Cisco Wireless Reviews

We used Cisco wireless for medical centers, including remote locations where the regional GMO and RMO are situated. They required real-time connectivity to maintain in-patient reports.

Cisco is one of the leading brands, particularly in the commercial sector. Other brands such as Extreme, cater to different categories at lower levels. Cisco maintains a comprehensive product range across all levels and excels in comparison to other networking sites. They also boast a team of highly qualified professionals, a feature that sets them apart from competitors like Netgear, which lacks such expertise.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable but they have a limitation to each and every product based on the price points. If you go beyond that, there is a proxy error.
Five people are using this solution. 

We have good support from Cisco Wireless. We've never encountered any technical issues when going through them because once we follow the deployment plan and its steps, any repairs or detections are usually straightforward. If we deviate from the plan, we might encounter difficulties, as we lack the necessary tools.

The initial setup is straightforward unless it's a manageable task; otherwise, we must configure their own parameters.

For deployment, there are manuals available with instructions for both manual setup and automated setup. Based on these instructions, the technician will proceed to configure the Cisco wireless system using the provided panels.

Most devices are connected wirelessly. Previously, there were few security features, but now security measures are robust. They offer protection, so people trust the technology and use it.

The product is expensive.

They have to have a permanent license. Without a license, we can't access the cloud. There is cloud management available, but it comes with a cost.

These devices are not very complicated. They have a standard but extensive functionality that is really helpful. The standard feature is reliable data connectivity followed by bandwidth. However, the devices are almost the same because they meet the user requirements.

Mostly, government or any corporate clients will prefer a standard product in their infrastructure.

I recommend the solution depending on their budget. If they are willing to opt for a brand with prestige and reliability, then they can choose Cisco. Additionally, for a budget-friendly option, Alibaba is also available. So, if they aim to keep costs within certain limits, they can consider these options. However, government institutions may face constraints due to their funding limitations. In such environments, they may not prioritize premium solutions. Let's delve deeper into this. They might include that particular brand in a closed-end project. However, companies typically prioritize their annual costs and overall expenses.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine to ten out of ten.

We use the solution for mobility. Our clients use the solution in the manufacturing, education, hospitality, and sports industries. We do some work for Formula 1. We are using versions 17.3 to 17.9.4.

The solution is very good at supporting IoT applications. Cisco's Unified architecture is second to none. The move to 6-GHz and WPA as mandatory standards is good. We can secure mobility between the older IOS controllers and the new Catalyst Wireless LAN Controllers. We can use our own PKI environment. We can register APs against the Wireless LAN Controller using our own certificates.

We need not rely on the manufacturer-installed certificate, which has a validity period of ten years. Many hospital environments have APs older than ten years because the manufacturer certificate expires after ten years. Those APs drop off the network. Putting our own certificates gets us around that problem.

The solution’s management tools massively streamline network operations. DNA Center has come a long way since its inception. We can switch to the Catalyst Controller with the wizard on the box or the Day 0 setup wizard through DNA Center. It takes much effort out of the switchover between the Wireless LAN Controllers. We can manage the configuration. Whether it's an SDA environment or a non-SDA fabric, we can easily deploy the Wireless LAN Controller.

Assurance capabilities must be improved. There should be more Assurance features on the Wireless LAN Controller. A lot of it is bundled into the DNA Center. Having a little more Assurance regarding what the RF Spectrum looks like will be good. Juniper Mist has a lot of analytical data on the dashboard.

The customers would be compelled to look at DNA Center as a longer-term and more comprehensive solution if Cisco were to give them an insight into some of the Assurance capabilities that might be available in DNA Center. The tool must provide something like RF Neighbor. It must enable organizations to receive signal strength and signal-to-noise ratio and see how clients perform in their wireless network. It must have a cap. If we want additional functionality to see our entire network, that's where DNA Center fits in.

I have been using the solution for 15 years.

The tool is stable. The statefulness between the controllers works well. Uptime is very strong. I rate the stability a nine out of ten. It is a very stable platform.

