

There are a lot of valuable features and functions. One example is CleanAir to detect and troubleshoot interference issues. Another is RX-SOP to optimize roaming.

The web interface for Cisco controllers could be better. It could be more user-friendly. Sometimes I have to remember how to access some functionalities or how to enable or execute some functions. If it were more user-friendly it would save time.

I have not encountered any issues around the stability of this product. I'm satisfied with this aspect. It provides good functionality and hierarchy for a wireless network.

For the moment, I haven't had any issues with scalability.

As of now, I have not had to contact technical support. I generally resolve all problems by myself.

I moved to Cisco because it's a solution that many companies use. I already had experience with Cisco routers and switches, so it was easier to configure and to manage Cisco products.

I found the initial setup really easy because the facts, the documentation, explanations, and support are available on the internet. If I had any problem I could find the solution on the internet. There are a lot of facts and documentation there.

The ROI generally takes four to five years.

This product's pricing is good. It's not too expensive.

Whether the pricing is a good value depends on the product. I was looking for some Cisco products and found that some are expensive, like the Cisco Spectrum Expert Wireless adapter.

I have compared it with some other products like Aruba and Aerohive to see what the functionality and performance are like. I have seen, for example, that the Aerohive already has some access points in the new 802.11ax. It's the new transmission technology that provides wireless bandwidth to 4 or 5 Gbps. I haven't seen any Cisco products like that, so I think they are a little late in this regard.

I started first with the 1440, without a wireless controller in an autonomous access point. Two years after that, I moved to the 2504 Wireless Controller - a 40-access-point deployment. The next year I was working in a car manufacturer's warehouse. I managed three warehouses. One of them was a 5520 with 300 access points. Another site was with the 5508 with less than 200 access points.

I would rate Cisco Wireless at seven out of 10 because, when we compare it with other solutions like Aruba or Aerohive, Cisco is behind in technology and just a little more expensive. Aerohive, as I mentioned, has some access points in the new 802.11ax standard and Aruba, in many cases, is more user-friendly to configure and to manage.