Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

Our use cases mainly involve deploying wireless access points throughout various locations in the building to ensure full coverage.

The most valuable features include checking logs and performing site surveys. These capabilities ensure that we can cover almost every location in the building and troubleshoot any errors we encounter.

Regarding Cisco Wireless WAN, the most beneficial feature for enhancing network reliability is the ability to change the frequency to prevent interference on the 2.4 GHz network. Additionally, the security capabilities of Cisco Wireless WAN support our organizational needs by allowing us to connect to Cisco tech hacks for authentication and use Cisco ISE to authenticate clients onto the wireless network.

I have been using the product for one year. 

I rate the solution's scalability as nine out of ten. 

I used a different solution at my previous company, and when I switched companies, I switched to Cisco Wireless WAN. 

I rate the deployment ease a nine out of ten. 

A third party helped us with the deployment. 

I would recommend the solution and rate it a nine out of ten. 

Mainly, our customers use this solution in industries, medical and hospitality industries. And also in educational institutes.

It's mostly the coverage. The coverage is very good. Nowadays, customers have their own security systems. In addition to Cisco, they will have a different firewall. Using that, they have a good security system in their company. So, the customer is happy with the Cisco product.

There is room for improvement in the pricing. If the product cost less, then probably there would be more customers.

In summary, the product could be slightly cheaper to attract more customers. 

I have been working with it for five years. 

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

As far as scalability is concerned, there is no problem at all. We can bring it up to whatever scalability is required as per the customer's requirement. And it's easy to implement, maintain, monitor, and manage. 

That is another advantage of Cisco. Because Cisco is a product that everybody knows, and they are aware of Cisco configuration and monitoring.

Cisco Wireless for large networks is scalable. I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. 

The customer service and support are very good. 

Positive

We have different wireless products available with us, from different vendors. We supply different vendor products to different customers as per their requirements. Some customers are using Cisco Wireless products, and we support them for any requirement.  

The initial setup is easy. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a nine out of ten, with one being difficult, and ten being easy. 

The deployment doesn't take much time; it comes with one access point or number of units. So, for one access point, it takes around 30 minutes. 

We are the system integrator. 

There is a return on investment because it is a one-time investment for the customer. Once you implement it, we'll be continuously getting the system from customers. 

Basically, once a customer is working with Cisco, they will not go with any other vendor. So, if any additional requirements come up, they will come back to us only to implement more on Cisco Wi-Fi.

I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with ten being very expensive. 

It is suitable for small and medium businesses. Not large. Large businesses are not willing to spend money. But small and medium businesses always look at the price, even though our product is world-class. They still want to get it cheap.

It's more stable, more easy to deploy, and easy to manage. Basically, everybody knows Cisco configurations. So it's very simple and easy. Anybody can manage it. Anybody can do the configuration.

Even those who don't have many technical skills, they use it because there are multiple documents available. And, generally, people are given training before they start with Cisco. So they're already used to Cisco even though they have not worked with the actual product. They have already worked with it virtually, with some training. So they are much aware of the product, so it is easy for them to deploy.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case for Cisco Wireless WAN is corporate guest access. We are a hospital, so it is essential for clinical users.

The solution is reliable. It is important that the infrastructure is reliable and does not encounter frequent issues.

The price point is contentious as the licensing model seems complicated and unclear. We pay a premium for features we do not use.

I have used Cisco Wireless WAN for approximately six years.

The infrastructure does not encounter frequent issues, making it stable.

I rated the scalability a ten out of ten, indicating that it is very scalable.

We require support, indicating that customer service is necessary.

Positive

The installation process was straightforward. We had help during the installation.

We had professional help during the installation process.

The price point is the main challenge as it seems complicated and unclear. We pay a premium for features we do not use.

My overall rating for the solution is eight points out of ten. 

We have it on campus. When the users try to connect to the WAN, we have to use that for this objective, or we have to make a wireless independent Wi-Fi using Cisco Umbrella for Meraki. Those are the two cases we use.

It's practical because, for example, in remote locations, we use a captive portal. We try to allow users to use authentication through a username of this company. Another thing is the firewall. In the console, we have to restrict or block traffic using the portal. It's a very useful feature. 

Another important thing is Cisco Umbrella for Meraki, that integration. But it's not too customizable. We have only three levels: default, basic, or moderate, but we want it to be possible to configure it more granularly. Users have different requirements, so we can't satisfy them because we only have three levels of restriction in trying to browse the Internet.

It's easy to deploy because using Cisco Meraki cloud makes it easier to deploy access points quickly. In one instance,  a department asked for a Wi-Fi connection, and we were able to deploy this quickly.