The scalability of Cisco Wireless has benefited our customers. We love Cisco 1900. It has all the features from the previous controllers. The way that the architecture is built in the box is massively more scalable than the old one. We can spread processes over different resources using tags. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. Our customers are small, medium, and large enterprises.

The setup is easy. I rate the ease of setup a ten out of ten. The deployment takes up to an hour if we have to do some software upgrades.

The pricing is reasonable. We license the APs and not the controllers.

Compared to other companies like Juniper, Aruba, and Extreme, Cisco APs tend to perform better.

I work for a partner. I have only used physical controllers. People who want to use the tool must review the Miercom reports. The reports are independent tests that Miercom runs against Cisco and its competitors. I haven't read one where it hasn't been Cisco that has come out on top. If your enterprise wants a stable, high-performing, and resilient wireless tool, Cisco is the solution for you. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

I use the solution in my company since we have tablets, which are handheld devices that need wireless connections. Our company uses the tool for our walkie-talkies, laptops, wireless phones, and transit devices.

My company needs wireless devices and access point devices to operate our handheld devices.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its performance, which is okay. Cisco Wireless has good integration features and is easy to use.

What my company doesn't like about the product is related to the coverage it provides to access points, an area which is one of the most important ones for us.

One of the bad things about Cisco Wireless is that with every new wireless controller, the access points are shown as out of service. The oldest wireless access points in our company cannot, most of the time, work with the latest wireless controller offered by Cisco.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for fifteen years.

It is a very stable solution. My company uses various redundancy models since it is the most important factor for ensuring stability.

It is a scalable solution.

The product is used for around 3,000 to 5,000 devices.

Right now, my company has opted for a product from another vendor, Huawei, to increase the use of the same functionalities provided by Cisco Wireless.

As the product is stable, there has been no need to contact the tool's technical support team. The technical support team of the product is good since they have always been available anytime our company tried to contact them.

My company uses Aruba and Huawei.

My company has seen that Huawei's lifecycle management system is the best. Huawei is best for managing devices, which is why my company likes the tool. Huawei is also easily available in the market, so you can place an order and get it immediately. Huawei Office has better coverage than the devices that fall under Cisco.

The product's initial setup phase was straightforward.

For the product's deployment phase, our company makes a plan. After the installation process of the product on an on-premises model, my company builds service accounts with the application team. In the area of the security offered by the firewall, some of the ports are kept open, after which we integrate it with the back-end devices. We use three security zones for the gateway, including the pre-shared key, captive portal, and SMS message through which users can log in to the product.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

As there is a need to transfer certain services from one account to another during the product's on-premises deployment phase and integration, which is taken care of by our technical personnel, it takes around a month to complete the deployment process.

Two engineers and four technicians are required to take care of the deployment and maintenance of the product.

My company did not just see the help of consultants but also engineers from Cisco to help us with the product's installation process and for all the tips for the deployment and the integration with the wireless controller.

The price of Cisco Wireless is the same as that offered by Huawei.

Presently, there is no difference in the prices between Cisco and Huawei.

There is a need to renew the licenses for Cisco Wireless every three years. My company needs to pay around 25 percent of the budget meant for the tools we purchase towards the price of Cisco Wireless.

The payment made towards the licensing is not for the operational purpose of the product but towards the support, which is why it may come across as an expensive product to many.

My recommendation to others about the product depends on why they want to use it. There are so many types of wireless controllers from other vendors like Cisco, Huawei, and HP, but Cisco is the best one for stability. For the coverage Cisco Wireless provides, I won't recommend it.

I rate the overall tool a ten out of ten.

We have to set up the whole solution. The wireless network is a big part of the solution because of the mobility within the hospital. Doctors use their smartphones to access the system, so they need very stable and strong wireless connectivity. 

The hospital layout means a doctor might be quite far from the room, and there could potentially be a significant signal problem. With Cisco, we don't have this problem.

Cisco Wireless improves mobility and flexibility. The only case we are working on is with hospitals, focusing on the mobility of doctors within the hospital.

