Cisco Wireless Reviews

There are some features I would like to have in Cisco Wireless, such as Telemetry and other IoT. However, they are available in the new version of the solution.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for approximately 15 years.

Cisco Wireless solutions are highly scalable.

The solution is highly scalable. I have about 60 access points and it is scalable with a thousand access points.

The technical support from Cisco is good.

The initial setup of Cisco Wireless is easy.

The process involves taking the Cisco Wireless device and adding it to the network. You connect the device to the controller, and then the controller can be configured. It's very quick and easy.

The price of Cisco Wireless equipment is expensive.

Cisco has introduced a subscription pricing model where you have to always pay and renew.

I plan to change to a Catalyst 9800 next year.

If companies already have Cisco wireless infrastructure, the deployment of this solution will be easy.

I rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

We're using Cisco Wireless for patient tracking or infant abduction and security — for securing the floor and our infant patients. Cisco is also used for device management, such as IV pumps and other small but significant pieces of equipment that we need to track. We're also using it for temperature monitoring in the refrigerators for drugs and things that must be kept at a specific temperature. We use Cisco Wireless for patients' access and any wireless cart, whether it's a PC or an EKG machine. And we have different channels for stuff in the health network and the staff network versus what is publicly open for the patients and family.

For me, the most valuable thing about Cisco Wireless is its ease of use and stability. 

The biggest pain point has been keeping our people and the vendor up to speed on the technology. It's getting our staff to understand that opening up a laptop and connecting to the WLAN is not the same as triangulating and trying to figure out where an IV pump is. So when you're trying to use the real-time location services, I think it's that shift from your density and your overlap. For example, you used to be able to stick an access point up if something was a little weak in an area. Now, if you stick that access point up, you might have too much coverage in that area, which is as bad as too little coverage. I think it's hard for everybody to get their heads around that. It's not just the vendor—it's also the customers. And how do we continue to partner and ensure that we're all going together as the technology changes.

I've been dealing with Cisco for 15 years or thereabouts.

Stability's good. I'm not saying we don't end up with something flakey every once in a while, but it's not often at all.

Cisco Wireless seems to be pretty scalable. But, again, they do an excellent job of saying exactly what the coverage will be. And so we have to make sure that when someone wants to add things they understand what it means. Do I have to resurvey that whole area? Because they'll say, it was just wired for wireless access, not location tracking. So now I've got to go in and check my density and things like that. It's very scalable, but when you shift gears sometimes, you have to do more work than people anticipate.

Cisco support is good, but I think it could be better. Their collaboration with their partners is probably the biggest challenge I've had. If I have an issue with an application that runs off the Cisco network and Cisco has to work with their partner to resolve it, that gets a little hanky sometimes.

We've been using the initial one, but we've swapped it out since then, and it's been relatively painless. And when we've expanded, the new buildings get new wireless. And when we've bought new hospitals, they get new wireless. So you've got the stuff that's been in there for a long time, and you've got the stuff that hasn't been there for long at all. So we have a routine for what to do when we've got a new building.

I don't know the details about the pricing. Typically it just gets lumped into my project. So I'm not sure what we're paying in licensing fees. 

I'd give Cisco Wireless an eight out of 10. I don't know what to compare it to, but I'm hesitant to give anybody a 10. I'd give them an eight. If you are considering Cisco Wireless, I suggest looking at the total cost of ownership. This stuff doesn't last forever. So when you put it in the ceiling, when will you need to replace it? It's not a one-time investment. And then what is it going to take to get it there? Because sometimes you may end up with the impact you have every time. Hospitals are constantly renovating. Depending on what you need wireless for, you may have to spend tens of thousands re-surveying and repositioning your access points to optimize if you remodel an area. You may have thought, "Oh, I already have wireless in there. Just because I'm moving these three or four walls doesn't mean..." Well, it does mean something. The total cost of ownership matters. Make sure remediations are built into your capital budget if you're doing construction.

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. 

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 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

We have deployed 5000 customer access points to provide product navigation and Wi-Fi connectivity.

Cisco Wireless enables end-to-end connectivity for endpoints. We can deploy wireless access points indoors and outdoors as well.

The product has valuable features for integration and authentication.

They should introduce zero interference capabilities.

We have been using Cisco Wireless for 14 years. At present, we use the latest version.

The product is stable. Cisco provides good support services in case of outages.

We have six medium and large businesses as customers for Cisco Wireless. We have integrated it with multiple solutions. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

Cisco provides quick and efficient support services. Whenever you call them, they immediately assign the engineers. This is the first time I have seen any other vendor responding this quickly. It is the part of the product.

Positive

The initial setup process takes two to four months. We collect the essential information for the network implementation document. Further, we deploy a few controllers and integrate the application. Later, we add endpoints to the existing network and create server IDs. We test the connection's speed efficiency and the signal's strength. This is how we complete the deployment process.

