Cisco Wireless Reviews

We have twenty switches in our corporate office.

The most valuable features are that it is easy to install and the range is good.

The price should be reduced. It should be cheaper.

I have been using this solution for five years.

We have upgraded to the newest version.

It's a stable product.

We have close to 600 users in our organization who are using this solutoin.

I do not have experience with technical support. We have not had to contact them.

Previously, we did not use another solution.

It's easy to install. 

It can take 15 to 20 minutes to complete the installation.

I completed the installation myself.

We have a team of three to maintain this product.

This is an expensive product.

We plan to continue our usage of this product and I would recommend it to others.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The mobility that it provides is really helpful. It's one full network of about 15 APs and they're all connected together; the users can move seamlessly between them.

Overall, it's a pretty good solution; however, it's end-of-life, it will be end-of-support in the next two years. The APs are also end-of-life. I was considering upgrading this year, however, we're planning to move to a new office and I don't want to buy new equipment just to install it in our current office, and then have to dismantle everything and move it to the new office. We just want to buy something that is useful for us.

The model that we have is about eight or ten years old; I'm sure the marketplace has changed a lot since then. It's good but outdated, there are other features that could be better.

The latest models, of course, have better WiFi capabilities. Our access points support 2.4 and 5 GHz. We're looking for the new AX or AC models for WiFi. I believe there is more speed with those kinds of connections.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for about three years.

It's stable. It's working fine. There are some issues regarding moving the equipment. Otherwise, every three months or so we have an AP that hangs and we just restart it, that's it. Otherwise, everything's working fine.

We haven't contacted support from Cisco.

We have some other access points, but they are normal, standard APs. For our branch office, we use fat APs, just normal wireless outlets from off-the-shelf, like D-Link and so on. 

I haven't set them up myself. There was an IT team before I started administering this network and they set up everything before me. I just received the network as it is. I just added the APs and moved them from one area to another.

Cisco Wireless is good. On a scale from one to ten, I would give them a rating of seven, although to give a more accurate rating, I would need to experience something else to compare it to. I'm considering sticking with Cisco, unless I find other models that can give better performance. Cisco has a few types of models: the standard Cisco, the normal Cisco, and the Meraki one. I'm not sure if Meraki would be a better solution for us, or if the standard Cisco Wireless controller would be better. That's why I went to your website — to find other solutions and read comparisons about them.

I like many of the features that Cisco Wireless has to offer.

Code stability is something that needs to be improved.

I have been working with Cisco Wireless for 10 years.

The technical support is fine.

The price of this product is reasonable.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Cisco Wireless is that they need to know the products. There are a lot of features that you can turn on and off, so they need to know the product itself. It's not as simple as it seems.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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 been using Cisco wireless for more than five years.

This product has a long life and you don't have any issues with it.

We are very comfortable with the access points and Wi-Fi connectivity.

There needs to be an access point that is compact and more suitable for small and medium-sized businesses.

We need an access point that can be easily managed in a big industry. As it is now, in a large organization, we would require perhaps 20 or 30 access points. Instead of this, if we had a high-range access point that is also cost-effective then it would work well.

We have been using Cisco Wireless for five years. The model that we are using is now at end-of-life and we no longer have support from Cisco.

Stability-wise, this is a good solution and the majority of people in the industry prefer Cisco and Aruba devices.

This is a scalable product.

In general, Cisco's technical support is very good. They will replace hardware if needed. However, based on the locality, the support may need improvement. 

If you have knowledge of Cisco solutions then the initial setup is easy. However, if you don't have the knowledge then it's very difficult and you need to ask for support from a third-party.

The deployment will take a week.

Some of our customers use Cisco Wireless, whereas others use Aruba. It is normally an issue of the quality of the local support team. People prefer the support of one vendor over another, which differs depending on the locale.

If anybody asks me, I would recommend a Cisco device. When you consider all of the LAN and wireless features, everything is good. Cisco is now customizing products based on customer requirements, and they are also cost-effective.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We provide seamless connectivity for the users in various locations. We can track a user and analyze them according to their behavior within the campus and according to their different locations. This gives us a full view of the locations that users gravitate towards and how they utilize the workspace areas within the campus.

The solution offers very good integration with a BYOD solution.

The solution offers very good application visibility and control integration for other analysis software.

We are looking for more interaction with end-users and need to use the engagement feature that is provided in the new series. We want interaction between the end-users and the software that we are deploying. Therefore, an integration that would use a user's mobile devices through some sort of engagement API would be a good enhancement.

We don't actually use the features to their full potential yet.  We're always exploring the features to see what we can add.

It would be great if, even if the solution is degraded, security-wise, if it could be integrated without extra overhead for the systems or wireless administrators.

