Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

We primarily use the solution for wireless connectivity for corporate. 

The solution has improved the customer experience, which has helped improve the organization. Customers can access the corporate network with ease and get the resources they need even if they are moving around the office. They easily connect to the WiFi without issue.

The SSID feature is quite good. 

It runs well, without issue.

Users can easily move around the office and stay connected. 

The solution is stable. It offers good performance. 

We can scale the product.

Cisco has a very good reputation and offers pretty good pricing. 

We would like to see additional data and security. We'd like to see them maintain integration between SD-WAN and Cisco ISE and for them to improve the security factor for the customer.

It can be complex to set up. 

They need to build a more comprehensive solution around the WLAN controller. 

I've been using the solution for more than ten years. 

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

It's easily scalable. That's not a problem at all. 

Technical support is okay. They can solve issues, however, the response time can be long. 

Neutral

The initial setup is complex. You need to have a high skill set when dealing with Cisco. It's not meant to be done by non-technical users. 

The product does not require a lot of maintenance. It's very minimal.

While I can't remember the exact pricing, it's not overly expensive. 

We are a partner with Cisco for networking and security.

I'm working with the latest version of the solution. 

Cisco maintains a good relationship with its customers. They have a very good reputation on the market.

I'd recommend the solution to others. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Our primary use for the solution is providing internet access points for our customers, we are a Wi-Fi management service.

The network management is good. We use it to control access, channels, and phones and limit bandwidth.

They can provide more user-friendly control. It would be good to see an easier to manage common control line. An improved web UI could allow everything to be controlled from the website. 

I hope Cisco can improve the capacity to service a high density of users in a small area, as currently we have difficulties with this.

I've been using the solution for over five years. 

The solution is very stable. 

We have an access point that provides service for 20 to 25,000 customers, and we use ten staff for deployment and maintenance. 

We have local Cisco-authorized support here in Indonesia, and I would rate them an eight out of ten. 

Positive

We found the initial setup to be complex, sometimes we have difficulty providing wireless internet access, as it can be difficult to choose an access point that can handle a high density of users. 

We can complete a setup in one or two days for a building, but sometimes we have to implement an outdoor access point, which can take longer.  

I would rate the solution four out of five in terms of ROI.

I don't know the exact cost as I'm only on the technical side, but I do know this solution is very expensive. With one being the most expensive and five being affordable, I would give Cisco a two out of five. 

We have to pay for upgrades and for customer service. 

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

Cisco provides a good product, the stability and reliability are there but it's very expensive. Competitors deliver solutions that are more affordable and almost as good. 

I use the solution for wireless and mobile users, data sharing and file and print servers. We use the solution for conducting nearly all our services. 

Our most valuable feature involves the 802.11ac, which operates at a very high level and has updated technology. That's why we use the product, whose features we find to be very reliable.

We found the initial setup to be a bit complex due to the CLI commands. It's a little bit difficult and requires us to move and to convert. Certain CLI commands we are forced to undertake.

The solution should also enable Bluetooth Low Energy devices, which serve the purpose of maintaining and managing one's tracking system. 

The new product, 802.11ax BLE, enables features for tracking devices. It can be used for antivirus protection or in the event of any risk. It is a new technology and allows one to see where things are moving. The 802.11ax incorporates the features of the Cisco 9115ax model. The feature is very good. 

I've been using Cisco Wireless WAN for more than 10 years.

The current product, 2800, we have been using in excess of two years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. Meetings can be scaled with ease.

We do have plans to increase the usage of Cisco Wireless WAN. 20 is the upper limit for the number of access points that we plan to purchase for deployment in our company. 

Customer and technical support are very good. 

In the past we used D-Link Access Point and it was not very good. However, it is very good when we convert this new technology in respect of the Cisco 2800 Series. With the 2800 model there have been no issues save for the one involving compliance testing of the Cambium product for the POC. After two or three months it ceased to work properly. It is not a good product. We tested the Cambium product, as well.

The CLI command complicated things a bit and required of us to move and convert and to undertake certain CLI commands. 

We deployed with the assistance of a consultant. Our experience with them was very good. 

The local vendors helped us to deploy all our infrastructure and it is good that they did so. They are very friendly and their personnel is very knowledgeable.

The pricing is good. It is neither on the high nor low side. I consider it to be moderate. While other vendors provide the same, I find this model to be reasonably priced.

The solution is good and very easy to deploy, manage and configure. We have encountered no issues in this regard. 

We now plan to convert the 802.11ac to 802.11.ax. We intend to purchase a new access point to meet the technology challenges. We are now planning to move all access points to a new access point involving 802.11.ax technology.

The number of users making use of the solution depends on the employee count. I would say that perhaps 200 users are connected daily with the access point that we have. For the moment we have a very small area. In every department we have in excess of 100 to 150 users connected to one access point. This works fine. But, depending on the user size and the type of Wireless Card the user may possess, certain users experience some difficulties due to the Wireless Card's age and its lack of compatibility. As such, it is the user size which would account for certain issues, not the product size.

My advice to others is that the product and its performance are very good and scalable. Cisco is very good and the product is nice to deploy and to work with. One can use it with freedom from any latency. Overall, the product is very good and established and the company has been working for some time to make improvements to it. This and the reputation involved are why I use the product. 

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN as a ten out of ten. 

We trust Cisco. It's a reliable solution. Reliability is most probably the most valuable feature for our organization.

The solution does exactly what we need it to do.

The initial setup is mostly straightforward.

The pricing of the solution could always be better. If they could work to make the costs more competitive, that would be ideal.

I've been using the solution for more than ten years at this point. It's been 12 to 13 years or so. It's been a long time.

The stability of the solution is quite good. It's reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches.

