Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

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.

The solution is used to manage our access points in all our company branches.

I like Cisco due to the fact that it's reliable. It has worked well since 2008 without issues.

It's scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

Azure needs work. We use it as the wireless controller of Cisco. It's a bit buggy. The UI needs to be more responsive. 

Technical support could be more helpful.

The solution is expensive. 

I've been using the solution since 2008.

The solution is stable and reliable and offers good performance. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

It is very scalable. It's easy to expand.

We have about 3,000 employees that use the solution.

The setup is in an airport, and we have passengers that also need the portal for the internet. We have a lot of people using the solution.

Technical support could be improved. They are helpful. However, they could be better.

Positive

We did not previously use a different solution. 

The solution is very easy. It's straightforward and not difficult at all. 

The deployment only takes a few hours. It's not a long process. 

We have about five people that can handle any maintenance tasks. That includes maybe one engineer and four administrators. 

We handled the deployment ourselves. We didn't need the assistance of a third party.

We pay a yearly licensing fee, and it is expensive. I'm not sure of the exact amount we pay.

I'm currently looking into Aruba. 

We have a lot of equipment from Cisco. We are customers and end-users. 

I'm not on the latest version of the solution. That said, I'm renovating my wireless environment.

I'd recommend the solution to others. It is good. However, it costs a lot. I'm currently looking for something more cost-effective. 

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. There is no master controller for the controllers. When we have access points in different buildings, I need a centralized management system to achieve redundancy and operations simplicity. 

Our primary use case of this solution is for streaming access to the personal devices of students and staff for guest wifi and connection. So we provide corporate access to devices. They use it for media streaming, for social networking, for learning solutions. Most people don't connect through land cable anymore - they all go for wireless options.

I like that it has integrated the cost of our network access. We see identity controls solutions so we make sure it's all part of the same management console. We have the same console and the same authentication, and we use a multi-high profile defendable wireless system, access ports, and wireless access IDs. So each access ID has different kinds of people, different kinds of networks, the VLAN. Cisco controllers are now the best in this field. We end segregation on the Wi-Fi side based on the access ID.

The solution is very expensive, and I think the price should be more competitive, like with Aruba, Meraki, and other products. The price model is very high but the manageability is simple. 

We have some glitches from time to time, but the support is fast and they support us very well. This doesn't happen very often, though.

The technical scalability is easy, but the license scalability is quite tricky. It's licensing costs incurred, but technically the solution is very scalable. A total of 5,000 users are using the 3000 access points, and 2,600 users are using 800 access points. I am the architect and the rest of the users are basically university students, faculties, administration staff, and support staff who mainly use for media, social net access, corporate file access, academic system access, and learning solution access. And it used for radio-audio frequency wireless tools.

The support is good and I will rate them a seven out of ten.

As a typical Cisco solution there is a slight complexity to the setup, but because most of the engineers at Cisco are certified, it is easy for them. The integrators used a professional space on the vendor site for the deployment.

This is a very expensive solution but there are no additional costs.

We compared it to Aruba Wireless. Aruba has its own strength in the latest technology, their architects are very different, and they are more advanced. So I think Cisco is one step behind Aruba.

My advice to others is to understand the use case properly before deploying any solution. If you don't have a complex use case and if you can't afford it, don't get Cisco. But if you have a complex use case with a high frequency, high bandwidth of data usage in a wireless network, Cisco is the right product for you. The licensing strategy and the pricing could be improved, but it is a good solution. I rate it a seven out of ten. 

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 most valuable features are CleanAir, Rogue Detection, and the auto-calculation of RF.

There are a number of areas for improvement in Cisco Wireless WAN, including sensitive applications which face issues on wireless stuff and difficulty troubleshooting. In the next release, Cisco should include more troubleshooting features, especially for sensitive applications like Teams and other voice and video applications. There should be easy ways to analyze the wireless network to find where the problem is. 

I've been using this solution for eight years.

Wireless networks are never stable because they're always impacted by multiple reasons.

Cisco Wireless WAN is scalable.

Cisco's technical support is good - you get instant support, and most of the engineers are good and highly skilled (though not all, so some cases can take longer).

The initial setup is simple for enterprise users, but it's very complex for DYOD and guest networks.

Cisco's pricing is reasonable.

Cisco Wireless WAN is most suitable for enterprise companies. Before choosing this solution, remember that there are other good solutions, including Aruba and Ruckus, so you should explore which solution is best for your organization. I would give Cisco Wireless WAN a rating of eight out of ten.

The security and the capabilities of the platform are the most valuable features.

Cybersecurity is very strong.

They have good authentication and authorization that is very secure for mobile users and other users as well.

Documentation is an area that needs review. It should be more dynamic and it should be easier. 

The dashboarding capabilities need to be improved. I want to have all of the information on one dashboard. It should show all of the details about the Wi-Fi system, how it has helped, the architectural design, and the KPIs.

Definitely, I would like to have some modules for ML built into the platform. This is something connected with AI. 

I would like more information about the user experience that should be included in the Wi-Fi process and products for every vendor. 

The user experience is important, and digital experience is how we perceive Wi-Fi in the organization. It is what we would like to have also seen on the visualizations such as dashboards.

I have been working with Cisco Wireless WAN for more than five years.

We are using the latest version.

Cisco Wireless WAN is a stable solution.

It is a very scalable solution, we are using it in an organization with more than 100,000 users.

I am satisfied with the technical support. They are awesome.

The initial setup is easy for one location. 

The problem is when you have a complex environment, as in global architecture. When trying to go with their cloud set up, sometimes you cannot.

Overall, it is easy to set up.

Pricing is always a topic of discussion. I would like to see it priced fairly. 

The pricing is based on how much is ordered from the vendor and what type of discount they receive.

I would rate Cisco Wireless WAN a seven out of ten.

Cisco Wireless WAN works well in an enterprise environment.

The most valuable features of Cisco Wireless WAN are the dashboards, security functionality, and Cisco DNA center. The way the solution has integrated within the fabric of the environment with automation is very good.

Cisco Wireless WAN could improve the wireless environment visibility. For example, the information regarding bandwidth use, conditions of the network, and application visibility.

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

The stability of Cisco Wireless WAN is good.

Cisco Wireless WAN is a scalable solution. You are able to purchase as many licenses as required.

I have worked with this solution in large environments. We have had clients with approximately 2,000 users.

The support from Cisco is good.

I have used Aruba Wireless.

The setup of Cisco Wireless WAN needs an expert. You need someone with experience to be able to work with Cisco Wireless solutions. It took approximately one to two weeks to implement the solution.

The implementation of Cisco Wireless WAN will need at least a field engineer to do the configuration of the appliance.

The license is not subscription-based.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN a ten out of ten.

We primarily use this product to provide general wireless network access.

The most valuable features are coverage and reliability.

The initial setup and deployment should be easier.

The technical support needs to be improved.

I have been working with Cisco Wireless WAN for between five and six years.

This is a fairly stable wireless solution.

This product is scalable, although we have no plans to increase our usage at the moment. We currently have 300 users.

I would rate the technical support a two out of five. It is an area that should be improved, in all aspects.

Neutral

I have used other similar products in the past, including HPE Wireless WAN and Ubiquity Wireless, but this Cisco product is one that the client already had in place.

The initial setup is complex, and I can't recall how long it took to deploy.

We installed it in-house. We have a team of three or four engineers that are responsible for maintenance.

We pay the licensing fees on a yearly basis.

In summary, this is not a product that I recommend.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.