Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

We use the platform to provide seamless wireless connectivity for our company's network. We use it in the oil and gas industry to ensure strong and reliable wireless connections across our locations. The deployment is managed through a wireless controller, and we rely on the solution for both authentication and connectivity.

The most valuable features of this product are its authentication capabilities and the strong signal coverage of the access points. These features ensure reliable and secure wireless connectivity essential for our operations.

The product could be improved by making installing the operating system on access points easier. This process can be cumbersome and could benefit from a more streamlined approach.

I have been working with Cisco Wireless WAN for ten years.

The product is stable. I rate the stability a nine. 

Cisco Wireless WAN users from all our offices can connect through the wireless controller, effectively meeting our network demands. 

I rate the scalability an eight. 

While the support services are generally good, the team can take time to get an engineer immediately for critical issues.

Neutral

The initial setup of this solution was easy. It took about one hour to deploy, and there were no significant difficulties.

The implementation was done in-house.

The product is highly-priced. For example, an access point can cost around $1,200, which is quite expensive.

This platform is a good technology with stable performance. However, its high cost is a significant downside. Other solutions like Aruba or Ubiquiti offer similar capabilities at a lower price point.

I rate it a seven 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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.