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

Ruckus Wireless WAN vs Ubiquiti Wireless comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

Ruckus Wireless WAN
Ranking in Wireless WAN
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
52
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Ubiquiti Wireless
Ranking in Wireless WAN
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
73
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Wireless WAN category, the mindshare of Ruckus Wireless WAN is 37.8%, up from 37.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ubiquiti Wireless is 39.8%, down from 40.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Wireless WAN
 

Q&A Highlights

NC
Nov 10, 2021
 

Featured Reviews

Udit Narayan - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers robust outdoor connectivity, but signal strength and support need improvement
In Cisco, there is a configuration where it automatically switches from the 2.4 GHz to 5.2 GHz frequency. But with Ruckus, usually, we need to manually define whether we want to use the 2.4 GHz or 5.2 GHz. Another point is that its penetration power is low when we are using it in any location with more walls, as the signal strength diminishes. So, the signal strength and the penetration power of the signal should be improved. It is not like Cisco. We are using Cisco APs also, but Cisco APs perform better when we compare them with Ruckus. In future releases, I would like to see automatic switching between 2.4 GHz and 5.2 GHz frequencies. We should not have to set it manually. It should automatically change its frequency based on the load. For example, if the number of users increases, then its frequency should change automatically, switching to the less congested band.
Brian Massey - PeerSpot reviewer
It's cheap and easy to use but isn't suitable for large deployments or complex use cases
Ubiquiti isn't as good for larger networks as any of the other wireless solutions. It lacks performance, coverage, and some of the advanced capabilities other solutions have. Take, for example, integration with FortiNAC. Cisco, HP, and the other big names can move devices from one wireless subnet to another with FortiNAC on the fly, but Ubiquiti cannot. When we connect them to this special network, I have to turn them off and on, disconnect them from the wireless, and then reconnect. Then, it can be put into the correct location, but that's it. It's a small thing, but it's noticeable, It's hard to describe it in terms an end user would understand, but on the back end, it lacks some of those capabilities. It's not a true large enterprise solution. They're fantastic for small and medium-sized businesses, especially for the price, and they perform well when needed. For my part, I would actually like to move to something more appropriate for the size of our network, but again, Ubiquiti is so cheap.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Ruckus Wireless WAN's best feature is its virtual controller."
"Ruckus has multiple radios. Therefore, it supports high speed for users and clients. Other vendors have fluctuations in speed. The main thing about Ruckus is that you can trust it and rely on its speed. I am simply satisfied with it."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the size of the outdoor access points. It's great and you can disguise them quite well."
"I made some comparisons with other competitors and I found that Ruckus was number one in regards to stability."
"Ruckus Wireless WAN is an easy-to-use solution."
"The deployment access in the local system is about 200 access points. External access points is more. The number is huge. There about 1,000 users in total."
"The connectivity is good. There's no lag at all in service."
"The tool is friendly to use."
"It's very easy to deploy."
"The most valuable features are ease of deployment, ease of use, and the interface."
"I would say that the user experience is pretty good in this solution as well as the roaming solution part of it."
"The indoor WiFi connection works well."
"The range is usually pretty good, which is the most important thing to use because more or less, all wireless access points are the same."
"It allows us to offer policy control."
"The setup is easy and user friendly."
"Ubiquiti is easier to install than Mikrotik."
 

