Cisco Wireless Reviews

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 for users within the company. We have a separate network for them. We have another network for outside people. 

It is good, and it works.

It requires a few tweaks in order to stabilize it. Its portal is complex. Cisco solutions are complex in general.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for about ten years.

We have to do a few tweaks in order to stabilize it. We have tweaked its configuration through their support center, and we even got a third-party vendor out here to kind of take a look at it, which improved it a little but not a hundred percent. We have several users who get dropped from the Wi-Fi every once in a while. APs also don't typically work. They just stop working. We have to reboot them, and they magically work. 

With all the testing that we have done with Aruba for the last six to seven months, we have not had this problem. This is one of the key points why we are switching over.

It is scalable. Pre pandemic, we probably had about 1,100 people. Post pandemic, we probably have a quarter of that because most people work from home now.

They have been supportive. We have opened tickets, and we got decent support. They are still not perfect in their support. 

It does take time to get through to them unless it is a down situation, which we really never had. Wireless is not a major asset when it comes to the network because most people are tethered into the local area network. It sometimes takes an hour or two for the tickets to get assigned. We have also opened support tickets with Aruba, and the ticket gets assigned and resolved within ten minutes. Aruba's technical support is definitely more responsive.

I wasn't here when they installed it, but I'm sure it was complex.

Cost is one of the reasons why we are switching to Aruba. Aruba is significantly lower than Cisco in price. 

We do the licensing on a three-year basis. Cisco makes licensing very difficult.

I would recommend Cisco Wireless based on the needs. You probably need a certification in order to run it effectively. If you are going to do it, do it, but just be aware of the complexity of their solutions. It is good, and it works. It is not a bad product, but they make licensing very difficult. It also takes a little while to get hold of somebody in technical support as compared to other vendors.

We are going to swap Cisco Wireless with the Aruba platform because of better stability, price, and technical support.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for our handheld devices. We have about 30 most likely that are medical hand-held devices. We do have a lot of wireless devices out there, including carts. We've got Vocera Badges that we use.

The support offered by Cisco is excellent. They are very responsive and knowledgeable.

The functionality of the solution is very good.

The most difficult part of the solution is us juggling everything. There are eight access points that we have to deal with. They have a tendency to age out. After five years, they go off sale. Then, five years after that, that they're out of support. Usually, when you get a new access point, we have to get to a certain version to get everything to work. However, on top of that, the ones we had 10 years ago are no longer functioning. They make it a complicated battle to try to keep your equipment at proper revisions, all at the time. They kind of force you to upgrade now. 

Apple is definitely causing a lot of issues by turning on more security features on its equipment. It is causing more problems on the business side. One is what they call a randomized Mac address that Apple has put out. As far as I know, Cisco doesn't have a fix for that. In other words, it's there to protect the end-user when they're on a guest network or they use randomized Mac addresses. We were trying to implement an employee group that would track the individual via the Mac. Now that it's rotating, we don't have a way to configure that.

I need to figure out how to handle security features that product lines have that offer a non-standard type of security feature that is being turned on constantly by different vendors. iPad also gives us isses. They have it set up so that you don't see the Mac address and the wireless at all. You can't even track your device anymore. I just discovered that last week.

We've been using the solution for about 15 years at this point It's been a good long while.

The solution is pretty solid in terms of stability. Out of a rating of ten, I would give them a nine. It's reliable and doesn't crash or freeze. It's not buggy at all.

I would describe the solution as scalable. If a company needs to grow it out they can do so pretty easily.

We're big fans of technical support. It's one of the solution's big selling features. We've very satisfied with the level of support they provide us.

I also have experience with Aruba. I'd say that Cisco is a bit more complicated to set up.

That said, we went to Cisco from day one - even before they had wireless controllers. Cisco is our go-to solution.

The initial setup is probably a little bit more complex than Aruba from what I've seen so far. It's not simple per se.

I don't handle the pricing. I don't have it in front of me. I'm not sure what the monthly costs are for our organization.

We're just a customer.