I've been using the solution for 13 or 14 years now through it is different series 

The solution is very scalable using the options of the cluster-ID for the wireless. You don't have any limitations, even with one wireless controller. I haven't seen any limitations. It's very scalable and extendible. Performance-wise we can extend beyond the wireless controller through the FlexConnect feature. It's great.

On-premises, we typically have about 500 users.

Currently, our capacity is enough, so I don't foresee us expanding the solution in the near future. We'll see what happens after the COVID lockdown.

We haven't faced a huge problem from a technical standpoint. However, overall, their response to any queries has been very good overall. They are quite supportive and we've been satisfied with their level of attention.

I have only ever used Cisco.

The initial setup was simple, however, to get the full features, those performing the set up need some sort of experience, regardless of the deployment, the analysis of the location, or for the deployment for the engagement to the API.

We will be going to do that part right now. I have a feeling it will be a complex part of the process.

Deployment takes about one day or so. It doesn't take too much time.

We are an integrator. We handle the implementation for our clients.

The pricing of the solution is little expensive if you compare it to other competitors.

A long time ago, we were comparing this solution against Aruba before the acquisition to HP. We also compare other products however, the main competitor was Aruba.

We're a Cisco partner.

We use a variety of different versions of the solution, including the 800 Series, and 2800 Series. We are planning to go to the Catalyst 9000 Series soon as well. 

It's a centralized solution depending on the wireless controller and some access points have their own branches.

While not related to hardware, in relation to software capabilities, we're always looking for ways to better integrate solutions. This particular solution has been great thanks to the access technology provided. We have seamless integration with the infrastructure. The movement of the users is very easy to pinpoint. The user's onboarding onto the infrastructure is simple.

While the solution isn't perfect as a standalone, the integration capabilities on offer make it really special.

New users will really need to utilize features to get the most out of the solution.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. There are a few features that we would like to see added in the future that would make it perfect.

We use it to provide wireless access to our students, faculty, and non-teaching staff because we are a university, an educational institution. I am one of the non-teaching staff who takes care of the networking side.

The feature that I have found most valuable is its durability because we can rely on this solution. It is also easy to configure. Lastly, if something happens, we get good support from Cisco.

One thing which we really don't like about Cisco is that it is very expensive. If we compare it to other brands like Ruckus or Aruba, it seems to be almost double in price. So that is a major concern. Recently, I have been looking for something comparable to Cisco which is a lower price.

Cost is a major area because if you look at the technical features with other solutions, they seem to be the same in every feature, with no big differences. For example, if you support a 1.5k ACL with two parallel lines, others are supporting 2,000. It's not a major difference, but it is there. I think you can show that it as at par with the competitors.

I would say that the product is best-in-class. The only thing is the price because whether you're a government institution or a private organization, everyone looks for the best price. If we just compare to the competitors on the financial side and we have to pay twice, then it's very difficult for us to go for something even if we know it is very good. So the price should be much less.

Another improvement Cisco Wireless could make is if they provided a calculation document or study on requirements for wall thickness, signal range, switch location, etc.

Additionally, I think it is already very advanced and potentially supports 5G. That is perfectly fine, but it would be good if they could increase their signal strength, because sometimes we face difficulty getting signals, even from a wifi access point in the next room. This goes hand-in-hand with the document I mentioned calculating the range area of the product, etc. There are international standards and/or limitations on that. 

I personally have been using Cisco for a only few years, since I was hired, but my institution has been using it for around seven or eight years.

The stability is good. 

For wireless, I would say it is good. But when we were using the Cisco firewall we found some difficulties setting up and our internet was breaking up or something like that. But from a wireless point of view, it is fine.

Also, one point which just came to my mind about Cisco is if we could have some kind of calculation for the access points because then maybe we could make a web off of all of them. "How much of that access point is required. This access point is covering this much area." If we can have that kind of information it would be easier for us to calculate the capacity. 

It is scalable. We are currently looking at the scalability so that we can provide the infrastructure to some other blocks, as well. I haven't tried it yet or discovered what problems I'm going to face, but I think that it should be able to scale. I think we will be able to do that, but I'm not sure right now.

During peak time, there are around 5,000 or 6,000 users. Now, in COVID-19-like situations, there are maybe a hundred or 200.

We don't have any plans to just switch to another product because we don't have that flexibility. We will just go for open tendering. We will make some generic technical aspects of the product and throw it in the market. Everyone will be invited. We can't just ask for Cisco only. That's why I was worried about their price because if they are the most expensive we will not pay them if they qualify.

The initial setup is not that difficult, it is just technical. For example, if I am looking to set up Cisco, then I should have the skills required to install it. So I would say that the setup is fine. It does not need to be changed. In fact, the product which we have has a controller on our premise that Cisco is now offering to our controllers for switches. So I think this concern is handled over there because controlling through the cloud is a little easier than this centralized controller product, particularly for an institution or organization.

I would say that it's a good solution. Everything is there and I have nothing to point out. 