Recently, we integrated Cisco Meraki with Cisco SD-WAN and Cisco Umbrella. But, for example, with the integration, we don't have traffic statistics. I don't know if the provider or the partner made a mistake, but we lost the traffic statistics. 

The observability of the traffic for one client was wonderful before. But after when we implemented Cisco Umbrella in all branches, Cisco SD-WAN and Cisco Umbrella, the integration was not good because we lost the observability of the traffic. Because I think that Umbrella encrypted the traffic before ingressing it to Cisco Meraki. I think that's the reason we lost the observability.

Other things that we explained, for example, is the WAN asset to rate. For example, we can help a user that tells us that the Wi-Fi or the network was intermittent. So when we have to troubleshoot this issue, we can't see anything. So all is okay. However, the experience of the user was bad. We tried to use the dashboard, but the information wasn't useful. We worked to change the model of Cisco Meraki to try to help. And that solution worked. But the information in Cisco Meraki portal was not good, and it was sad.

I have been using it for three years. 

I don't know if it's the model of the Cisco Meraki product because we have a high density of users. Right now, I don't know if the model of the system supports a lot of users or concurrent users. So, we opted to install more access points. I think that we need more information or more help from partners to assess what model is correct for this environment.

It's very easy to scale because we can deploy other access points. I think that it's easy because the configuration, we only need the IP address. It's very easy to deploy the configuration of access points because we have to assign a profile configuration. So it's very easy.

The partner provides the support. We only call the partner to solve the issues. I think that the partner uses Cisco if the problem is severe. So, with Cisco, we don't have contacts because the partner contacts them if they need help.

For example, the panel, when we have these problems with Wi-Fi, we ask them. So, we use the site survey, the conclusion, or the accommodation. So, in this site survey, we got the majority of the average number of issues that we have. We overcome that issue. 

But, after that site survey, using the current tools in Cisco Meraki, we could not solve those issues. We need a site survey to resolve everything.

The partner mostly suggests a site survey.  

Neutral

I also have experience with Cisco Wireless, but based on Catalyst. And right now, we have Cisco Meraki, we are going to upgrade to Cisco Catalyst.

It is pretty fast and easy to deploy. In one hour, we are able to deploy. Right now, we have branches. We have a campus or headquarters. 

On each floor, we have a different VLAN. The Wi-Fi is on a different VLAN as well on all floors. So that VLAN passes through the SD-WAN. We use independent VRFs. So that VLAN only passes, they use the SD-WAN channel. However, we have problems with that implementation, for example. Right now, we have a problem because the smartphones can't connect to the Wi-Fi consistently. I don't know, but before, we didn't have that issue. 

The smartphones cannot connect to the VLAN configuration that we have. But now, they can connect. So, we are trying to solve this issue right now.

The integration was hard when deploying Cisco SD-WAN and Cisco ISE. In that case, it was hard. But we tried to find alternatives to satisfy the security requirements.

There is a return on investment with the right configurations. 

Cisco Meraki is cheap. Cisco Catalyst is expensive.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

I use it mainly to provide WAN connectivity to remote users.

Coverage for the access points is really good. This is a major drive for us to get strong signals using Cisco. 

I also find the security features of Cisco Wireless are effective. Basically, I like the integration with the other vendors and native security software tools. The management UI is good. 

The product can be more cost-effective. Only the cost could be more cost-effective. But, since it is more of an enterprise solution, it is not a cheap solution compared to other vendors.

I have been using it for five years. 

It is a stable product. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. It is very good. I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

We have around a hundred in our company. We don't plan to increase the further usage for the time being.

The customer service and support are good.

Positive

We checked Aruba. We opted for Cisco because we had more knowledge about this product and liked its scalability. 

I didn't face any challenges with the initial setup. However, it takes bit of knowledge to setup. 

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a five out of ten, with one being difficult and ten being easy. Some effort is needed for all Cisco products. 

Documentation is very effective and there is also an active community. So, it was very good.

It is cost-effective, compared to other enterprise solutions. It has improved productivity and reduced operational costs.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

I would recommend to follow the documentation, deployment guides and validated designs. Designing the solution is very crucial. 

We use Cisco Wireless WAN in our academic institution, both on the campus-wide and dormitory networks.

What I like the most about the solution is how widely available it is.

In terms of improvement, there is always something that could be enhanced. For example, we can't change wireless channels in Cisco Meraki due to a recent standard update. We have asked for help, but no solution has been presented to us yet.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for two years.