The scalability potential of the solution is very good. If a company needs to expand it, they can.

If I look just now at my area and the locations I'm responsible for, we have more than 2,000 users. However, we use the product globally, and if we look at it from that perspective, we have more than 20,000 users actively using it every day. Of course, with COVID, and people now working from home, it's likely less at the moment.

I'm pretty satisfied with the documentation as well as with the support. If we have any challenges or issues, Cisco is usually always able to help us. They are helpful, knowledgeable, and responsive to our needs.

In terms of the initial implementation, it is always dependant on what knowledge you have and the level of experience. The more you have, of course, the easier it is. For us, it's not difficult anymore. I'd describe the process as pretty straightforward and quite easy to set up on a new site.

The solution does come with a price tag. It's not the least expensive option on the market.

We are a customer and end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

We use a lot of Cisco products, including Cisco Catalyst Switches, Wireless WAN, and Cisco Nexus.

We use one of the latest access points, however, we are not up to date on the newest controller versions as our versions are still supported. We plan to replace them probably in the next one or two years. It's not the latest, let's say, controller version. However, from a software standpoint, we are still up to date.

I would recommend the solution to others. However, they have to be prepared to pay the price and have the budget for the product.

In general, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been extremely satisfied with its capabilities.

We needed a controller-based wireless solution for a medium-sized office environment that can support six to 10 APs. We have around 35 users in our office.

We have been using Cisco Wireless for four years.

Cisco Wireless is a stable product.

Cisco Wireless is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward, and you need to spend around six to 10 weeks to set up one controller. We have two managers and around six to 10 technical guys for maintenance.

We could deploy it without outside help because we have technical expertise.

We feel that Cisco is quite expensive, so we're looking for a reasonable alternative. We are considering Aruba and some other brands that are less expensive. Cisco works fine, but the issue is the annual licensing and support costs. 

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN eight out of 10. If budget weren't an issue, I would highly recommend Cisco.

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.

The manageability and control are excellent. 

It is stable.

The solution scales well. 

We didn't have any issues setting it up.

Technical support was helpful. 

It needs to increase its strength in capacity. We'd like to cover more areas for WiFi accessibility.

We've been using the solution for more than ten years. It's been a long time. 

The stability has been good. there are no bugs or glitches and we haven't had issues with it crashing or freezing. It's reliable. 

The solution can scale if a company needs it to expand. 

We do want to expand usage. We're looking into 2025 already and are looking for what will meet our future requirements. 

Technical support has been good. We are satisfied with the level of support we receive. 

Positive

We've always used Cisco. We've used Cisco for a long time. However, we are looking for something that offers more features and more options. If that's Cisco, great, if that's something else, we are open to it. 

We also used Aruba and Ubiquiti in the past.

It's an easy initial setup. The process is straightforward. 

We have not witnessed any ROI.

We are a Cisco partner. 

This is a good product and we've had no issues with it. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

We use Cisco Wireless WAN for our internal and guests users. We have recently migrated to the newest version of the solution.

The Cisco solution is good, the new GUI looks good and we are seeing more telemetry from it.

The new platform of Cisco Wireless WAN I did not like, there weren't many features available. The online platform has more options.

We found ourselves needing to integrate Cisco Wireless WAN with another Cisco product, called Cisco DNA, to try and receive more assurance on the data. It's another piece of hardware that you're putting onto your network. It could have been a cloud solution. Before Cisco, we used to have Cisco Prime which used to give us more in-depth analytics, such as heat maps of someone complaining about wireless access in a specific area. You could drill down into that, but you don't receive that information from the Cisco controller. We will receive the information if we implemented the DNAC solution, but it is another solution that we're implementing from Cisco. A competitor could probably do it in a better way reducing the need for multiple solutions.

Overall Cisco Wireless WAN could improve by giving more granular reporting and alerts back on issues and not having to integrate other tools onto the same platform. However, the platform is new, the interface is continually developing. Hopefully, they can improve quickly.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for approximately 10 years.

I found the new version of Cisco Wireless WAN initially seemed to be quite buggy. However, the stability is good overall.

This model of Cisco Wireless WAN has good scalability. You can have ten of thousands of people using it.

We have approximately 4,000 users of this solution globally. The solution is used hourly.

The technical support from Cisco Wireless WAN is good. However, they were better before.

As people were transitioning to this Cisco Wireless WAN hardware, there wasn't as much available information online about different issues people might come across.

When determining if the implementation is going to be difficult it would depend on the topology of the sites. We're a global company, and on some of the sites where it was a standalone controller, it was straightforward to implement. However, on a different site when we were using the physical appliance, as a virtual wireless anchor that was in our own cloud, integrating that wasn't seamless.

We had help from the vendor when we were doing the implementation.

We have one person that does the maintenance and patching of the solution.

The price of Cisco Wireless WAN could improve upon pricing, it is expensive. We purchased the hardware through a vendor that Cisco used and we received approximately 75 percent off.

We are on a three-year license with Cisco Wireless WAN.

We evaluated the Cisco Meraki solution before we made the decision to choose the on-premise solution. One reason we choose the on-premise solution is we were already using one. When choosing which one is better, it is difficult because I did not use Cisco Meraki extensively to determine which one is best.

Since we have recently migrated to the new version of the Cisco Wireless WAN platform the interface has changed and I'm still getting used to it.

I would recommend Cisco Wireless WAN. However, that's because my exposure is to Cisco Wireless. I'm probably a little bit biased. Overall, it's a fairly good solution.

Whether this solution is suitable or not for a company depends on their deployment, if they were a Greenfield-sized company or a Brownfield-sized company I would have different tips. It does fully depend on the scenario. My key advice is with a wireless solution is for them to do a wireless survey first before purchasing.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN an eight out of ten.