The solution is fairly up-to-date, however, we aren't using the most recent version of the solution right now.

Overall, I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. We've used it for years and it's worked quite well for us with very little issues to speak of.

We are customers of Cisco and I'm an enterprise architect. 

I like the connectivity of this solution. We have a pretty good team working on the product. They are quick and the solution is fairly easy to configure. Customization is not a problem because all products can be customized or cross-customized. 

I would like to see an improvement in the controllers of the solution. I would ideally like to have software defined WiFi as an additional feature, everything connected with LVMs, so basically to define networking; ADPs which would define the perimeter and a combination of PSDN and WAN, etc. I would also like to see the use of the PE market and functions. Authentication and authorization processes for guest users would also be a good additional feature. 

I've been working with Cisco for over five years. 

This solution is extremely scalable. If we're talking about any solution that has a cloud-based infrastructure, I assume it's scalable and as a network architect I don't need to worry. If the solution is on-prem, like we have now, I have to worry about a potentially slow infrastructure, network, interfaces, capacity. On cloud, the only concern is internet connectivity. We have over 30,000 employees and they are all end users. 

We use a third-party company that we cooperate with for our technical support, WiFi and for our network.

In general, the setup is quite straightforward although with our factory site configuration, it was more complex. The setup took some time as we're a website company so everything here takes time! It's not a one day implementation, probably closer to a week for the end-to-end installation. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

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.

My organization uses the solution for our hospitality industry customers.

The product enables mobility and centralized control. Embedded Wireless Controller and Software-Defined Networking are the best features of the product. The product has less maintenance cost.

The solution doesn't have much coverage area. The product should improve the licensing structure.

The solution should allow administrators to view and provide more access points to users through the mobile application.

I have been using the solution for seven to ten years.

The solution is scalable.

We always contact the support team. The team provides outstanding support.

The initial setup is an easy process for a trained engineer.

The deployment process depends on the use case. To deploy the product, we can configure the physical wireless controller and add all APs one by one. The deployment is time-consuming. We have certified engineers to deploy the product. Two to five engineers are needed to deploy the solution. We do not face any issues in maintaining the product.

The license structure is confusing.

I am using the latest version of the product. Overall, I rate the product a ten out of ten.

We use Cisco Wireless for mobile WiFi connectivity to the end-users. It provides mobile device connectivity. They don't need any LAN connectivity to access the network. They can connect any mobile device or wireless device to access the network.

Cisco is one of the leading vendors and is at the top of many lists. The access software is robust, and the performance of the devices is excellent.

Cisco Wireless could improve if they had some kind of social media integration. There is some limitation with social media integration and wireless interaction. They need to add some additional components to their wireless devices to complete the solution or requirements.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for approximately 17 years.

Cisco Wireless solutions are highly reliable.

The solution is scalable.

Cisco technical support is excellent. Cisco is well known for its superior support.

I'm taking care of the Cisco Wireless designs. I'm not into the implementation right now. I work designing suitable solutions for our customers. I provide consultancy to our customers and design the solution based on the customer's requirements. I used to work on the implementation, but for the last six years, I'm not into this field of implementation.

Pricing is a little higher for Cisco Wireless than all other vendors. Cisco should work on improving the pricing because there are some other vendors out there in the market which may have the same features or equivalent features that Cisco has at a lesser price.

Cisco Wireless has a large portfolio and is used in many places, such as school campuses. They have many types of deployments, such as on the cloud. Most of the features are available and they're supporting the latest technology.

I rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

Our client is a manufacturer that uses Cisco Wireless to provide WiFi coverage for the entire factory. 

We implemented Cisco Wireless two years ago.

Cisco Wireless is stable.

Cisco Wireless is scalable.

Setting up Cisco Wireless isn't easy, but it's not that difficult, either.

The price of Cisco Wireless could be lower.

I rate Cisco Wireless eight out of 10. However, I wouldn't typically recommend Cisco Wireless. In this case, the clients had to implement Cisco to meet a corporate standard. If someone asked me to suggest a good WiFi solution, I would say Ruckus.