Cisco Wireless Reviews

Cisco Wireless FlexConnect mode is for branches where the traffic can be switched locally. There is centralized switching for the corporate side where the wireless controller will be in the headquarters, and the branches will only have access points. We have the flexibility to use Cisco's FlexConnect for the branches and centralized switching for the corporate network. Combining these feature ensures the traffic flow for the wireless is being controlled and provides the best wireless scenario for the branches. You don’t need to go to the controller each and every time.

Cisco Wireless technology allows us to logically segregate networks, to segregate the traffic between multiple types of endpoint devices, connected to the network. For example, corporate laptops are connected to one network, corporate iPhones will go through a different network.

With Cisco Wireless we have DNA technology for the frequency in which it operates, so that in case of any frequency interference it can look for and switch to another frequency, where there no interference.

Another feature of Cisco Wireless is that we are able to operate APs in multiple frequencies by grouping the APs into multiple groups, so we can operate the wireless in one group at 2.4 gigahertz and the other group at 5 gigahertz. This allows us to group the APs based on the business case or on the bandwidth.

There are a couple of shortcomings in Cisco Wireless right now. I don't see a policy model for the wireless technology solution. If Cisco could bring the wireless architecture around with the controls, it would lead to being able to fine-tune the configuration a little better.

Cisco Wireless' stability is quite good as of now. The recent APs are coming with a backbone of up to 5 MBPS throughput, and that is quite okay.

The scalability is good.

The technical support is good.

We need to do a site survey, AP placement, and wireless configuration: Which are we going to configure, how are we going to get it authenticated, how will we go into control? So we need to have a plan. That's not only for Cisco, it's true for whichever wireless we need to deploy. We need to have a proper plan in place, but configuration-wise it is straightforward. It is simple.

The shortlist was Aruba and Cisco. The features are more or less the same, but the cost is also important.

Cisco Wireless has been around for quite some time. Cisco is a leader and its Wireless product is very reliable, so investing in it is a safe bet.

I would rate this solution at eight out of 10 because of the availability of support, and its stability.

My most important criteria when selecting a vendor are the 

• product knowledge
• support from the vendor and the availability of the technical staff to support it.

Our client is a manufacturer that uses Cisco Wireless to provide WiFi coverage for the entire factory. 

We implemented Cisco Wireless two years ago.

Cisco Wireless is stable.

Cisco Wireless is scalable.

Setting up Cisco Wireless isn't easy, but it's not that difficult, either.

The price of Cisco Wireless could be lower.

I rate Cisco Wireless eight out of 10. However, I wouldn't typically recommend Cisco Wireless. In this case, the clients had to implement Cisco to meet a corporate standard. If someone asked me to suggest a good WiFi solution, I would say Ruckus.

The solution is primarily used to connect users to the internet. It's the main product we use for this purpose.

The performance is very good. 

The solution has proven to be quite stable over the years. It's one of its most valuable aspects.

The scalability is very good.

We've found the technical support to be helpful and responsive.

If it was even more stable, that would be ideal. The stability is good, however, it's always something that can be improved upon. 

Older versions are complex to configure and implement.

The pricing of the product is quite high compared to other solutions.

I started using Cisco in 2012. I've been using it for a long time. It's been about nine years or so at this point.

We've found the stability to be very reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's very good overall. 

You can scale the product easily. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem.

More than 100 users are using it in our organization.

I'm not sure if we have plans to continue to use it or not. That's more of a management decision. However, I would be happy to keep using Cisco, as it is a very good product.

I've reached out to technical support in the past. The service is good. I'd say that the response time is fast, and the support is professional. We've been quite happy with the level of service we are provided.

I also have experience with Ruckus, Ubiquiti, and Huawei wireless solutions.

The older product has an installation that is complex, and not easy to configure. This is the disadvantage of older Cisco products. It's possible that they've sorted this out and newer versions are much easier to configure. The wireless controller on older devices is just very difficult. With the older versions, you need to tag some columns, for example. It's just a more complex process.

I was not the person who originally configured the solution and therefore can't speak to how long the deployment actually took.

The solution is quite expensive. It doesn't offer the best pricing on the market. There are cheaper options.

We are customers and end-users. We use it in our organization. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

We are using the latest version of the solution. We are using an older version. I do not have the version number on hand.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product at a nine. It's very reliable and we've been very happy with its overall capabilities so far. It does not disappoint.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations.

I use the Cisco wireless network at my company. I also sell all of the Cisco solutions, and most of these are for wireless networks. I also sell the related security products.

Security is an important feature for my customers, and I am able to offer this to them with our Cisco products.

I find the most valuable feature to be the security. People in Thailand consider their machines to be valuable, and this is their way of protecting them.

At this time, Cisco solutions integrate with other Cisco products. This is necessary in order for them to work completely. I would like to see better and easier integration with third party products.

My impression as a re-seller is that the Cisco products are stable.

The scalability of the product depends very much on the customer and their needs.

At this time I have approximately ten customers, including the Airport of Thailand.

I have used other vendors for security related products.

At this time, I feel that setting up these products is complex and difficult for customers to understand. I have found that the classic Cisco wireless interface is difficult for users to learn.

The deployment time for these solutions is approximately two weeks.

We have less than five people to assist with deployment of these solutions.

I think that the solution is expensive because the customer has to pay for a full year, at a minimum, in up-front costs.

I would rate this solution eight out of ten.

We use the solution for our company as well as for our clients. 

What's the most important for us is the reliability of this product, and that's it. We are sure that they work fine and they are fully developed and add great new functions.

The support is very good.  Technical support is very helpful.

The initial setup is easy - especially in the Mobility Express solution.

The stability is very good. 

Cisco proposed a new version of their product, however, I don't have any requirements which are not already met.

For all products on the market, the availability of the products may not be ideal. We're waiting on a lot of products simply due to the fact that there's a material shortage. We've ordered products and have had to wait three or four months for anything to get delivered. This is not just Cisco. It's a problem on the market for all components which include semiconductors.

I've used the solution for 20 years. I've used the solution for a long time. 

We've never faced any stability issues. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

We use this solution for medium enterprises. 

I'm very satisfied with technical support. The technical support of Cisco is the best on the market. They are very helpful and responsive. 

I also work with Fortinet. I have much more experience with Cisco. I don't have so much experience with Fortinet.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's not overly difficult or complex. A company shouldn't have any issues with the process. 

As integrators, we can install the solution for our clients. 

They have different products which can be used by some customers, from small and medium to large enterprises. The portfolio is very wide. It's difficult to say if they are expensive or not as they have expensive products, however, they are very scalable and great for very large objects.

Maybe they are a little bit above the average on the market, however, for what you get, mostly it's worth it.

I'm a system integrator. I'm a Cisco partner. The company is a Cisco Gold Partner.

Cisco is great due to the fact that there is so much documentation online. It's very easy to research it and learn it and to troubleshoot if you need, simply due to the fact that there's so much shared knowledge out there. I'm not sure if that;'s the case for any other solution. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine 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.

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.

A small office at the time that needed the ability to host network services that changed daily.

• Overall cost per unit including licensing was too high for the value.
• The range of the APs was not excellent but mediocre at best. 

The ability to control any device from the cloud.

Significantly reduce the licensing fees.

Checking out alternatives right now.

Don't use Cisco Meraki. While pretty, the devices and licensing aren't worth the cost.