Cisco Wireless Reviews

I utilize it as a Wi-Fi solution for personal use. 

The solution is easy to use and its stable. I like its quality. 

The price could be better.  

I have been using Cisco Wireless for two or three years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is certainly scalable. 

Cisco support is good.

Prior to using the solution, I used Aruba.

The installation was easy. It took around ten minutes. 

We handled the installion on our own. 

The solution does not come with a licensing fee. 

There are many users making use of the solution in Taiwan. 

The solution offers fast response time. 

I rate Cisco Wireless as an eight out of ten. 

We use this solution to connect to the access point and link users wirelessly to the network, and centrally manage the APs.

The performance is fantastic.

It integrates with Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA). 

The pricing could be reduced.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for five years.

Cisco Wireless is a stable product.

Cisco Wireless is scalable. We have many users. We have guests that come in who have contractors, which brings our user amount to approximately 5,000.

Previously, we have not used any other solutions.

The deployment is easy. The installation takes two or three days.

When you compare it toith standalone APs, with the introduction of the controllers, it's deployed in a split second and up and running.

Because it is integrated with Cisco ASA, we have two teams of eight people to maintain this solution.

We installed and deployed this solution ourselves.

It's expensive. The price could be cheaper.

The license is a one-time purchase.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

We are customers of Cisco and I'm the company IT advisor and manager.

We find this solution very cost effective. We are using the WAP121 model which has good manageability, and stability. 

We sometimes have issues with user load. We have close to 12 users and we have performance issues, especially when we are on video calls. There are lags and connectivity issues in those situations and the throughput is not that good. From our end, performance and connectivity could be improved.

I'd like to see features such as app control, access control, and some level of a firewall feature at the level of the access points, features that are available at the firewall level, so that we can have security and manageability at WiFi level.

I've been using this solution for three years. 

We have a local support team and whenever we face issues they are very supportive. 

The initial setup was very easy. 

I rate this solution a seven out of 10. 

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. 

Cisco Wireless has improved in terms of the Tri-Band and the Two-Band, those types of two antennas. We've been happy with the architecture and the solution for some time. 

Obviously there are new requirements around WPA-3 and Wi-Fi 6, more wireless assurance, and those types of things. So we're looking at all of those options in terms of their next product suite.

I'm not a wireless engineer but we've had Cisco Wireless at the company for a long time, about 20 odd years. We're now looking at replacing the Wireless architecture.

Cisco Wireless is stable.

From a scalability point of view, there is a cost component which needs to be looked at and reviewed, but from a technical scalability point of view I think it ticks all the boxes.

Cisco's technical support is very good, I've never had an issue with their technical support.

Cisco has several pricing models. I think things have gotten more expensive due to the economic climate around COVID and things like that for most vendors now.

Everybody is price-sensitive. I'm just the partner, so I'm looking at the solutions for the client. I'm not the customer. The customer, obviously, would say cheap is better and because a lot of people are price sensitive now they're trying to get as much value as they can at a good price.

I'm not a wireless expert, but we've been running Cisco Wireless for a long time. On a scale of one to ten, I would definitely give them an eight.

I think the licensing models need to be reviewed in some instances. Obviously Cisco's licensing models are quite challenging, and it can be costly. Those are the two things to check.

Our customers use Cisco Wireless for networking and WiFi.

It is a stable solution.

Installation is complex and should be easier. 

I've been dealing with Cisco Wireless for two years. We have two customers who use it.

It is a stable solution.

Technical support is average.

The initial setup is complex and took about one day.

I would recommend this solution.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cisco Wireless at five.

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.

We are using it just for connectivity.

It allows us to reduce the cost of cabling and provides mobility of users within the organization.

The speed and security are most valuable.

Its licensing model and cost should be improved. 

I have been using this solution for about seven years.

It is very stable.

It is quite scalable.

There are no issues with their technical support.

It is fairly easy.

We used an outsource partner.

It is expensive, and there are some costs in addition to the standard licensing fee. Its licensing model and cost should be improved.

At that time, Cisco was the main provider of such solutions, so we went with Cisco.

I would recommend this solution. I would advise getting it done by a professional who knows what he or she is doing so that you don't run into any issues.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.