Everywhere, doctors need to be connected to the network, even within the operating theater, patient rooms, and even the basement, like the radiology department. As far as the solution goes, the coverage is usually very comprehensive.

I would rate the impact of the implementation of Cisco Wireless on the overall IT infrastructure and user experience a seven out of ten, with ten being very positive impact. 

It offers good security, coverage, and stability. I like these aspects.

For pricing, Cisco has to make an effort, or Cisco has to improve the distribution channel.

It means when I send an email or when I have a complaint, for example, there is a Cisco distributor, and it's in competition with others. 

I have to escalate this case to Cisco, and it will help us to improve our business with Cisco and prevent us from going to other solutions like Aruba or now Fortinet. We have some good switches and access point controllers now.

So, sometimes, when we find some problems with Cisco's distribution channel, we switch our customers to other brands.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. Within our customers, the hospital infrastructure is established from the first day, and it's still stable. 

The hospital was 100 beds and still is, for ten years. So, we didn't really experience the scalability of this kind of solution.

So, I don't have experience with the scalability of the solution. We usually have medium-sized businesses. We work ith hospitals that have 100 to 200 beds. This is our market. We have the same kind of clients. 

The initial setup was difficult the first time, but now it's easy for us.

We have to test the coverage area; the configuration will take us one day. But to test the coverage area, it will take maybe ten days to two weeks.

We set up the whole network, including the privileged network, wireless network, and security with firewalling.

It is an expensive product. I would rate the pricing a nine out of ten, with ten being expensive. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

I would recommend using it because of my good experience with it. They are stable and secure. All good experiences.

When we transitioned to using Cisco Wireless for our network access, it significantly improved our reliability and coverage. Previously, we had sporadic access points and inconsistent configurations, leading to security issues and disruptions. We implemented a policy-based infrastructure, securing our Wi-Fi network and ensuring connectivity to our ERP and email systems.

The most valuable features for network security with Cisco Wireless were the policy enforcement capabilities. Once the approved policy was implemented, it ensured secure access and control over the network, which was crucial for maintaining security standards.       

The deployment of Cisco Wireless is centralized, offering native security features at the access points. Regarding price, it might be considered expensive, but if the features and ease of use are proven effective, it's worth it.

I have been using Cisco Wireless since the least 10 years.

The stability of Cisco Wireless was excellent, with no complaints about downtime.

Regarding scalability, our organization, being a public sector entity, didn't face scalability issues as we were already optimized. There were no plans for expansion or increasing device numbers.

We never had to contact tech support for Cisco Wireless as we didn't encounter any issues requiring assistance. Maintenance services weren't utilized, so I can't comment on their impact. 

Deploying Cisco Wireless was straightforward for us as it was managed by the IT department. We didn't encounter any major issues during deployment. The process involved assessing placement for access points across the campus to ensure seamless coverage. Deployment could be done on-premises if needed.

One piece of advice I'd give is to understand the deployment process thoroughly before starting. It's important to have a solid infrastructure design in place before implementing Cisco Wireless. Regarding cost, while it may seem expensive initially, if the features align with your needs, it's worth considering. 

Cisco Wireless needs to improve pricing. I understand that Cisco products are typically more expensive than other vendors. Therefore, I believe that adjusting the pricing could potentially be beneficial. Discounts may be available depending on the customer or type of purchase, which could help offset the higher costs.

I have been working with the product since 2008. 

Before COVID, the emphasis was primarily on wireless connectivity in specific areas like conference rooms. However, with the shift to remote work and increased mobility, coverage areas needed to be expanded to accommodate users throughout the entire location. We are beginning to expand our infrastructure. 

I wouldn't give support a ten out of ten since we may get bad engineers for support.

Positive

I rate the tool's deployment an eight out of ten. The deployment time for a new project depends on various factors, such as the size of the network and the need for planning and gathering necessary information. The most time-consuming aspect is determining the placement of access points. However, configuring the wireless control is generally straightforward.

