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:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
7.9
Cisco Wireless WAN is valued for reliability, centralized control, and significant ROI despite higher licensing costs, enhancing productivity.
Sentiment score
6.7
Ubiquiti Wireless is valued for affordability and longevity, despite minor upgrade and support challenges requiring specific user knowledge.
Cisco's licensing structure is more expensive than FortiNet, as it requires different tiers of licenses to access advanced features.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.8
Cisco Wireless WAN's customer service is praised despite some delays, with high satisfaction in RMA services and comprehensive support.
Sentiment score
5.2
Ubiquiti Wireless customer service is responsive yet inconsistent, with varied satisfaction and reliance on online resources.
If an engineer's shift ends, I have to re-explain everything to a new engineer, which is challenging.
I didn't have any issues with Ubiquiti support.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.8
Cisco Wireless WAN is highly scalable, easily integrates, and supports diverse networks, though licensing and hardware constraints may impact decisions.
Sentiment score
7.6
Ubiquiti Wireless is scalable and versatile, ideal for small to medium deployments, but faces challenges in larger environments.
There isn't a limit to scalability, but for deployments exceeding five thousand equipment, it requires opening a case with Meraki support to increase capacity.
Ubiquiti Wireless offers large scalability, which is very important for our company as we have multiple sites that need to be interconnected and managed effectively.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.8
Cisco Wireless WAN is praised for its strong stability, reliability, minimal issues, and quick support, receiving high user ratings.
Sentiment score
7.4
Ubiquiti Wireless is reliable and stable, though some users face issues in crowded areas or after updates.
Ubiquiti Wireless is rated ten out of ten for stability.
 

Room For Improvement

Cisco Wireless WAN requires enhancements in compatibility, pricing, setup ease, integration, management, automation, UI, troubleshooting, and support.
Ubiquiti Wireless needs better support, security, integration, advanced features, and improved setup, scalability, coverage, and product availability.
Walmart is interested in using electronic tags instead of paper labels for easier price changes on products.
The firewall configuration also requires significant effort and could be improved for ease of use.
Enterprise users require more details and options.
When I want to deploy a Ubiquiti access point with the centralized appliance, we can't do all the configuration in our lab and send it to the shop.
 

Setup Cost

Enterprises find Cisco Wireless WAN pricing high due to mandatory licenses and seek alternatives despite strong features.
Ubiquiti Wireless offers cost-effective, reliable wireless solutions appealing to small businesses, with no licensing fees and competitive pricing.
The cost is one of the higher in the industry.
Ubiquiti Wireless is cheaper.
The equipment is priced relatively high, though the value it provides makes it worth the cost.
 

Valuable Features

Cisco Wireless WAN offers high-speed, secure performance with easy management, advanced QoS, WiFi 6 support, and seamless Cisco integration.
Ubiquiti Wireless delivers easy setup, strong performance, affordability, and reliability, making it ideal for small businesses.
The main value of using Cisco Wireless WAN with Meraki is that the technology is cloud-based, making it more accessible for the customer to troubleshoot and implement changes remotely.
They integrate into the management console very easily, making diagnostics and configuration changes simple.
Since implementing Ubiquiti Wireless, I have seen improvements in connection security, wireless speed, and overall network stability.
Compared to Ruckus, we have not yet seen all benefits for all users and for administration.
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Wireless WAN
Ranking in Wireless WAN
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
74
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Ubiquiti Wireless
Ranking in Wireless WAN
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
76
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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Wireless WAN solutions are best for your needs.
848,716 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Real Estate/Law Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Computer Software Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Government
6%
Manufacturing Company
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: April 2025.
848,716 professionals have used our research since 2012.