Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cisco Wireless WAN vs Ubiquiti Wireless comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 4, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Wireless WAN
Ranking in Wireless WAN
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
73
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Ubiquiti Wireless
Ranking in Wireless WAN
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
74
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Wireless WAN category, the mindshare of Cisco Wireless WAN is 2.8%, down from 3.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ubiquiti Wireless is 40.9%, up from 39.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Wireless WAN
 

Featured Reviews

LalanChowdhury - PeerSpot reviewer
Enhances network reliability, offers device longevity and offers open authentication
The device longevity is a factor. enhances network reliability. Specifically, the handoff feature for WAN, when a customer moves from one access point to another in a building or office, is much easier and more reliable if it's controller-based. So, in those cases, we recommend the traditional controller-based solution. Cisco is adding AI features; they've already started in SD-WAN. But in Bangladesh, people are still new to AI. Cisco is including AI capabilities in their devices, so people are gradually adopting them. If they need AI-driven devices for industrial purposes, they can use them. So, Cisco is forward-thinking with these features. Even though they're not being used extensively now, they may be used in the future for things like RFID or automation. That's why Cisco's solution is logical and adaptable.
Sachin Vinay - PeerSpot reviewer
Simple to set up and good outdoor accessibility but does not penetrate rooms well indoors
Ubiquiti requires more improvement in wireless penetration. It has significantly less penetration in indoor devices. When it comes to indoor devices, Ubiquiti Wireless does not have penetration power, so when we deploy it in closed rooms, it fails to connect. This is one drawback that has to improve. When indoor access points failed to penetrate into rooms, we had to deploy single access points in each room, which seemed to be really costly. Still, when compared to Fortinet, it has an outdoor access point model also. The outdoor access point is relatively stable in comparison. The solution needs to offer more scalability. It does not have traffic shaping or traffic policies in its wireless requirements. We have to completely depend on an additional firewall for traffic shaping and policies.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable features for me are the ease of operation and scalability."
"I am impressed with the tool's packet tracing so that connection with the devices is always consistent."
"It's a small feature, but Cisco allows me to see access points with blinking lights. This shows me which access point is which."
"I like that it has integrated the cost of our network access."
"The initial setup is straightforward, and you need to spend around six to 10 weeks to set up one controller."
"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."
"Our university has experienced a positive return on investment, and I believe Cisco Wireless WAN will continue to benefit us for at least a decade."
"It is suitable for small and medium businesses."
"Very simple, very basic setup for Ubiquiti Wireless. Its performance in a home or small business setting with fewer access points is fantastic."
"We have found the product to be scalable."
"Ubiquiti is about money. If you don't have the budget for IT, you go with Ubiquiti."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of setup."
"The stability and performance are great."
"It's a well priced solution and as far as I'm concerned, it's enterprise class."
"Ubiquiti Wireless is easy to use, it's stable and flexible, and the performance is great. It is scalable as well."
"Overall, it's a straightforward solution."
 

Cons

"The pricing could be improved in future releases. It's quite expensive."
"They could reduce the product's cost of lower-tier products to make them more accessible to smaller companies."
"It needs to increase its strength in capacity."
"The initial setup and deployment should be easier."
"The reporting feature needs improvement, especially adding information with regards to availability uptime."
"The price could be better."
"If encryption could be added, that would be a feature I'd expect from the build."
"The only thing I would like to see is better high availability if you're using the embedded wireless controller."
"It's hard to get stuff delivered on time."
"The biggest downfall is support."
"We have an issue with Ubiquiti Wireless every three to five months for one of the access points."
"Ubiquiti Wireless does not have local support."
"I would like to see more cloud features that some of the other competitors such as Cisco Meraki have that are very nice."
"The strength of the routers could be improved. When it comes to serious routing, the solution doesn't measure up to the big guys like Juniper and Cisco, but we don't expect it to."
"Everything needs to be professionally done."
"Better third-party integration would be helpful because often, Ubiquity is a product that customers choose after they already have something else from another vendor like HPE."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Cisco Wireless WAN is fairly expensive."
"The pricing is based on how much is ordered from the vendor and what type of discount they receive."
"The cost of Cisco Wireless WAN is expensive. There is an annual subscription to use the solution."
"On the low end, the solution costs probably around $1200 to $1300 for five years. It's an expensive product."
"Cisco is more expensive than other solutions."
"Cisco's pricing is quite costly and should be cheaper for both licensing and hardware."
"There is a license that is needed for the use of this solution."
"The tool is expensive."
"Its price is more attractive when compared to competitor pricing."
"For €100, you have Wi-Fi and you don't have to worry about a license."
"We don't have any licensing costs in our use-case. It's low cost, perhaps not the leading edge in the industry, but for the type of industry we work in, the cost suits us perfectly. It's aggressive on price so we can make a margin deploying it, and we can make money managing it for our clients."
"Its price is reasonable for a basic device."
"The price is reasonable and there's only a one-time payment. We have had this for a long time and I haven't seen any additional fee after paying for the installation."
"The product is expensive."
"Once you purchase the solution the license is included."
"This solution is cheaper compared to others."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Wireless WAN solutions are best for your needs.
844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Real Estate/Law Firm
10%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cisco Wireless WAN?
Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco Wireless WAN?
The price point is the main challenge as it seems complicated and unclear. We pay a premium for features we do not use.
What needs improvement with Cisco Wireless WAN?
The graphical user interface is okay, however, the CLI type is not very user-friendly. The GUI is okay, yet it needs more strength in the CLI mode as well. Sometimes, issues are not fully addressed...
Is Ubiquiti Wireless better than Ruckus Wireless WAN?
Ubiquiti Wireless is extremely easy to set up and is an excellent option for small businesses, offering enterprise features for a one-time fee and no ongoing licensing fees. Ubiquiti Wireless is ve...
Which is better - Cambium or Ubiquiti Wireless?
For me, Ubiquiti was easy to install, configure, set up, and maintain, while also providing solid coverage and better handoffs between APs. This is especially relevant if you are using Apple produc...
Which is better - Ubiquiti Wireless or Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN?
Ubiquiti Wireless offers a wide range of WLAN products. We tested their devices before ultimately choosing Cisco Meraki. Ubiquiti devices have good outdoor performance and the connection is very st...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Aegean Motorway, Baylor Scott & White Health, Beachbody, Bellevue, Brunel University London, Bucks County Intermediate Unit , Chartwell School, Children's Hospital Colorado, Cisco Live Milan, City of Biel, City of Mississauga, Dundee Precious Metals, Electricity Authority of Cyprus, Erickson Living, Goldcorp, Great Ormond Street Hospital, Grupo Industrial Saltillo (GIS)
NASCAR Grand-AM, Maritime Parc, Outdoor Music Festival, British Armed Forces, Arcadia School District, Moscow - Enforta
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Wireless WAN vs. Ubiquiti Wireless and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.