Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

We are using Cisco Wireless WAN for our branch WAN connectivity. We use it for wireless. It's the heart of the networking of our enterprise.

Cisco Wireless WAN's most valuable feature is it is robust.

The price of Cisco Wireless WAN could improve, it is expensive.

I have used Cisco Wireless WAN for approximately 10 years.

Cisco Wireless WAN is stable.

The scalability of Cisco Wireless WAN is good.

We have approximately 200,000 users using this solution. We have no plan to increase the number of users.

The technical support for Cisco Wireless WAN is good.

I have used other solutions previously.

The initial setup of Cisco Wireless WAN is straightforward.

The time it takes for the implementation of the solution depends on the solution you are deploying. The wireless controllers take a couple of hours, switches are fairly quick, and data center switches could take a few hours. With routers, it takes a few hours depending on the requirement, the location, and the type of connection, it varies between one hour to eight hours.

I used a consultant for the deployment of Cisco Wireless WAN.

We have approximately 20 engineers that support the solution.

The cost of Cisco Wireless WAN is expensive. There is an annual subscription to use the solution.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN a nine out of ten.

The ease of management is the solution's most valuable feature.

The user interface is much better than older versions.

We're in the phase of deploying a new system, so I can't speak to what might be lacking in the solution just yet.

I'm curious to see how Wi-Fi 6 will function. You have access points supporting Wi-Fi 6, but no clients know about it really.

Pricing is very high with Cisco products. It's something that many people complain about. They should work to make it more affordable.

The older version was very stable; I'm hoping the newest version will also be stable.

The technical support is very good.

Deployment is easy. We're doing it in stages so as to not disrupt any service and are in the process now, so I can't speak to exactly how long it will ultimately be as a process.

Cisco pricing is very expensive.

Our clients are mostly enterprise-level companies.

Our first test of the solution will be to see how the new features are implemented in Wi-Fi 6. The new access point is smaller than the previous one, and I find it's very good, very pleasant, because the 3700, and especially the 3800 were very, very weak.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. If the pricing was better, I'd rate it ten 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 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.

We just deliver wireless coverage, general and specific, for auditoriums and stuff like that.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is its fast transition.

It’s a stable solution.

The product is scalable.

The implementations are easy.

There’s an easy onboarding process for non-native users.

When you have a question related to support, getting direct or faster access to someone technical would be ideal.

The pricing is a bit high.

I’ve used the solution for about 15 years.

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn’t crash or freeze. It’s reliable.

The product can scale quite well.

Perhaps we made the right decision as we knew beforehand how much we needed to use through bandwidth, number of users, and number of VPs. We did our homework. We knew which product type/model we had to buy and deploy. That ensures that scaling is easy.

We might have 2,000 to 3,000 users on the solution, depending on the day. They are mostly students.

We likely will expand usage. We're running the next wave of installing extra eight pieces for delivering more coverage, and in a way also more bandwidth or throughput.

Technical support should be faster and more accessible.

I've also used, for example, Aruba.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It’s not difficult to set up.

I’d rate the solution a two out of five in terms of ease of use with one being the easiest and five being difficult.

The first setup was done in-house. And over the years we had some external consultancy, however, the main setup was done in-house.

The licensing costs are a bit on the high side.

I’d rate the solution a 3.5 out of five in terms of how expensive it is, with five being the most expensive. The licensing of Cisco is pretty high, especially in comparison to other options, such as Aruba.

I’d advise those considering the solution to go onto the internet and find as much documentation about the solution as you can.

I’d rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Our use cases span corporate segments, banking, and large enterprises, where we leverage Cisco Wireless WAN for its flexible deployment options and comprehensive feature set.

The platform's most valuable features include the internal wireless controllers, which eliminate the need for external hardware, and the flexible control options, such as virtual and hardware controllers. These features provide significant cost savings and scalability, making managing large and complex networks easier

They could reduce the product's cost of lower-tier products to make them more accessible to smaller companies. They must provide more cost-effective options for those with limited budgets.

Additionally, enhancements to AI-driven capabilities to improve network management and automation could benefit future releases.

The solution is stable and reliable. It provides consistent performance across different environments and scales.

