Cisco Wireless Reviews

We primarily use the solution in order to provide wireless clients access to our hospital network.

The BCO is a great basic feature.

We enjoy having access to the security features and MAC filtering. 

All the files are standard and supported, which is a good thing.

The initial setup is easy. It's fairly quick to deploy.

The product scales well and expands quite easily.

The interface could be better.

It's a hospital network; we have a lot of X-ray machines and other machines which may interrupt the WiFi signals. They need to provide more stability with respect to the interference or help us can analyze what is causing the interference issues from the controller side so that we could more effectively troubleshoot.

The pricing of the product is quite high.

I've heard the WiFi 6 is in the market and I would like to explore WiFi 6 features. 

Having a single SSID and adding a personal device or an organizational device that an SSID can automatically pick and connect to would be great.

I've been working with the solution for over ten years at this point. It's been a while now. 

While the product is stable, in some areas when the user sees a disconnection, we are not able to identify whether it's an access point issue or if it is due to some interference in that area of the hospital (due to hospital equipment). We need help detecting issues via the controller.

We have around 4,000 to 5,000 users on the solution. 

It is easy to scale as it is centralized. You just need to add more access points if you would like to expand the product.

Technical support is great. One time, we had a controller issue due to a hardware failure and they replaced it within two days. They are extremely helpful and responsive. We are satisfied with the level of support they provide. 

The initial setup is very simple. It's not overly complex or difficult. A company shouldn't have any trouble implementing it. 

Initially, we need to get the hardware and put the basic configurations of network settings in order. I don't think it will take more than one hour to do the basic configuration. More complexity, however, does take time. 

The solution doesn't require too much maintenance. Our access points are very old, however, they are pretty stable. For around 10 years, we have been running on the old hardware and it is time to renew, actually, as the product is almost end of support. However, so far, the maintenance has been quite minimal.

The first time we implemented the solution, we did request vendor support.

The product is quite expensive, and it's making us reconsider staying with Cisco. 

As this solution is near its end-of-life, my company is looking into other solutions such as Aruba or Huawei. We have not decided yet on what we will do, however, the Cisco pricing is very costly. We would like to check out other options that are cheaper, and which can offer the same kind of stability and features.

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

We aren't necessarily using the latest version of the solution. Some access points, for example, are so old we cannot upgrade them any longer. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users. If you have the money and budget, Cisco is a good, stable solution.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. 

Until we switched to Ruckus about a month ago, we had used Cisco Wireless products for the past ten years at our school of about 1800 students and 250 employees, including the teachers. The teachers and students all use iPads so wireless (Wi-Fi) is a big part of our network.

We used Cisco for everything, including wired switches, wireless switches, the core switch, etc. For the wireless network we used Cisco WiSM, which is the old version of Cisco's wireless controller. Since we had used this Cisco equipment for so long and it was showing its age, we ultimately decided it was time for us to renew everything along with all the new features that are now available.

I enjoyed Cisco's Meraki MDM which we already had installed, even though at the end of the day it was too expensive for us to continue in that direction when upgrading.

Overall, Cisco was stable and worked well for all our needs until we started having more and more students and teachers using YouTube and Zoom — what with classes being isolated and everything — which put a lot of strain on our Wi-Fi network. 

The biggest reason why we could no longer continue with Cisco Wireless was because of the high cost to upgrade everything. It was disappointing that Cisco treated us as just another big company, and did not offer any leeway on their pricing given that we are an educational institute. And although the system we had in place from Cisco Wireless was good enough over the last ten years, it started to show its age when pushed to its limit during the pandemic.

Generally, and this isn't so much a question of support, it was also very difficult for us to determine exactly what the problem was when we had a problem. We didn't have enough tools for diagnosis on the system, in terms of identifying who is connected where at a certain point in time and so on. We would have liked more tools when it comes to diagnosis and traceability.

I've used Cisco Wireless for over ten years. 

The Cisco system worked well before, for many years. It was only after we started having capacity issues that we found the stability was suffering.

Along with the isolation measures, students and teachers started using Zoom and video sites like YouTube much more, which is when the wireless system started to show its limits.

After ten years of having the same system, we essentially started again from scratch when it came to upgrading. We looked into scaling up with Cisco Wireless, but unfortunately it would have been too expensive for us.

We didn't have much contact with Cisco technical support. The consultants would do the job for us, and the only time we needed them afterwards was when we had a problem with our Wi-Fi controllers. 

We had two controllers for high availability and when we realized that the second one was not working, we contacted support. Unfortunately, we didn't have SMARTnet for it, so we ordered SMARTnet to be able to exchange the device, and they said we just renewed the SMARTnet so we had a penalty of one month without the second controller.

We did not appreciate the way they handled it, because even though it wasn't a lot of money to them as a big company, it was a lot of money to us. I don't believe that was the right way for them to behave, especially with a school. We would have teachers come and tell us, "What's going on with the Wi-Fi? It doesn't work." But I couldn't really tell them, "It's a Cisco resource," and all that.

