Cisco Wireless Reviews

Cisco Wireless is for wireless networking. We use WLAN to connect endpoints wirelessly to mobile phones, tablets, and laptops that have WiFi protocol enabled. We have more than 50 employees using this solution.

Cisco Wireless is one of the more stable products so their products are scalable.

I've been using Cisco Wireless for about six years now.

It's stable.

It's scalable.

It's easy to set up if you have the technical knowledge. It's not a user-based deployment where you ask the user to go and deploy. You need to have some technical understanding of the solutions before you deploy them. On that level, it's easy to deploy.

Deployment requires network and hardware engineers but the number depends on the kind of deployment. It depends on the project server. Sometimes it's one or two. If it's a big project, I'll tend to use it more.  But broadly speaking, in terms of domain, you need network engineers, hardware engineers, and network architects.

Cisco is costlier relative to other solutions.

I would rate Cisco Wireless nine out of 10.

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 have Cisco routers, switches, firewalls and wireless access points installed on my corporate network.

They are good, but my observation is that their signal strength and range is not that good. But their manageability is very good.

Manageability.

Signal strength and range.

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. 

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.

I am using Cisco Wireless for wireless networking in an office.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for approximately 10 years.

Cisco Wireless is a stable solution.

From my experience, I have found Cisco Wireless to be scalable.

The solution is good for all business sizes.

We did not have any problems with the technical support.

The initial setup is not complicated, it is simple.

The price of Cisco Wireless could be adjusted down, it is a bit expensive. The solution is worth it for the name and the brand. However, there are more products now in the market that give you the same quality, but at a cheaper price.

Cisco Wireless is one of the top solutions in the market, I would recommend them.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

Cisco Wireless can be used for a wireless solution anywhere you require. 

Cisco wireless plus, Cisco routers, or Cisco switches,  when combining them together they work very well. Some of the controller features are available now in the Cisco switches and routers. Most companies have Cisco as their backbone infrastructure and if you have Cisco solutions already in place, you should continue with Cisco.

Overall good featured product.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for more than one year.

Cisco Wireless is highly stable.

The scalability of Cisco Wireless is good.

We have approximately 300 users using the solution.

The installation is very tiring and painful, the process could be easier.

We have completed the installation of eight access point routers in three days, and this was because of some issues with the infrastructure. We had a customer that had 10 access points and the controller was there. It was simple, it was only a one-day process to put it in, connect with the controller, and it is configured.

Other solutions, such as Oracle and Aruba, tend to be less complicated.

We have two people that are required at a minimum to do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

There are annual subscriptions to use this solution. I have not been able to understand the licensing of Cisco. Some of the Cisco executives were not able to understand them either. When you first start out the price is zero but when it comes to a time of renewal you have to pay. 

I cannot say the solution should be cheaper because it has a good price point. It is not that they are very expensive, but compared to other solutions available in the market they are expensive. However, they are premium products that make the price suitable for what benefits you receive.

I have evaluated Oracle and Aruba solutions.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is to provide enterprise wireless solutions for employees. We're a system integration provider, and we have a number of customers. Our customers deploy our wireless solutions in an active-standby mode for better network stability. We mostly have customers who have standalone wireless controllers.

I like that Cisco Wireless is easy to implement. If you get stuck with any issues, they have ample documentation on the internet. It's easy to implement, and Cisco documentation is easily accessible.

In the next release, I would like to see some AI capability deployed. Other competitors like Mist and Juniper already have it. So, AI features need to be introduced next year. Cisco is the defacto brand in wireless technology, and they're a little bit behind. They need to introduce some AI features so we can introduce the customer to these new features.

Some training will help because Cisco's new offering, 9800, requires a lot of hands-on experience. This is because the Cisco 9800 controller is new compared to the previous models, like 2504 and 3504. It requires more hands-on experience to get familiar with the terminologies used in 9800. This is because there are some AP profiles and site profiles, and all these things we aren't familiar with. It's a good tool.

I've been implementing Cisco Wireless for the last five years.

Cisco Wireless is obviously very stable, and there's no doubt about that. When you go for Airwave, it's very stable. The new IOx is going to be stable, and we're deploying it for a couple of customers.

You can deploy it for whatever your user wants and their AP count. It's very good when it comes to scalability.

Cisco technical support is great. Cisco is based in Texas and provides technical support in any manner. Cisco provides support to customers who require it for updates or break-fix IT.
Support is wonderful. We haven't had a problem.

It's easy to set up and implement this solution. For a basic implementation, you can deploy it within two or three hours. This is for a basic deployment for publishing SSID and testing. At a granular level, you may need a week to deploy this solution. This is because, in wireless scenarios, you need to do tests and try different testing scenarios. It's a very good basic solution for deploying to the cloud.

From a pricing point of view, it's a little bit expensive compared to competitors like Aruba and others. But the product is also very promising and very stable. The hardware is wonderful. As a system integrator, it's okay, but you'll probably see it as expensive as a customer.

I would advise potential users to implement Cisco wireless if they're implementing Airwaves. The old models like 2504 and 5508 work well with Airwaves. But it requires some specific knowledge to take that to the controllers and unplug the device. Some connectivity is derived from the core to the controller. You need to know what type of connectivity is required, what kind of access, and all those things. Cisco 9800 is a pure IOx, and it has a very straightforward configuration. It's very easy when compared to Airwaves.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Wireless a ten for stability and performance. I don't have any issues with that.