Cisco Wireless Reviews

In general, for the wireless LAN controller, Cisco is coming up with new solutions every day, they're improving their products. Networking is getting serious, becoming easier to be done for clients, configurations are becoming easier to be done. 

Cisco 5500 Wireless Controller, for example, has a number of features: 

• supports a lot of access points
• better GUI
• better management
• better control. 

If an issue comes up, the GUI of this particular wireless controller is well supported, very good to use.

Recently, one of our clients had a problem with their wireless connection at their location. The problem was that they were using the old series for the access points. We suggested that they use Cisco Aironet 3800 Series Access Point because, if you go to the actual data sheet of the access point, there are way more lines, the radio is better, the broadcasting system is better, the control is better.

Maybe the actual Cisco products can also be made cloud-based, though it would be competing with the Meraki. But I think that would improve the market. It would improve configuration. It would help the clients a lot, because if everything was cloud-based, we could just guide the clients through the situation, so they could do the configurations on their own. It would help the clients to save money as well.

Everything is fine. Cisco products are perhaps the most reliable on the market. While deploying, we have never faced an issue.

Different issues come up for the different companies because they need different things done in their networks, so that depends on the company. But in the deployment, hardware-wise, there isn't any problem. There is always room for the improvement but, from my perspective, no problems with stability.

I did not switch to Cisco. We suggest products based on the clients' needs. It depends on the different scenarios we come across. It depends on the clients, what their requirements are and what their budgeted is, because Cisco is more on the expensive side, as compared to Aruba, but I must say Cisco's quality is unmatched, for sure.

It’s a standard thing. For the switches it's a standard thing, for the router it's a standard thing, same with the wireless LAN controller or the access points. It's not difficult. For a person who's doing it for first time, it's going to be complicated, but once you get used to it, it’s pretty much the same thing all the time.

My suggestion would be to go with Cisco products.

Scalability

• Multiple SSID's
• Ability to offer WI-FI to guest in a secure environment

None.

Two years. (WLC 5508)

Older WAP's can be an issue as the firmware makes them problematic. Requires upgrading the WLC firmware to see units properly.

None.

None.

8 out of 10.

8 out of 10.

Several. Cisco is more scalable and actually less costly over time.

Fairly straightforward - need to understand the Cisco way of breaking things out but otherwise no issues.

We implemented it in-house.

Approximately $20,000 with no additional costs.

• Meraki
• SonicWALL

Understand your need. Let the need drive the purchase not the other way around.

Cisco is a console controller. We can use it on a server for business purposes, control channels, and ensure a quality user experience.

The tool is mainly improving our productivity.

The solution has good technology and security.

The price could be improved.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for over 10 years.

The product is very stable.

The solution is scalable. 20 users are using this solution.

The initial setup is easy and takes a week to complete.

The product is expensive.

My target customers include individuals in banking, industry professionals, and employees of enterprise companies. They have existing affiliations and connections with a good level of connectivity. Cisco wireless effectively safeguards data and assets within homes or other environments.

We can use some firewalls from Cisco.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for the internal network connection.

The management solutions the product has on offer are the most valuable aspects of the solution. It makes everything easy to manage from the perspective of an IT administrator.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution can scale well.

We've found the product to be very stable and quite reliable.

So far, we've found that the product offers everything we need it to.

I don't see any features that are really lacking.

The technical support could be better. They aren't as helpful as they need to be when we run into issues.

I've been using the solution for the last ten years at this point. It's been about a decade. We've used it for quite a long time now.

The solution is quite stable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There aren't bugs or glitches.

The solution is pretty scalable. If a company needs to expand it, they can do so fairly easily. It's not hard.

We have between 300 to 400 people on the solution currently.

We aren't fully satisfied with technical support at this time. They are getting better, however, they need to improve their services still.

The implementation process is not complex at all. it's very straightforward. We didn't face any issues.

The deployment process was also very quick. It didn't take long to have everything up and running.

Our procurement team handles the contracts for this solution. Therefore, I don't have any insights into pricing.

We're just end-users. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

Currently, just doing the upgrade. I'm just doing the upgrade in order to have Wi-Fi 6 enabled, which is the new technology. 

I would recommend the solution to others.

Overall, I would rate the solution nine out of ten. We've been pretty happy with it.

We use it to provide Wi-Fi solutions at business centers, malls, for healthcare, and in public parks.

For me, there are two important features:

1. WLAN grouping – Allows us to have different groups and, within those groups, specific WLANs, so there is no overlapping.
2. FlexConnect – Enables us to have remote offices at different locations. We can have a central WLC to control all the locations.
   

There is room for improvement regarding HA issues and Radius integration.

No real issues with stability. It’s pretty stable. We can have a backup, and restoring is easy.

Scalability depends on the design. It supports most variations like VOIP and Multicast. At times, we may face interference issues with other devices like 3G, 4G, or smartphones.

Cisco TAC (technical assistance center) is one of the best tech support teams around.

I did use HPE's Aruba solution, but not that extensively.

The initial setup is straightforward. Anyone who knows VLAN and radio/frequency concepts can set it up. It’s pretty self-explanatory.

Pricing is a bit on the high side compared to its competitors but we have to consider the support and usages of the solution.

Licensing is now RTU and smart licensing. We need three types of licenses, one for the:

• APs
• HA
• controller.

HPE Aruba.

I would rate Cisco Wireless at eight out of 10 because of its ease of installation on virtual platforms, on appliances. It is easy to maintain and configurations are straightforward. It provides the flexibility to create and integrate with many social Wi-Fi solutions. It is a reliable and stable solution. The ROI is very good.

We moved to the solution after we had some hardware issues. 

We use it with laptops for wireless connection via the cloud.

The performance is very good. If you compare it to Aruba, we find the ability to roam much better.

The functionality has been very good.

The stability is very good overall.

It's easy to configure.

I've found it to be quite secure.

We've recently had hardware issues which have caused us some problems. 

There are some models that have more coverage than ours. We'd like for them to work towards providing more coverage across models. 

The solution is a bit expensive.

I've been using the solution for a year and a half. It hasn't been too long. 

We've had a good experience with the stability of this product. There are no bugs or glitches. It's reliable for the most part I don't recall it crashing or freezing. 

We have about 90 users of the solution in our office at this time. 

We don't really deal with support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

We also use Meraki as well.

I'm aware of Aruba's capabilities and find Cisco to be better. However, it costs a bit more than Aruba.

The installation process isn't too difficult.

I cannot speak to exactly how long it took to deploy. I can't remember the length of time off-hand. 

Three people worked on the implementation. They were a manager and two technicians. 

While we did have some access to information to help us, we mostly handled the implementation process on our own.

The pricing is on the high side. For example, it is more expensive to use than Aruba.

We have a license, however, I do not manage it. 

I would recommend the solution to others, however, it depends on the capabilities of the end-user. Some may find it difficult. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We are pleased with it so far.

The FlexConnect feature is the most valuable.

It would be great if it is compatible with other products.

I have been using this solution for almost six years.

Until now, it has been stable in spite of some upgrades.

It is scalable. Our clients are large companies.

Their technical support is great.

We worked with Cisco Prime and Cisco Controller.

The initial setup was quite straightforward.

It is quite simple. Even if you are not a wireless network expert, you will be able to use it by doing some research. It is not difficult or super complex.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten. I am satisfied with this solution.

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.