The product is highly scalable. It offers various options for network expansion, including internal, hardware, and virtual controllers. This scalability efficiently supports both small and large deployments.

Cisco provides comprehensive support through various channels, including phone, email, and online resources. The team is generally helpful, though response times can vary.

Positive

The initial setup can be complex depending on the deployment scale and specific requirements. It often requires engineering expertise.

The platform implementation typically involves vendor teams.

Cisco products generally have high list prices, but substantial discounts are available.

We evaluated other solutions, but Cisco's extensive portfolio and flexible deployment options made it the most suitable choice.

Cisco Wireless WAN is a robust solution with extensive capabilities. It's highly recommended for larger organizations or those needing advanced features. Smaller organizations should assess if the features align with their needs and budget.

Overall, I rate it a nine out of ten. 

The solution's most valuable feature is its user-friendly interface. For now, my company is testing the tool on Cisco's IoT solutions. The tool is very simple to use.

The support of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for seven years. I am not only a user of the product since I also sell it. It is important for me to know how the product works along with what new features get introduced in the tool. I am a distributor of the tool.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Sometimes, there are some bug-related problems in the product, but they are not critical issues. The reason that my company is impacted by some bug-related issues in the product is that our company might not know something we should be aware of during the configuration phase. If my company faces any problems with the product, then we can connect with Cisco's support team.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

My company caters to the needs of small, medium, and enterprise-sized companies.

Two years ago, Cisco's support was normal. For the past two years, the support has not been good. The product's support team operates worldwide.

I rate the support a five out of ten.

Neutral

I rate the implementation process an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one means that it is a difficult process, and ten means that it is an easy process.

The solution is deployed on the cloud and also on an on-premises model.

The time taken to implement the product to something depends on the network of our company's customers network. If our company's customers have a simple network, the implementation can be done very fast. If our company's customers have tools like Meraki, the implementation process can take three to four days or a week to complete.

I rate the product price a six on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price.

Speaking about whether the tool gets used in our company for backup connectivity, I would say that our company's engineers use it for testing purposes.

The security features of the product have improved our company's network safety.

The product has sometimes helped our company handle network failure, failover, or recovery areas.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

I rate the overall tool a ten out of ten.

We are using Cisco Wireless WAN for wireless access to university students.

The most valuable features of Cisco Wireless WAN are its security functionality. We have a lab environment and we have to provide different authentications to the users which are easy to manage. Additionally, there is a lot of useful automation embedded into the system.

There are limitations on the SSIDs that could improve. We cannot enable two ways of authenticating users on one SSID. For a number of places, we have to provide different modes of certification for the user which requires us to create another SSID for the broadcast.

We have to enable routing from different VLANs, we have to enable DSCP for some extensions. Without it, we cannot receive a dynamic IP address for our clients. We have had to find some workaround ourselves. The problems we have been having occur when we have multiple VLANs. We are using management on the APs which have different access levels than VLANs.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for approximately two years.

The solution is highly stable.

I rate the stability of Cisco Wireless WAN a ten out of ten.

Cisco Wireless WAN is a scalable solution.

We have 50,000 students using the solution.  The solution is used often and we plan to increase our usage.

I rate the scalability of Cisco Wireless WAN a ten out of ten.

There is third-party support if needed.

I have not used other solutions other than Cisco Wireless WAN.

The initial setup of Cisco Wireless WAN was not simple. There were a lot of steps to do to complete the process. We had some challenges during the process. However, if I was going to do the initial setup again it would be simple. The full process of implementation took approximately three hours.

We install the systems in stages, our first stage was installing the switches, and the second was the APs. Additionally, we were working on the controller during the stages.

I rate the initial setup of Cisco Wireless WAN a three out of ten.

We did the implementation of the solution in-house by two at the controller level and a large team for the 700 APs in two different models we had to manage.

We have received a return on investment, it is worth the money we paid.

The price of the solution is expensive. The license is priced based on the number of APs and controllers used.

I rate the price of Cisco Wireless WAN a one out of ten.

I evaluated D-Link and TP-Link prior to choosing Cisco Wireless WAN.

We use ten network administrators for the maintenance of the solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN a ten out of ten.