Cisco Wireless Reviews

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.

I have deployed it in a factory. I have a lot of people who come to visit from all over the globe. People come from Southeast Asia, from Europe, from South America, from the US, etc. We need to have a common platform wherein people who visit are able to log in to the corporate network. They do not need to do a guest login, they can just log in as they usually do. That's the primary use.

Since we have a central server from which our authentication is run, a user who comes from, let's say, California, doesn't have to ask any for credentials. He just comes to my network, logs in with his own username and password, and he gets access to his database. Authentication has played a big role for us, and it has given us mobility.

My IT staff no longer has to look after catering to clients who come from overseas. My staff members are busy doing their own work, and that overseas client or any other person is able to do his work without intervention from IT. This authentication scenario has saved us a lot of problems. Earlier, we had to create a guest user, give him a VPN, ensure that he logged in to his own network, and that he got access to his data. We don't have to do that now.

Authentication is the important feature for us.

There are certain features which I would want which are not there. There is always a wish list, that my WiFi should give me one, two, three, four, five. Certain things come, certain things don't, and certain things come at a cost. It fulfills about 75-80 percent of what I'm looking for. Things on my wish list are available at an additional cost but I can live without those thing, so I'm fine with it. 

It has been a fairly stable network, I have not had many problems with it. We had to upgrade the iOS once or twice, but that's about it. After that, we have not really had a problem.

We had to upgrade our access points. It's had been about six or seven years that those had been in. Scalability-wise, some of the old iOS is not supported on the new controller, but that's fine. We accepted that and we now have two products. We now have a 3800 deployed.

We have had a decent experience so far with Cisco technical support. We've not had any issues, so I would say the support has been good.

Before this solution we did not have any wireless solution, we had a stand-alone wireless. My global team wanted Cisco, so we went with Cisco. But, in a couple of other places, we've used Aruba and we're quite satisfied with it as well.

But it's something like when you prefer a certain flavor of coffee. It's not that you don't like the other coffee, but you like coffee A better than coffee B. It's just the comfort level or maybe you feel better with a certain product. So there's nothing wrong with the product that I'm currently using. I'm using Cisco and I'm quite satisfied with it. Otherwise, given a choice, given the funds, if someone were to say, “What is the next thing that you would like to move to?” because my experience with the alternate product has been really good, I would switch to that.

The setup is not really complex. It was quite easy. We had to refer to a couple of things, but I come from a background where I have that kind of experience, so it was easy for me.

The pricing is okay. I believe it is competitively priced. But it is not just the price by itself, it's the price and the technical features. The features also play a big role. It has to give me the relevant output. That is more important. Price is secondary. Price will not play a very big role because if it does not deliver what I need... For example, if I were to buy a car without an engine, that's still a car, but it is of no use. I might as well buy a car that works.

They have simplified the licensing. Now there is a single license that is required. Earlier, multiple licenses were required. Single licensing is good. As a customer, I don't need to keep an inventory of multiple licenses.

Up until now, it has been a good product, so go ahead with it. It works well. We have been happy with it for the last four years.

To provide better WiFi reception in our office suite, while using fewer APs to cover the space.

Ability to handle a high volume of large data transfers, incorporating office maps for placement and MDM control.

• Coverage
• Mesh design
• PoE
• Web interface access
• Simplicity and aesthetics

The model we are using (Meraki MR16) has already been discontinued, for a better product line, so I believe the improvements needed have already been addressed.

The coverage range is far superior to the model that we were using.

Unified management, reporting, stability, and most importantly seamless roaming

Network wide SSID’s and passkeys help the day to day function of the IT staff. Simple to have a guest network.

The cost could be improved.

2 Years

Deployment for the WLAN controllers is very simple with a proper plan of your organization’s requirements. I have deployed this across large university campuses, vpn tunnels, and small businesses.

I have had very few issues with appliances or access points dropping off.

This goes back to properly planning your deployment. The smaller WLAN controller’s don’t grow well.

10 out of 10

10 out of 10

I haven’t switched anyone but we do often deploy Ubiquiti Unifi equipment for our smaller clients

Like all things Cisco, this can be as simple or complex as you want it. Most implementations are very simple to start.

It is done in-house.

We evaluated Aruba, Ruckus, and Ubiquiti.

Do your research! Make sure this product fits your needs.

I am using the Cisco Wireless WAP 300, 200, and 100 series.

Cisco Wireless always has the latest technology that supports WiFi 5 and 6.

The solution could improve by having an advanced model with a controller. Additionally, the solution could be more secure.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for approximately two years.

I have found Cisco Wireless to be stable.

The solution is scalable, it has many features for scaling that you can use to control many devices.

Cisco Wireless is good for small to medium-sized businesses.

We have approximately 100 users using this solution.

The support has been good. I have had no issues with them.

The implementation is simple.

One engineer can install the solution. We have two engineers for the support of the solution.

There is no license required to use Cisco Wireless solutions.

I would recommend this solution.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for approximately 25 years.

Cisco Wireless is scalable.

We have approximately 2,500 people using this solution in my organization.

The technical support is very good.

Positive

We were previously using Linksys many years ago but they were acquired by Cisco, and we made the migration to Cisco.

The installation is straightforward.

We have four engineers and one administrator that can do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

We are on an annual license. The license and the hardware are expensive.

I would recommend the solution to others.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

We have an ISE solution, WiFi controller, Access Points, and a wifi controller. We have to integrate all of these components with each other and we do that with Cisco's solution and a local Cisco partner. The performance is better than before. We had an issue with the phone wifi but no other real issues. It fully integrates with ISE. 

We work in energy so we manage electric networks and gas networks. Someone had to move across the building and keep contact with the operator onsite for when there is an issue with the network so, for us sometimes it is a problem with gas. It's really important for us to stay connected with phone wifi. We have to study a lot of scenarios because if we have a data center on a remote site and if we lose the connection to the data center the telephone and the wifi has to continue to work. We connect to Cisco wifi and we're able to solve the issue. Even in emergencies, we can respond to a customer's needs. 

When you integrate a network access control with authentication with an ISE engine it's really complicated to put in place. Even if you're only using Cisco products you have a new algorithm and you have old material. For us, it's complicated because we have to maintain old parts or devices. We purchase new devices and we maintain several SSID which is not really recommended by Cisco. They prefer to have one and to dispatch based on the condition.

It's stable. Although we have had an issue but it's not related to Cisco technology. It's to do with the position of the access points. They move it and it's good. They don't like to see a box so they move it which is an issue. 

The initial setup was quite easy. We have a very good relationship with our integrator and our integrator has a good relationship with Cisco. The integrator that installs Cisco is quite knowledgeable about the technology. They are trained and have a good relationship with their tech. We cannot be experts in each domain and we have to be supported by an integrator.

I would rate it a seven out of ten and I would recommend this solution. 

There are many valuable features including security, availability, scalability, integration With Cisco products, WEB Portal for guest users, and Cleanair.

The main improvement was the mobility of Notebooks, Tablets, SmartPhones and Warehouse functions.

Management, and Monitoring features need to be improved and the inclusion of a Cloud-based solution.

4 years

Remote APs cannot work without Main Controller when using 802.1x Authentication.

No issues encountered.

No issues were encountered.

It was OK! We had some problems and always checked them with the TAC.

We used MOTOROLA/SYMBOL. It is an solution with no innovation and less features than Cisco Wireless Solution.

No, It was simple.

I am an consultant and I implement for our clients.

Motorola and Aruba.

That is a good solution, pay attention on Compatibility Matrix with some APs.