Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

We use this solution for our campus network. I work for the university's IT team, so we use it for the faculties, administrative buildings, and labs. We're very happy with it.

The solution is deployed on-premises.

We're using the latest version.

It's a small feature, but Cisco allows me to see access points with blinking lights. This shows me which access point is which.

For example, sometimes we have more than 100 access points, and the company that did the set up unfortunately didn't document it well, so that can be a problem.

The dashboard is wonderful. It's very user friendly.

The price could be better. It's too high.

It's also hard to get the product because of climate problems.

I have been using this solution for a year and a half.

It's very stable. In comparison, Extreme's stability is not good. We do speed tests, and with Cisco, we can get 700 megabits per second.

It's very scalable. 

The solution was already set up, so we didn't need a lot of technical support.

If we need help, we can call them directly. We don't need to open a ticket.

I have dealt with Extreme Wireless, especially Extreme IQ Cloud. Compared to Extreme, Cisco is way ahead.

It's very easy to deploy. I like Cisco's dashboard. I think it's more user friendly than the Extreme dashboard.

Extreme is easy to deploy, and management is very nice, but the performance isn't good so far. We are using the essential license now, not the pilot license, which is the advanced feature license. When we get the pilot license, I don't know if my mind will change, but for now the performance is way better in Cisco.

When I'm deploying Extreme, it's hard to get information from the internet. I'm not talking about the support from the company. 

With Cisco products, there's a ton of information on YouTube, in Cisco documentation, and on Cisco's website. With Extreme, I couldn't get that information.  

With the same infrastructure, switches, logical topology, and physical topology, Extreme's performance isn't very good. It might be because of the license. When I talk with the company, they say, "If you don't have the Extreme pilot license, you can't get high balances." 

For example, you can only get 150 megabits. It's like one channel at a time. They say that when we install the license, we'll get higher balances, but we haven't experienced that yet. We are waiting for the installation to complete, and then we'll get the license.

Cisco's performance is much better.

I also have experience with Huawei. Cisco's deployment is much better in comparison.

The solution was set up before I started working on it, so I continue to deploy it. 

Compared to Extreme, it doesn't take a lot of time to deploy. We have more than 1,000 access points. It takes about several hours to deploy. It's quick to install.

The price is too high. The licensing is on a yearly basis. 

The price was built in with the total price of the access points. We bought other products, like cable covers, and some switches, so I don't know the exact price for the licenses.

The price of Cisco is twice as high as Extreme because of the exchange rate in Turkey. At the time, our currency decreased catastrophically against the dollar.

I would rate this solution 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.

We use Cisco Wireless WAN for the network in our office. The solution is deployed on-premises.

There are currently 20 people who use this solution in my organization. They're technical staff and salespeople. 

I use Cisco because of its reliability.

The price could be improved. It can be complicated to configure the solution.

In the next release, it could be more user-friendly.

I have used this solution for 10 years.

It's very stable. I would rate the stability as nine out of ten.

It's scalable. I would rate the scalability as eight out of ten.

We previously used Linksys. We switched to Cisco because of its sustainability and expandability.

Normal installation isn't complex. Installation takes a couple of hours.

One person is needed for maintenance.

Implementation was done in-house.

The total cost of the solution was about $6,000.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten. I wouldn't give it 10 out of 10 because the price is high and the solution can be complicated.

I would recommend it to those who are interested in using it. 

There's a lot of advice and information on the internet. Some of it may be incorrect, so you just have to try it and see.

We are using the solution for the long-term to connect our desktops and laptops. For the firewalls, however, we connect the rack network with fiber and other cables. 

It offers good connectivity.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

We find the product to be stable.

It can scale. 

The security is quite good.

We cannot use wireless for the servers due to potential performance issues. They must be connected via fiber.

The solution is a little bit expensive. 

We'd like it if they could improve the integration capabilities. More specifically, if it can be integrated with other applications or any other devices like CCTV cameras that are also running on wireless, that would be ideal. 

We've been using the solution for ten to 15 years. 

The solution has been stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

We can scale the solution. It's not difficult to do so. 

