Cisco Wireless Reviews

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.

Most of our clients are in the office or on campus and they don't like to use cables so they use Wireless. We are partners with Cisco and our customers ask us which kind of product to use, we also have access to Cisco Advisor so we advise our clients to use Cisco Wireless. 

We also use a Cisco AP in our office and it is more secure than other devices so the accretion system is stronger than others.

Cisco Wireless is mostly stable with a low downrate and the signal rate is good. It is also easy to use. 

One of our customers complained about the ripple, that some of the data was incorrect. We opened a ticket and brought it to their attention that maybe some of the data was not correct. As of now, it has been two months since we opened the ticket and the issue still hasn't been resolved. 

It is stable. 

It is scalable. We can easily upgrade. We have around fifty users and we require two engineers for maintenance. It's used on a daily basis.

Our clients on the university campus have a plan to increase their users.

Their technical support is okay. It depends on the issue that you're experiencing. Sometimes they take too long. 

The initial setup is not complex. 

We also looked at Rocket Software. 

I would advise someone considering this product to use it. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten because it has easy digital effects, it's easy to use and, has good stability. 

The primary use is for wireless connectivity.

The most valuable feature is the coverage. Also, the management provides the most important security features in these devices.

The GUI could be made more user-friendly. There should also be a dashboard where it can showcase how many end-users are connected to a particular access point.

We have not run into any issues related to stability.

Technical support has been very good.

We feel that it's complex in terms of manageability. You require a skilled person to handle it.

The ROI is good because the stability is so good from Cisco.

I feel the product's pricing is a good value.

We did not evaluate anything else because Cisco is a brand name for networking devices.

When implementing this solution, you require the right partner to be in place to support it, that is the first requirement.

I would rate this solution at nine out of 10. The best part of the solution is the stability. Also, the easy usage of the switches They are automatically switched on and get their configuration. I don't need any technical person to look at it.

Identity PSK helps save SSIDs.

The software quality could be improved, in particular for the new Cisco Aironet Series 2800/3800 Access Point which is pretty Linux-based.

We have encountered issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

Tech support could be improved. It really depends on the TAC engineer you happen to have on the phone.

Previously we used Cisco WiSM and then WiSM2.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward.

Never pay the full GPL price.

Extreme Networks, HPE, Huawei.

This is still a reliable and useful product but other vendors are catching up.

I like that it's a standard wireless solution that can be rolled out throughout the campus. I also like that it is easy to manage.

It is a good end-to-end solution.

Room for improvement wise, the wireless coverage of Cisco's equipment could be better for the price position. That is, I think that the radius for the coverage could be better to make it worth the price that we pay for it.

It could be more reliable as well.

It is not a cheap solution, and the lead time can be long.

I've been using this solution for the past three years.

The stability or reliability is good. The performance is not that good.

The scalability is okay. It's limited by the controller though. If we need to expand the solution, we need to buy new controllers, which will make the solution more expensive.

At this site, we have around 2000 users. Cisco is used everyday.

Technical support is good. How you end up rating the support, whether it is good or maybe just satisfactory, depends on the type of support that you have purchased from Cisco. That is, if you want good support, then you'll have to pay more than that for normal support.

Before we chose Cisco wireless, we evaluated it based on Extreme Networks. We switched because Extreme Networks support is not good here in Malaysia.

The initial setup is quite complex and took about three months.

For deployment and maintenance, we have four staff members.

We are an integrator, and we implemented it ourselves.

Cisco is not a cheap solution. Their licensing cost is higher than that for others.

If you want to upgrade it in the future, the licensing cost will be high. I think that in the future, Cisco will be based more on software rather than hardware. This means that you will have to pay more for licensing. 

The Cisco solution has been quite reliable because it's more hardware based, but now because it's becoming more software based, the hardware might cost slightly less. However, because of COVID and the shortage of chips, this does not really apply.

Considering other solutions, I don't think Aruba is any better than Cisco. Aruba and Cisco both have a lot of range. Similarly, Ruckus also has this level of range; however, Ruckus is more specialized in wireless solutions. That's why for incoming projects, we have chosen Ruckus, which is more popular and easier to support as well.

If you are implementing a wireless solution, you can actually use any wired solution while running the wireless solution on top of it. If you are only looking at a wireless setup, then you might be better off choosing Ruckus. However, if you need an end-to-end solution, Cisco is a better option.

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

The primary use case for our customers is having a product that provides a solution to complex problems. We have more than 100 customers using Cisco Wireless. 

Being able to solve the complex issues of our customers with a stable solution is very valuable. The fact that it is also very flexible adds to the value. 

One of the issues with Cisco, particularly for smaller companies, is the cost. A small company can't afford to pay the price of a Cisco product. The price is a very important factor for our customers. 

I've been using this solution for about two years. 

The solution is stable. 

This solution is scalable. 

We receive great technical support from Cisco. 

The initial setup was relatively straightforward, although it took a little longer than expected. We have one person who deals with the maintenance and any issues that arise. 

I believe licensing is paid on a monthly basis. 

This is a great product and despite the high cost, I rate it a 10 out of 10 for performance. 

These devices are being used for a large number of sites. We have around 3,000 APs.

For WLC, we are using 5508 and 7500 devices. We will be using 9800 devices soon.

Its stability is most valuable.

It is not easy to use. It should be made easier to use. They can maybe migrate it to the cloud so that we can manage the WLCs together.

I find the licensing part very hard to understand. Cisco is now moving towards smart licensing, so this issue will be addressed soon.

I have been using this solution for eight years.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable.

Their technical support is fine.

It is easy to install. The deployment duration depends on different scenarios. It depends on the site, the number of users, and the technicality of the site, but overall, it doesn't take very long.

I am a consultant. 

Its licensing is hard to understand.

I would absolutely recommend this solution. I would rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

We don't have to use cables anymore and it gives us a variety of connections. We can do video conferencing and web conferencing, so it has been great. 

The most valuable feature of this solution is its security. Cisco is very well known for security.

In terms of performance, it's really good. I have never seen it go down, at least in the office environment. Deploying it in the factory may be our next use case. A lot of noise occurs in the factory, so it could be difficult to deploy a wireless solution there. That could be a challenge.

The factory environment requires more high-density capability and there are other challenges affecting the factory environment. It's a harsh environment, but I see that Cisco's user-case allows deployment in a factory environment.

The pricing is high. It could be cheaper. Cisco is known for its high pricing.

Security and support are important factors when looking at this kind of solution. Cisco is more expensive but you have to compare the security and support you are getting. The support, in particular, is very critical, especially if you are in a conference call and the sound breaks off. You need them to get back to you quickly.

Cisco is a large company, the number-one company, and those are important factors when selecting a vendor. The other factor is the pricing, in addition to support and security.

I rate Cisco Wireless at 10 out of 10 because I have never had a problem. I am a happy customer.