Actually, we have now switched to Ruckus only about a month ago. After evaluating the costs for upgrading the entire wireless network, we found that it would have been too expensive for us to continue with Cisco Wireless.

For deployment and maintenance we had three technicians and we also had support from our consulting company. We actually changed consulting companies twice, and we used them mainly for making updates and changing the setups.

With the most recent consulting company, we unfortunately lost contact with them and didn't have the documentation to finish the job that they had started.

The licensing system is very rigid. I work for a school and we are just treated like big companies. At some point, there's a limit to what we can do about that.

I can't remember what we paid for the equipment, though in the end we bought some extra switches from an aftermarket company. We started doing our own replacing of equipment, which we didn't really use. The SMARTnet contract was only for the core switch and the Wi-Fi controllers, and we didn't go that way for the rest of the equipment.

If we had, it would have cost something around $2000-$3000 per switch, and we have 30 of them, so it wouldn't have been affordable for us.

The best advice I can give is to always get a second opinion. When I arrived six years ago, we had way too many access points, and the density was causing a lot of interference. It was only after removing some access points that we had better Wi-Fi. When asked, the school said that they had originally added more access points because the Cisco technicians told them to.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a seven out of ten. 

I use Cisco Wireless for education as I am managing a school. We use it for connectivity for students and teachers. It is an international private school. This is why we have to get high speed connectivity.

I have not used the solution for enough time to give a full evaluation but I will tell you the estimate - I estimate that it will reduce the time for a student to do their work and reduce the time for copying and transferring data through the local network. That's the reason that what we needed to get this hardware.

The features that I have found most valuable with Cisco Wireless is that the average connectivity for this WIFI access point is 2.5 gigabytes. That's the highest technology and highest connectivity. They started using the new technology and WIFI to get you a faster connectivity. All companies jumped from Wave 2 to WIFI 6 for the high speed.

I selected Cisco Wireless because I found they improved everything, but there is still a gap in Cisco reporting. It did not invest more into giving accurate reports. That's the missing thing in the solution. 

In the next release, they should add a better reporting feature. The reporting will tell you if you have a problem. That will make the diagnostics easier. Although, we have not had problems that required a lot of diagnostics.

I just implemented the Cisco Wireless WiFi 6 last weekend.

I would be liar if I answered if it is stable because it has only been up for two days.

But the Cisco solution overall, and Cisco Wireless generally, are 100% stable.

It is scalable. We have around 2000 students and teachers using it because we are an educational institution.

I'm the IT manager. My role as IT manager is managing the whole technology results.

We require three staff people for deployment and maintenance of Cisco Wireless - a network administrator and two IT specialists.

They are good.

I have been using the Cisco solution since 2011.

The initial setup right now of the access points to the WIFI, and to the switches are managed by FortiGate firewall and the wireless controller. So the routing is through the FortiGate firewall and the activity is through the Cisco switches managed through the wireless controller.

The plan was to upgrade the firewall and remove the old non-supported access point from the system because I used hybrid between these two and WIFI 6. Because this hardware is very expensive to get all at one time, we have a plan to replace all access points for these.

The development takes three days. But the delivery takes a long time. They take a lot of time to deliver hardware. 

We implemented with a Cisco partner. They were experts. They did all they were supposed to do and it was active within the time as planned.

Two days is not enough to see ROI.

But for the previous experience, yes, I can see ROI. The old access points stayed with us since 2015. I have some working since 2017. I removed some from the system, so I have all 2017 access points still working. That is quite a reliable system.

Any people who are looking to get a stable solution with and long life and long time connectivity should go with Cisco.

The big lesson is that when you invest in expensive hardware, you have to understand that it should be a trusted hardware to give you stability and to make sure that your investment will be returned soon. The cost of implementation and downtime with Cisco are less than with other solutions.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Cisco Wireless a nine.

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. 

We use Cisco Wireless so that our users can have conductivity within the building.

Cisco Wireless has improved our productivity.

The most valuable features are mobility and security.

The solution could improve by having more advanced features, such as AI that is able to do diagnosis on the network or detect incorrect configurations and is able to tell you what is the recommended practice. Additionally, it would be a benefit to have smart antennas that are able to track your movement, Wi-Fi 6 support, better transfer rates, low latency, stronger signals that can penetrate thick walls, and zero packet losses.

We want a solution that can do flex connect allowing the solution to resolve the clients without depending on the controller. The controllers should only do the policy automation, or the configuration change. We don't want the controller to be in line with the data phase.

I have used Cisco Wireless within the last 12 months.

The stability of the solution has been fine for over a decade. The newer solutions will have better technology and will give us more.

The solution is scalable. We have not had any congestion issues.

We have over 5,000 users using this solution. Will would increase the usage of this solution if more users need access.

The technical support from Cisco is very good.

The installation is not difficult and took approximately two weeks.

Cisco Wireless has saved us some costs because you don't need to provision network points for every new staff. All we do is give the staff an IT work tool, such as a wireless laptop or a wireless computer, and they can be part of the network as soon as possible.

We have to pay for the hardware and support is extra and we do pay for the support.