The maintenance required for Cisco Wireless depends on the specific deployment and deployment model. Generally, some level of maintenance will be necessary, such as keeping the software up to date.

I rate the tool's pricing a ten out of ten. It is expensive compared to Aruba and Juniper. 

The scenario where Cisco Wireless significantly improved network performance isn't directly about performance but adaptability. With the shift to remote work during COVID, everyone became more mobile. Now, returning to the office, there's less reliance on fixed connections. People need to be adaptable. We need mobile devices like laptops and tablets, which rely on wireless connections to enable this. Transitioning from a wired setup to a wireless one allows for greater adaptability.

Currently, we only have wireless control for managing the wireless network. We're seeking a solution to handle wireless and wider network management. The product integrates easily with the existing infrastructure, like routers and switches. 

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. Whether to recommend Cisco Wireless to others depends on several factors. If they already have a Cisco deployment of devices, it's often easier to integrate and manage, making it a suitable choice. However, other products like Aruba might be more cost-effective. Cisco Wireless is particularly well-suited for enterprise deployments. 

The performance was good. However, most of the issues were due to changes in Cisco versions.

In my last organization, which was a university, we used it for seven years. But in this current organization, we are not using it yet.

It is a stable solution. The performance was good. However, most of the issues were due to changes in Cisco versions. 

There were more than 25,000 students who were using it. It was a good experience for us because Cisco supported us in our workflow. We were facing many problems before Cisco, but after implementing it, we had great functionality. And since then, we haven't changed a single AP.

It was better than other APs in terms of wireless equipment and performance.

It is a straightforward solution. That's why we just required some technical support from a third party. At that time, when we were at the finishing side or during the landing time.

If I make a comparison with Huawei 6.0 with Cisco, Huawei is better. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

Our in-house team deployed the solution. 

It was expensive. Considering the challenges faced in third-world countries like Pakistan or India, cheaper solutions are preferred. Huawei, for example, is much cheaper compared to Cisco.

We use an annual license model. 

I recommend using Cisco.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

We have some clients with hotels who use Cisco wireless systems. Others have entertainment centers that use Cisco wireless systems. Additionally, we have retail businesses utilizing Cisco wireless systems. However, we are primarily transitioning towards TP-Link Omada systems because they do not require subscriptions, which is cost-effective for our customers.

The features include maintenance and monitoring functionalities. Additionally, knowledge-based data is available for implementation and installation scenarios. Currently, Cisco systems are highly robust but need to catch up slightly compared to Ruckus and Omada systems regarding innovation. Using alternative suppliers can be advantageous as they provide cutting-edge innovations and detailed information about roadmaps.

The security and encryption features of Cisco Wireless are robust but need to be updated compared to other providers. Cisco offers enterprise-grade encryption. Setting up a radio server based on networking filtering may require some effort to configure profiles. Once established, Cisco provides clean and straightforward possibilities for configuring functionalities like setting up a radio server system.

The solution's pricing is high. Pricing, features, and innovation are the fundamentals of choosing a provider or supplier. Despite the higher price, we migrated to other profiles like Ruckus and Omada because they offer more robust solutions. If you look at benchmarks, you'll see that Ruckus is one of the top-tier providers, with Cisco falling behind.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for 5 years.

The product’s stability is great.

The internet speed is high within environments. As you move further away from the access point, there is a decline in speed. Omada or Ruckus don’t have the speed degradation as you move away from the access point.

I rate the solution’s stability a seven out of ten.

The solution is suited for medium-sized businesses.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

We sometimes need second-line agencies because the first-line agencies may not have sufficient expertise to address complex issues.

Neutral

The initial setup depends on the complexity of the infrastructure, ranging from hours to days.

I rate the initial setup a 7 out of 10, where 1 is difficult, and 10 is easy.

The product is nearly too expensive in terms of quality. It varies depending on the project’s scope and specific requirements. Prices range from around 5000 euros to 30,000 for larger, more complex implementations.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven to eight out of ten.