The platform is expensive for small-scale businesses. There are no extra costs included. We can add essential features to the on-premise version as required.

I rate the pricing an eight or nine out of ten.

They provide good support services for the tenure of the contract and software upgrade. I rate it an eight out of ten.

We are primarily using the solution for wireless connectivity and expedience.

The basic features of the solution are excellent. 

The product has very good internet and internal systems for general applications.

Technical support is pretty good.

We've found the product to be fairly stable.

The solution can scale.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

For the customer, it would be ideal if the solution had more global reach. It's a bit complicated to explain, however.

The documentation can be a bit confusing. It would be better if it was easier to follow.

We're hoping that the solution will work well with 5G.

In Latin America, Cisco is very expensive in comparison to other technologies.

I've been using the solution for maybe one year at this point.

The solution is very stable. There are issues with bugs or glitches. It's reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze at all.

The solution is extremely scalable. Cisco makes it very easy for a company to expand the offering if they need to. It's a good selling feature.

I would say 60% of the technical support team are very experienced in the solution. They are quite good to work with, for the most part. We're quite satisfied with the level of support we get from them. That said, I wish that the documentation provided by the company could be better.

The initial setup is not complex at all. Cisco makes the implementation very, very easy.

I'm not an IT technician and therefore don't know exactly how long a deployment takes. I don't install the solution personally by myself.

The cost of the solution is quite high in our region. It would be better if they could take cost into consideration in Latin America to make it more reasonable for local companies.

We're a partner with Cisco. We aren't just a customer.

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten. If it was more reasonably priced for the local market, I might create it a bit higher.

We use it to provide wireless access to our students, faculty, and non-teaching staff because we are a university, an educational institution. I am one of the non-teaching staff who takes care of the networking side.

The feature that I have found most valuable is its durability because we can rely on this solution. It is also easy to configure. Lastly, if something happens, we get good support from Cisco.

One thing which we really don't like about Cisco is that it is very expensive. If we compare it to other brands like Ruckus or Aruba, it seems to be almost double in price. So that is a major concern. Recently, I have been looking for something comparable to Cisco which is a lower price.

Cost is a major area because if you look at the technical features with other solutions, they seem to be the same in every feature, with no big differences. For example, if you support a 1.5k ACL with two parallel lines, others are supporting 2,000. It's not a major difference, but it is there. I think you can show that it as at par with the competitors.

I would say that the product is best-in-class. The only thing is the price because whether you're a government institution or a private organization, everyone looks for the best price. If we just compare to the competitors on the financial side and we have to pay twice, then it's very difficult for us to go for something even if we know it is very good. So the price should be much less.

Another improvement Cisco Wireless could make is if they provided a calculation document or study on requirements for wall thickness, signal range, switch location, etc.

Additionally, I think it is already very advanced and potentially supports 5G. That is perfectly fine, but it would be good if they could increase their signal strength, because sometimes we face difficulty getting signals, even from a wifi access point in the next room. This goes hand-in-hand with the document I mentioned calculating the range area of the product, etc. There are international standards and/or limitations on that. 

I personally have been using Cisco for a only few years, since I was hired, but my institution has been using it for around seven or eight years.

The stability is good. 

For wireless, I would say it is good. But when we were using the Cisco firewall we found some difficulties setting up and our internet was breaking up or something like that. But from a wireless point of view, it is fine.

Also, one point which just came to my mind about Cisco is if we could have some kind of calculation for the access points because then maybe we could make a web off of all of them. "How much of that access point is required. This access point is covering this much area." If we can have that kind of information it would be easier for us to calculate the capacity. 

It is scalable. We are currently looking at the scalability so that we can provide the infrastructure to some other blocks, as well. I haven't tried it yet or discovered what problems I'm going to face, but I think that it should be able to scale. I think we will be able to do that, but I'm not sure right now.

During peak time, there are around 5,000 or 6,000 users. Now, in COVID-19-like situations, there are maybe a hundred or 200.

We don't have any plans to just switch to another product because we don't have that flexibility. We will just go for open tendering. We will make some generic technical aspects of the product and throw it in the market. Everyone will be invited. We can't just ask for Cisco only. That's why I was worried about their price because if they are the most expensive we will not pay them if they qualify.

The initial setup is not that difficult, it is just technical. For example, if I am looking to set up Cisco, then I should have the skills required to install it. So I would say that the setup is fine. It does not need to be changed. In fact, the product which we have has a controller on our premise that Cisco is now offering to our controllers for switches. So I think this concern is handled over there because controlling through the cloud is a little easier than this centralized controller product, particularly for an institution or organization.

I would say that it's a good solution. Everything is there and I have nothing to point out. 

I would definitely recommend this product, but at the same time, I would say that they should bring their price down. 

Like every solution, it has pros and cons. It's just part of the process.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco Wireless a nine. From the product side, I would rate it nine, but if you ask me about the return on investment, I would probably say a six or seven because the investment is huge here.