We are a global company and have between 50,000 and 90,000 users. 

There are plans to increase usage in the future.

I've never used technical support services. I don't know how helpful or responsive they are.

It's a solution that is easy to set up. It's not overly complex to implement. 

I'm not sure exactly how long it took to deploy the solution.

We have a dedicated team of 600 IT engineers. They can handle deployment and maintenance. 

I'm not sure of the exact pricing. We have 20 to 30 different premises in India. I'm not sure if they are all using Cisco like us or not. Therefore, I'm not sure what the full cost is to the company.

It could be a bit cheaper. 

We pay a license fee on a yearly basis. 

I'm not sure which version of Cisco we are using. 

I'd recommend Cisco to other users and companies. I would rate it an eight out of ten. We're mostly happy with its capabilities. 

The solution is primarily used for wireless connectivity.

The solution is stable and reliable.

It scales well. 

We found the initial setup to be straightforward. 

The support has proven itself to be helpful. 

We would like to have the lead times improved. Right now, when you create a design and want to provide it to the customer, they are very late to cosign everything.

The solution is pretty expensive. We'd like to see lower pricing in the future. 

I've used the solution for a while. I'm not sure how long I've used it. 

The solution is stable. We find it to be reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We can scale the solution as needed. It's not a problem.

We have more than 1,000 users on the solution.

We've contacted support, yet not necessarily for technical issues. We have used them for other things, and they were rather helpful. 

Positive

the initial setup is quite simple and straightforward. I'd rate the experience a four out of five in terms of ease of implementation. It's not difficult. 

The cost of the licensing depends on the access point.

On the low end, the solution costs probably around $1200 to $1300 for five years. It's an expensive product.

I'd rate the product a three out of five in terms of affordability.

We are Cisco partners.

I'd advise new users to check the documentation and go over it pretty thoroughly at the outset. It's important to read everything before you start. If you miss something, it may cause you to troubleshoot and spend more time than you need to figure things out. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for WiFi and for switching switches. It offers a wireless controller device and access points and switches.

It’s stable.

All the hardware, the signal, the communication between access points or switches, et cetera, is good. The devices are all of good quality.

The switches, in particular, are great. I don't remember the model, however, there is a line of Catalyst switches from Cisco - the industrial switches with 24 ports or 48 ports and a POA feature with a fiber optic port - that are great.

The quality of service is excellent.

The only disadvantage of Cisco is maybe the cost. It’s more expensive than other brands, like, for example, HP. You do have to pay for licensing yearly, which is not the case with some others. We’d like to just have a one-time payment option.

The interface could be better. When I connect to the wireless controller, the graphic or the user interface is complicated. It’s hard to understand all the models of the interface. They should work to make it easier.

I’ve used the solution for two months in this current company. I’ve used it for four or five years.

It's very stable. The resolution is very stable. Cisco is working well. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

It’s a scalable product.

In the future, the goal is to migrate to a new Cisco access point version. We are working on this. We have the requirement for a wireless controller, maybe, and an update only on the firmware version.

Maybe 400 people use the solution.

I work in the other companies with Cisco and other brands as well as Aruba and HP.

It’s an easy product to set up. It's not difficult at all. 

You do need to pay for licensing on a yearly basis. It’s a bit expensive. However, I don’t know the exact costs.

I’m a customer.

We use the latest version of the solution.

The solution is a market leader. It works great.

I’d rate it nine out of ten.

I'm a solution architect and consultant in my company (a Cisco partner and system integrator) and our standard use case for Cisco Wireless LAN is providing WiFi coverage throughout our client organizations' buildings. These organizations include banks, airports, and universities. We also use other networking products from Cisco, including Cisco Meraki for cloud-based wireless networking in smaller environments.

I have seen that many people are using a lot of the features directly available on the wireless controller. Recently, the most valuable and in-demand feature that users are enjoying is WiFi 6 support on the access points. The other good thing about Cisco Wireless LAN is how easily it provides clean access to the WiFi network.