I would definitely recommend this product, but at the same time, I would say that they should bring their price down. 

Like every solution, it has pros and cons. It's just part of the process.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco Wireless a nine. From the product side, I would rate it nine, but if you ask me about the return on investment, I would probably say a six or seven because the investment is huge here.

The primary use case is providing network coverage to mobile devices in our company.

I find this solution easy to configure and use.

The coverage should be better.

There should be an option for a wireless bridge that can be used to join two access points.

Technical support takes too long and is something that should be improved.

It would be helpful if Cisco Wireless supported the Internet of Things (IoT).

I have been using Cisco Wireless for about five years.

This is a stable product.

Cisco Wireless is scalable, and we have more than 10,000 people on-premises who are connected to the cloud using it.

We have had problems with Cisco's technical support, so I would only rate them a five out of ten. They take too long to respond and also too long to resolve the issue.

We are also using Huawei wireless.

For somebody who knows about the configuration beforehand, the initial setup is easy. I can be set up an configured in half an hour.

The suitability of this product depends on the environment and the requirements, as every place has its own circumstances. Generally, I recommend this product.

I would rate this solution 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.

We as a system integrators provide wireless solution for big enterprise and PSU's. This solution primarily focuses on giving secured wireless access to employees and internet access to guests. 

We have seen that Our organization and many other organization for whom we have provided wireless solution have improved using this product because it helps enhance user experience. We use video communication a lot, like Skype, lync, etc and earlier we used to get a lot of jitters and faced lot of issues during voice or video calls. Presently the technology as moved to 802.11ac wave 2 which gives more bandwidth to the end users connecting to the 5ghz band.

From a technical point of view, I think the major difference in feature set has been the granular application visibility and control that an wireless administrator has over the wireless network. The other valuable point would the ease with which one can give secured access to anyone coming with a laptop, mobile , tabs etc..

I think the technology is already at a level where it's good enough. In some ways, it's better than wired. But there is always a backlash when it comes to lack of accessibility. It's not the solution itself, as much as how it's deployed.

The product could be improved with interference reduction. Because wireless frequency interferes with microwave or Bluetooth technologies, which are hindrances to a genuine wireless connection. A lot of users still use legacy wireless adapters and they do not experience the speed that they could get using the latest technologies. The number of devices on the market makes wireless communications complex. If the problem of interference could be reduced it would further improve utility and ease of system design.

The latest version of this technology is stable. It is stable but, the devices that are accessing the network are very dynamic. It is not as much the solution that is unstable as that the devices accessing it are constantly changing.

The scalability of the solution is excellent. Wireless used to be a non-critical part of the network earlier and it started with speeds as low as 11 Mbps. Now you're seeing the speeds of five gigabits with Wifi 6. Wireless is an innovative technology, and it has been changing. Scaling is something we need to do very frequently to meet the demands for higher speeds, higher bandwidth, and higher coverages. 

You need wireless expertise during the design phase, but I think a typical network engineer with fundamental knowledge can take care of day to day operations quiet easily. Once it is deployed and implemented, the operational costs are very low.

We get help from Cisco support whenever it is required. The level of service is excellent.

We definitely tried many solutions before going mainly with Cisco Wireless, including Ruckus and Aruba.

The major reason to go with cisco has been the support system. Nobody can beat Cisco when it comes to their support infrastructure and the SLA (Service Level Agreement) that they provide. The number of engineers who are available who are Cisco certified is much greater than those certified in Aruba or Ruckus. So anybody who deploys Cisco can easily get a Cisco Certified Engineer to take care of there wireless network.

We do the entire deployment as well as the design. It takes around an average 20 days to complete the entire deployment for a 1000-user network.

Cisco support has been a major help because right from the beginning Cisco support strength and the technical licensing centers played a major part in the success of deploying in the Enterprise Network. People buy it because of this. There are other, cheaper products available with a lifetime guarantee but without any support. Cisco took care of the critical issues whenever we needed them to. 

We are system integrators and we do have our own team who design and implement wireless solution..

We have definitely received a return on our investment because the major part of any wireless solution is the quality of connectivity. When you have good connectivity, you can access the environment, go inside the network and access production resources from a mobile device sitting basically anywhere. 

Cisco licensing is usually provided for 1 year, 3 years, or 5 years. You can get a hardware SLA or hardware and software SLA for a period of 5 years. Longer terms of SLA influences  the pricing.

License pricing also depends on the features that are being used.

Though cisco is our first choice, we have evaluated other options like Aruba and Ruckus.

Whatever solution used, the design of the wireless network is the most important part of how well it works. I would plan on putting in 60% of the effort to the design and 40% to the deployment. In the designing phase, you must actually get into the network, look for interference issues, create proper wireless heat maps and place the wireless network connection points in the exact location where it is required. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten.