Cisco Wireless Reviews

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. 

We use the product for user access. 

The tool's most valuable features are security, flexibility, user activity, and high bandwidth. 

Cisco Wireless needs to improve compatibility with Apple devices. Its deployment should also be made easier. It should also reduce the complexity around security. 

I have been using the product for more than ten years. 

I rate the product's stability an eight out of ten. 

I rate Cisco Wireless' scalability a nine out of ten. My company has 5000 users. 

I rate the tool's deployment a seven out of ten. We encounter challenges setting up attributed domain groups, country portals, and consoles. It takes six months to complete. Initially, our process involves identifying the requirements, evaluating different brands, and selecting a suitable solution. Once we finalize the details, we will create a digital deployment plan. The actual deployment starts based on this plan.

Regarding the deployment team, we require four engineers for the deployment process. You need security engineers to handle the deployment. 

I rate the tool's pricing a seven out of ten. 

We evaluated Aruba and Fortinet products before choosing the solution. We chose it because of the stability and local support. 

Reviewing the security requirements is essential because security is complex and requires detailed policies to control access to the network environment. I rate the product an eight out of ten. 

The support from Cisco is always excellent. It's often better than other options, including Aruba.

The product has so many features. If there are maybe a hundred features, a typical organization may only need 60 or 65 at maximum. There's a wide variety of options to choose from.  

The stability is great. It's very reliable. 

You can do multiple layers with the new OS that Cisco offers. 

The new OS streamlines the Cisco offering and it's been very good. 

The solution can scale well.

Cisco moved from the 5000 series, which was a different OS, to a newer OS, right. The 9800, for example, practically improved how a wireless switch or wireless controller should work, which was not so good in terms of Cisco in the earlier versions. It's improved a lot, however, if you are using older versions, you are on a different OS, and it's not as good as it is now. 

Older versions used to be hard to deploy. The latest OS, however, has made things a lot easier. While deployment is much better, it could always be even easier. 

The interface could be improved. 

I've been using the solution for five years or so. We used it for a while, then left it, then came back to it. 

The stability is very good. I can't find any fault. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable. 

The scalability is nice. 

We have about 10,000 to 12,000 or so users on the solution right now. 

I'm not sure if we plan to increase usage. We are already 100% covered. 

Technical support from Cisco is very good. It's always been much better than its competitors in this regard. We are quite satisfied with how helpful and responsive they continue to be. There is no equivalent on the market. They simply will not let you down.

I currently also use Aruba. I also have worked with Extreme. 

There are very similar devices and have the same features for the most part. Both are stable and excellent in terms of capabilities. Cisco, however, does offer better support.

The initial setup is now pretty straightforward. Cisco came out with a new OS that streamlined everything - including the initial setup. Where Aruba used to be easier (in terms of implementation), Cisco, with its newest updates, has very much improved and they are neck and neck in terms of ease of setup.

I can get a Cisco network up and running n 30 minutes. If someone knows how a Cisco controller works, I am sure, even with the HA, that person can build one full working controller within one hour. For me, in a lab set up with a virtual machine, in a maximum of 30 minutes, I can bring it up and make a small network work. Within one hour I can do that setup.

I can handle the initial setup myself using the GUI for the controller. 

We don't really see Cisco as a solution that provides an ROI. It's more of a required service for us. 

The licensing is usually for an average of three years, depending on what we buy.

There may be some add-ons that could cost a bit more. 

While, typically, Cisco is a little bit more costly, the costs also depend on your relationship with Cisco.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

We are using versions six and eight, a mix of both.

We tend to use the on-premises deployment model as we are in healthcare and there are restrictions on what we can do with the cloud and what we cannot do with the cloud.

For those considering the solution, I'd advise them to make sure the support is good in their area or for the solution you choose and that there are knowledgeable people around so that if there are any issues, they can be addressed. 

I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

Some of my clients have used this product as a Mobility Express Solution and a Mobility Controller. There are numerous potential use cases for this product.

The ability to make different types of networks, such as land networks, is the most valuable part of the solution.

There are some areas of improvement in roaming and streaming.

In the next release, I would like to see VPN features and the client match feature available in Aruba Wireless. Additionally, I would like a feature to see where a particular client is during roaming and the information about a client should be shared better throughout their connection activity.

I have been using the solution for approximately four years.

The stability is very good.

The solution is scalable. It is great because if you have an enterprise, you can deploy the solutions with the network controllers physically or with the Mobility Express you can make a cluster without the controller. We have 20 to 30 clients and at our main office, we have 200 employees which use the solution wirelessly.

The technical support is great, I never had any problem with them. When I needed support or to make a ticket they always responded to me.

My clients, and I, have used Ruckus networks previously. My clients wanted to move to Cisco because they know the value Cisco offers and are thinking of implement some IoT solutions in the future, they wanted top quality. Later they also found Cisco is a little bit easier to implement.

I did not have any problems doing the installation. I had enough step by step information from Cisco to follow and with the troubleshooting.

It took me approximately three months to deploy the solution, but this involved going to different parts of Ecuador to fully implement it. The deployment took two engineers to put the AP physically into place.

The price is a little high. However, you get what you pay for. The quality of the product is high, you will find it is worth the money. There is some additional cost, for example, customer support.

I have evaluated Aruba Wireless in the past, they had some features Cisco does not that were useful.

I recommend this product because it is easy to implement, and it has good performance with utilities that are needed within the office.

I rate Cisco Wireless a nine 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.

Survey/design and deploy Cisco Wireless (3500/3600/3700) in hospitals/universities.  The object was 100% coverage with RTLS support.

The challenges are RF propagation control and saturation with RRM. Another is future-proofing capacity. In the 3700 series, ATF was the limiting factor in Cisco’s solution.

Compared to other solutions, captive guest network is one of the best isolation and tunneling. All other features of RF are average.

• The ability to disable RRM or set hybrid RRM. This provides a more granular design of RF in the environment.
• CLI controller/RF debugging.

• RRM
• ATF
• Ortho-Polarization
• AP concurrent client processing

No issues with stability.

Performance issues.

I would rate tech support 7.5 out of 10 on the RF side. Overall, it’s what you would expect for Cisco.

Switched to Cisco because of upper-level decision.

Pretty straightforward if you understand RF and what the options mean on the WLC.

Expensive.

Aruba, Aerohive, Ruckus, UBNT, Mikrotik.

I’ve been working with Cisco Wireless since 2008. Although CPI and controllers have come a long way, the AP is the limiting factor. There are a lot of assumptions in the controller algorithm.

Don’t just conduct a passive survey. Set up three APs and do an active survey with RRM enabled among three.

Cisco’s wireless solution is a seven out of 10, in my experience, compared to other solutions. It has limitations on the polarization processing.

We provide solutions to a university and Cisco Wireless is one of them. 

The solution offers central management, reliability, and signal, ensures the bandwidth, and segregates the network. It also maintains the authentication process in the compass solution, which is good regarding multiple software.

The solution should introduce natural language troubleshooting processes. It will identify possible problems or errors due to the symptoms.

The product is stable.

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

The solution is good for expansion. We cater the solution to enterprise businesses.

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

Sometimes, the solution has lingering issues with the other dependencies.

Neutral

The initial setup is a bit complex. It depends on the project size and requirements. It takes almost a day, excluding the infrastructure part.

I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy.

Cisco’s pricing is top ranking in the market and the competition out of 300 products. It is moderate. Cisco Wireless has a complex licensing model. While some features are offered without a license for integration and central management, others require licensing for activation. SmartNet support and other tools are also necessary, adding to the complexity. Segregating the costs into one-time payments for integration licenses and separate payments for SmartNet could reduce overall costs.

We recommend Cisco for enterprise customers because they are already invested in Cisco solutions. Once the setup is complete, they can utilize existing accessories. Additionally, Cisco provides fantastic support and robust product features, making it a reliable, high-performance solution for network needs.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

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.