The coverage area on some of the low-end access points isn't the best. The high-end ones are fine, but we've had bad experiences on the other ones. Compared to some of the non-Cisco access points we use, the low-end access points from Cisco have shown to give only very minimal coverage.

I am currently wondering how Cisco is going to handle the connections between 5G and the WiFi 6. These new technologies have similar features and I would expect, in the future, that there will be some integration between them.

The stability is fine. Cisco Wireless solutions are generally more stable than others, there is no doubt about that in my mind. Even our customers have experienced the same thing. The only problem is the different models. The range of models of Cisco access points is very limited compared to other vendors. And there are some challenges on the antenna configuration.

It is scalable. Right now, it has only one series of controllers for all the numbers of access points, so in terms of scaling, we can always increase the controllers even if we have thousands of access points.

The tech support for Cisco Wireless is fine. It's not usually myself that deals with them, but rather our technical deployment and support engineers. If they can't resolve any issues on their own, they simply raise a technical ticket with Cisco support.

We are also selling Cisco Meraki products along with the standard Cisco portfolio. I don't have a lot of experience with Meraki, because we mainly recommend those products to small and medium environments, especially if the customer doesn't have a lot of networking staff and they simply want to bring WiFi services up quickly. 

It is easy to set up the access points. Regarding how many people are needed for deployments, it really depends on the size of the project. We will have different scenarios ranging from only 10 to 15 access points, all the way up to 1,000 access points. All of this requires staff to physically mount the access points, and then we'll have the cabling technicians who connect all the cabling.

After that, once they all connect back to the controller, all the integrations will be done on the controller. So the wireless engineer requirement is very minimal compared to how many people are needed for the physical installation. If you've got a two-person team, they should be able to install 10 to 20 access points per day.

If you have a two-person team doing the physical access point installations, they should be able to set up 10 to 20 access points per day. 

For the Cisco Wireless implementation, the most important advice I would like to give is regarding the planning of the access points. The planning is very important because if you do not do proper planning based on the requirements, then the project might well turn out to be a big mess. That's because once you install an access point in one location, it's very hard to move around. Keep this in mind from the beginning. 

I would rate Cisco Wireless LAN an eight out of ten. I won't say it's the best there is, but it is definitely a leading solution.

We deployed the solution to update our internal WiFi to a modern, flexible, and secure environment.

Coverage and throughput have both improved significantly over our previous solution.  Also, having advanced QoS capabilities has improved our VoIP performance over WiFi.  

The solution offers very good performance, for all devices.  

Another bonus is that it's really tightly integrated with Apple devices, and makes sure that no one phone or no one WiFi device can hog all of the wireless spectrum. The spectrum-sharing algorithms are proven in independent testing to be the best. Also, roaming is quick and excellent. The security capabilities are incredible, and it offers excellent secure access for guests as well.

The only thing I would like to see is better high availability if you're using the embedded wireless controller (the EWC).

The solution is extremely stable and reliable. I've experienced no recent bugs or glitches.

The solution can scale hugely if you are not using the embedded wireless controller, which is what I am using now. 

The support is the best in the world. It's a big reason why I go with Cisco. The real differentiator for me always is the quality and speed of support. Every manufacturer's products are going to have a bug or performance issues sometime. It's how they respond that makes them different and better. 

Positive

I have had previous experience with Meraki, Ruckus, various prosumer products as well as Aruba. My favorite is Cisco, and my second favorite is Cisco Meraki. The reasons are too many to list here.  

The ease of the initial setup depends on experience always. If you're an experienced WiFi person, it is easy very easy to configure. I'd rate the ease of installation nine out of ten. 

We implemented it in-house.

For enterprise-class WiFi, with best-in-the-world TAC support, the pricing is okay. I'd rate it seven out of ten. There are less expensive solutions, sure. But in this case, my experience over decades (since the very first WiFi APs were released, in fact), is that no one beats Cisco WiFi (for very long, at least), in either the capabilities, performance or support categories.  

This is super flexible, meets our needs, is ultra secure, and offers excellent support. I'd rate it nine out of ten. I'm very happy with the product.