Cons

"Ruckus Wireless WAN we have a lot of component shortages in the world. This has impacted deliveries. We have large back orders of the solution."
"The solution needs to offer more analytics."
"I would like to see IoT device support available with WiFi six. IoT is used by all businesses. They are now using IoT devices. It is required."
"They could include a firewall feature in the next release but even there it's not really necessary"
"So far, I find Ruckus Wireless WAN okay in terms of the technology and existing business network, but licensing could be more flexible, especially the IoT license that was changed to adapt to the IoT Controller and sensor subscription. The previous licensing method for Ruckus Wireless WAN was better. In my opinion, it wasn't a good decision to change it because the customer prefers the previous licensing over the current licensing. It's not only about the money in terms of licensing, but also about flexibility. The latest license change isn't as flexible. I also found the cloud solution not partner-friendly, so that could also be improved. Another area for improvement in Ruckus Wireless WAN is answering partner requests because currently, it doesn't seem easy for them. What I'd like to see in the next release of the solution is the AP having its MQTT forwarder. Ruckus Wireless WAN AP supports IoT modules now and to use the IoT modules, you need all IoT data to pass through the IoT Controller. If I could forward that IoT data directly to my environment, similar to what you can do with other solutions, that would be great."
"I believe there is room for improvement in the price structure."
"The stability of the solution could improve in an upcoming release."
"The GUI interface of Ruckus Wireless WAN could be more usable, especially the drag-and-drop feature."
"Central monitoring is the main functionality that should be included in the product."
"The solution needs to improve its features and offer more to the customer."
"We'd like the solution to be more stable and have fewer firmware upgrades."
"The control system can be improved by making it easier."
"Ubiquiti is also slow to adopt new technologies. We are transitioning to Wi-Fi 6, and there aren't many products. They have mostly Wi-Fi 5 products, but there are only two Wi-Fi 6 products. It's okay for places we have already equipped, but it's a bit hard for new places."
"I would like local support from the parent company."
"The solution has very good product lines. However, it feels like some models overlap. For example, a new model is announced after three months, and another new model is announced shortly after. So, the release cycle feels too short, and some features overlap. Overall, the products are very good and reliable."
"The product's user interface could be more intuitive, and sometimes, the system can be slow during peak usage times."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a six out of ten."
"Here in India, Ruckus is chosen often because it is priced low."
"The cost is quite high, and over the past year, there has been a substantial increase, nearly reaching around seventy percent."
"We have to pay annually for the cloud licenses, so I think it'll be about 5,000 pounds a year moving forwards."
"There is an annual license needed to use this solution. The pricing model is based on how many access points are used."
"This solution offers a yearly subscription. The price is not high, other solutions are much higher than Ruckus."
"The solution is very competitively priced."
"In general, it is a packaged solution with analytics, support, and a cloud license. The pricing is acceptable for licensing the cloud for a bundle."
"I rate the price of Ubiquiti Wireless a three out of five."
"The price of Ubiquiti Wireless is affordable, we pay approximately $100 and $150 per access point."
"From a pricing point of view, Ubiquiti is excellent."
"I think the price is okay for the product, but the price could always be cheaper."
"We don't buy directly. We have our finance department that buys things. My speculation on the price is that because we buy from private companies and because the product is imported, people tend to give us at higher prices. This is due to the fact that it is government procurement. So, sometimes, they are not paid directly, and they have to go through the whole administrative process before they are paid. So, they tend to compensate by increasing the price, but I won't be able to say what is the exact price."
"Ubiquiti Wireless is affordable."
"The product is neither expensive nor cheap. It is an averagely priced product."
"The price has been fair for what I have been using it for. There is no license for this solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Wireless WAN solutions are best for your needs.
816,636 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Answers from the Community

NC
Nov 10, 2021
Nov 10, 2021
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 very stable and scales easily. It can be challenging to set up other products with Ubiquiti Wireless - not impossible, but not easy either. It would make Ubiquiti Wireless more competitive if they offer...
2 out of 3 answers
NC
Sep 3, 2021
CR
Sep 6, 2021
yes. aprox. same  issues at the half price
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
12%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Educational Organization
7%
Computer Software Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Educational Organization
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

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...
What do you like most about Ruckus Wireless WAN?
Ruckus Wireless WAN is an easy-to-use solution.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Ruckus Wireless WAN?
I would rate the pricing as a seven out of ten. It is on par with other enterprise solutions like Aruba or Arista. The pricing can be an obstacle for some businesses.
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...
What do you like most about Ubiquiti Wireless?
We had a client with a power plant. Different wireless devices from various brands caused problems. We fixed it using the Ubiquiti Wireless UDM controller and installed 75 access points and antenna...
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

American University of Sharjah, Dordt College, Drew University, Lamar University, Raroa School
NASCAR Grand-AM, Maritime Parc, Outdoor Music Festival, British Armed Forces, Arcadia School District, Moscow - Enforta
Find out what your peers are saying about Ruckus Wireless WAN vs. Ubiquiti Wireless and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,636 professionals have used our research since 2012.