It is a stable solution.

The solution is fairly scalable. There are approximately 44,000 users of Cisco Wireless WAN on the campuses, while in the dormitory areas where Meraki is installed, there are approximately 2,000 users.

Cisco's technical support is very good and they answer quickly. 

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. It took about two weeks to get it up and running. An engineer and a technician at our company deployed it. We began by planning access point locations over a couple of days. Using ICAO 610 for setup and having access points with serial numbers made the initial setup quick, taking just a few minutes. Then, we spent a few days configuring the network settings.

Our university has experienced a positive return on investment, and I believe Cisco Wireless WAN will continue to benefit us for at least a decade.

It is quite an expensive solution, but I am positive it is the right choice for our institute. We have an EA for Meraki, so we pay for access once a year as part of our licensing arrangement.

I would recommend Cisco Wireless WAN to anyone who is considering using it. It is a great solution for campuses and universities. Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten.

I worked for a university in Florida that wanted a campus Wi-Fi. So, we chose Cisco and deployed it on the entire campus. It was part of a bigger project that included firewalls.

The performance of the solution is valuable. It works incredibly well.

The product must be made more user-friendly.

I have worked with the product for a year.

The tool is quite stable. We have the least amount of drops. The network latency is one to five milliseconds.

The tool is scalable. However, it is not as scalable as a cloud solution. We had around 2000 users.

We contacted Cisco for some escalations to troubleshoot via remote access. The process was pretty straightforward. We raised tickets and got hold of the technical support team. They did some hotfixes.

Fortinet is easy to use. Even if we do not have formal training, the learning curve is easy. We can figure it out by going through the interface. The Fortinet Cookbook is simple to understand. Fortinet products are easier to integrate. It is a lot more complex for Cisco. However, Cisco is more stable than Fortinet.

The deployment process was a bit complex. We took two months for planning and one month for staging. We simulated everything before the deployment. It was like a parallel system. We built a new infrastructure and switched everything to the new infrastructure. Building the new structure and testing took us three to four months.

We are system integrators. We deployed the solution with some help from Cisco. However, we did not use any professional services from Cisco. We are a Cisco Gold Partner. We do all the configurations.

I have seen an ROI on the product. We know Cisco lasts for quite a while. It's easy to get a hold of. I see good value in it. It is a good investment.

The tool is expensive.

Ruckus and Aruba are not as good as Cisco.

I will recommend the solution to others. If a company wants something stable that will last them longer, they should go with Cisco, even if it's more expensive. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

We primarily used the solution for wireless connectivity. We used it for daily work. We use our own laptops, and the solution allows us to connect to the network at work.

Cisco does not work well in China. We've moved over to Aruba. 

The solution was deployed school-wide. We used everything Cisco, not just wireless. It works great with other Cisco tools. 

The solution is not well received in China. It gave us headaches as it doesn't work well in the company. 

It is difficult to get support from Cisco. 

The cost is fairly high for licensing. 

Scalability could be better.

Stability is hit or miss if you have other Cisco integrations. 

Cisco Firewall cannot recognize some applications and that makes dealing with policies difficult. Even when we whitelist, it does not work well.

My company started using Cisco in 2011. We upgraded in 2015 and realized that the solution does not provide good service in China, and we have since moved away from it and toward Aruba.

The stability is hard to qualify. It is around seven out of ten in terms of reliability. Without other Cisco integrations, it is stable. If there are more Cisco integrations, like Cisco SE, stability becomes more difficult.

I'd rate the scalability seven out of ten. It is not extremely scalable. 

We have around 500 users and around 800 or 900 devices. Some users have many devices. 

Technical support was not helpful or responsive. At the beginning stage, they were very good; however, over time, they grew worse and worse. When I worked with Cisco Firewall before, we tried to get help for a whole year, and nobody could help us, so we gave up.

Neutral

We've recently moved from Cisco to Aruba. I've noticed a few differences between the two, and I'm trying to educate myself on both solutions. Aruba made a late delivery, so we just finished setting it up last month.

We use Aruba for everything and Palo Alto for Firewalls. 

The initial setup depends on the environment. The Cisco Wireless part is easy, however, when deploying other Cisco applications, we had a lot of trouble, and it made the network more complicated. 

I'd rate the ease of setup seven out of ten. 

I cannot recall how long the deployment took. It was deployed a long time ago.

Cisco is expensive. We renew the licensing yearly. I cannot recall how much we paid for this product specifically.

I'd rate the solution six out of ten. I would not recommend the solution. We had a lot of issues with it.