Cisco Wireless Reviews

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.

On-premises

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.

On-premises

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. 

I work with Cisco Wireless by supporting the users and configuring the network solutions.

Cisco Wireless is easy to configure. My career began with this product and I have been familiar with it for almost nine years. The configuration is straightforward and valuable for the network's performance.

The interface and integrations should be more intuitive. Sometimes, integration with other Cisco products requires manual intervention for tasks such as firmware upgrades, which should be automated.

I have been familiar with Cisco Wireless for almost nine years.

I have not faced any challenges with the stability of Cisco Wireless.

The technical support from Cisco is good.

Positive

The licensing of Cisco Wireless is competitive.

I rate Cisco Wireless nine out of ten overall.

Most of the routers are in the enterprise network for connections and branches. We used to use them in the data center, but we stopped.

The signal at the branch is good and has been the most valuable aspect for network management. The documentation is readily available and accessible.

The pricing could be better. It could be cheaper.

I have been using it for about ten years. 

Stability is fine.

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. There are about 4,000 end users. 

The initial setup is straightforward. The documentation is available.

Normally, we start with a proof of concept for a certain environment. 

It is expensive.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten. I would recommend others to use it. 

The most valuable feature of the solution is the coverage it provides. My company bought six to eight pieces of the tool, considering the coverage it offers.

With Cisco Wireless, users need the solution to offer good coverage and receive good support from Cisco Meraki.

Even though the tool offers a cloud-based central management option, the product needs to work on improving the security part a bit since it is an area of concern.

I have been using Cisco Wireless since April 2023. My company is a customer of the tool.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

There are some instances where the connectors in the tool don't allow users to browse the internet.

It is a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Around 2000 people in my company use the product.

The support offered for the solution is good. I rate the support a seven out of ten. Sometimes, users have to talk to support to get updates.

Neutral

To handle the setup phase of the tool, one just needs to be tech-savvy. The setup and implementation are easy for anyone who has dealt with such processes in the past for any business.

I rate the product's initial setup phase an eight on a one to ten scales, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

If I consider the access points, the solution is deployed on-premises.

The solution deployment phase doesn't even take an hour.

I rate the product price an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price.

The tool is available on the cloud to manage and optimize our company's network performance. Through a cloud-based, the tool allows you to access your access points. You can choose to change or optimize your network from a central location to all the sites that your organization has, which is a good feature for me.

I have integrated Cisco Wireless with other network management tools, like Cisco DNA Center, in my previous job but not at my current workplace.

The integration capabilities of the product are good. I would rate the tool's integration capabilities an eight out of ten.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

I rate the tool a seven and a half out of ten.

On-premises

I use the solution in my company to cover complex spaces. The tool can be useful to connect some devices to the ethernet.

For end users, the tool must be easy to connect and use. Technical stability is important for my company, and I haven't seen any problems with the product.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it can be integrated into other solutions in a particular environment, including where there are wired and wireless connections.

The coverage provided by the solution is an area of concern in some cases, making it an area where improvements are required.

From an improvement perspective, the product could be made cheaper.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for a few years. I don't remember the version of the solution.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

A few hundred people use the product in my company.

My company will probably increase the number of users for the tool.

Apart from Cisco Wireless, I have used some other solutions in my company only for testing purposes.

There are no major problems in the area of the product's initial setup phase.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

The solution can be deployed in a week.

Around ten people in my company take care of the product's deployment and maintenance.

The product's deployment phase was done with the help of my company's in-house personnel.

The product is expensive.

My company has no problems with the performance offered by the product.

Cisco offers the best solutions in the market.

To those who plan to use the solution in the future, I would say that it is a tool that needs to be completely integrated into an infrastructure.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

I work for a manufacturing company.

We can support clients over wireless networks. We get free and easy roaming.

The product’s interface must be improved.

I have been using the solution for the last ten years.

The tool is stable.

The tool is easily scalable. Smaller companies would not be able to afford the solution. They should choose products like Aruba and Meraki. I don't recommend Cisco for smaller companies.

Support is excellent. Cisco's support team is the best in the industry. I rate support a seven or eight out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup is easy. The deployment doesn’t take much time. We can deploy the tool in three to four hours if the configuration is ready.

The solution is very costly.

Cisco has collaborated with Meraki. Meraki products are much more economical than Cisco Wireless. Meraki’s interface is better. It’s a plug-and-play solution.

I would advise people not to choose Cisco Wireless. They should choose Meraki Wireless. It is also a Cisco product. It is much better and easier to operate. Overall, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.