My advice to others wanting to implement this solution is they should have very good support. You don't have to be a leader in the market. They don't have to be challengers. You don't have to be a visionary. If you have very good support clients will be happy with the product.

I rate Cisco Wireless a five out of ten.

There are a lot of valuable features and functions. One example is CleanAir to detect and troubleshoot interference issues. Another is RX-SOP to optimize roaming.

The web interface for Cisco controllers could be better. It could be more user-friendly. Sometimes I have to remember how to access some functionalities or how to enable or execute some functions. If it were more user-friendly it would save time.

I have not encountered any issues around the stability of this product. I'm satisfied with this aspect. It provides good functionality and hierarchy for a wireless network.

For the moment, I haven't had any issues with scalability.

As of now, I have not had to contact technical support. I generally resolve all problems by myself.

I moved to Cisco because it's a solution that many companies use. I already had experience with Cisco routers and switches, so it was easier to configure and to manage Cisco products.

I found the initial setup really easy because the facts, the documentation, explanations, and support are available on the internet. If I had any problem I could find the solution on the internet. There are a lot of facts and documentation there.

The ROI generally takes four to five years.

This product's pricing is good. It's not too expensive.

Whether the pricing is a good value depends on the product. I was looking for some Cisco products and found that some are expensive, like the Cisco Spectrum Expert Wireless adapter.

I have compared it with some other products like Aruba and Aerohive to see what the functionality and performance are like. I have seen, for example, that the Aerohive already has some access points in the new 802.11ax. It's the new transmission technology that provides wireless bandwidth to 4 or 5 Gbps. I haven't seen any Cisco products like that, so I think they are a little late in this regard.

I started first with the 1440, without a wireless controller in an autonomous access point. Two years after that, I moved to the 2504 Wireless Controller - a 40-access-point deployment. The next year I was working in a car manufacturer's warehouse. I managed three warehouses. One of them was a 5520 with 300 access points. Another site was with the 5508 with less than 200 access points.

I would rate Cisco Wireless at seven out of 10 because, when we compare it with other solutions like Aruba or Aerohive, Cisco is behind in technology and just a little more expensive. Aerohive, as I mentioned, has some access points in the new 802.11ax standard and Aruba, in many cases, is more user-friendly to configure and to manage.

Cisco Wireless' primary use case is providing application access. It is used in environments where seamless application access and network connectivity are critical.

The device has significantly improved our organization's connectivity and added abilities to the network. The enterprise connectivity is excellent, but the capacity requirements are sometimes very high. Despite the complexity, the solution works very well.

One of the most valuable features we have found is security. It's paramount for our operations. For instance, if you observed our site yesterday, there were multiple attempts to breach it. Therefore, robust security measures are crucial to prevent unauthorized access and protect sensitive data. Additionally, the ability to manage ports connected to the wireless network, including monitoring wireless traffic and tracking old MAC addresses, enhances our overall security posture.

The product could improve the security system's alertness to detect and respond to intrusions more effectively.

The deployment time varies depending on the complexity of the design. A highly complicated design takes three weeks to a month, while a simple design can be completed within a few days.

The network management aspect of Cisco Wireless has significantly eased our job and enhanced the experience for our customers. The quality of service provided is exceptional, which stands out as one of its best features. We've experienced swift response times, particularly in handling network traffic and optimized point-to-point throughput.

We deploy Cisco based on the client's cost and features. Some clients cannot afford it, so we recommend less expensive options.

I rate the product a ten out of ten.

We have a variety of segments in retail and hospitality, and each has different requirements. We are using this desk with IC for wireless, and we have high throughput access points depending upon the need and the number of footfalls. So we have designed for high throughput or traffic for video. We have a lot of video sessions — Teams meetings — so it definitely helps.

Cisco Wireless should have a single administration point, so we don't need to log into different controllers. It should be a single pin where we can centrally manage all the controllers in something like Prime. We are using Arista, so I would recommend a service that offers that kind of cloud setup for wireless.

I've been using Cisco Wireless for more than 10 years.

I wouldn't say Cisco Wireless is scalable. I would definitely recommend a more cloud-based setup, like the UCS, which we have for a call manager. It should be on that the lines. So let's compare Cisco Wireless products to other networks that have a cloud-based solution where you can manage thousands of lacks of access points through a single interface. In Cisco Wireless control, we have to log in to each and every appliance, and the clients can support a maximum of 6,000 or 10,000 access points. So it isn't scalable. You have to install a different box. And from an administration point of view, it is a very tedious job to check on each and every control. We have around 30 or 40 controls in our network. 

Cisco technical support is pretty good. It is pretty much the same as other products.

Setting up Cisco Wireless is pretty straightforward. It takes about an hour or two, and we can handle it in-house. To deploy one project, it takes two to three for a single controller.

We have a yearly license.

I rate Cisco Wireless seven out of 10. I wouldn't recommend Cisco Wireless. I would advise others to look into a cloud-based setup like Arista. Cisco should improve on that part because it is tedious to manage different controllers