We compared Ruckus Wireless WAN and Ubiquiti Wireless based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
In summary, Ruckus Wireless WAN is commended for its excellent signal strength and network stability, while Ubiquiti Wireless is praised for its reliable connections and ease of installation. Ruckus offers robust security measures, scalability, and advanced troubleshooting capabilities, while Ubiquiti is noted for its user-friendly interface and security features. Customers find Ruckus's pricing competitive and appreciate its strong ROI, while Ubiquiti is valued for its cost-effectiveness and positive impact on productivity. Critics suggest Ruckus improve network stability and management options, while Ubiquiti could focus on signal strength and reliability enhancements.
Features: Ruckus Wireless WAN stands out for its excellent signal strength and coverage, seamless connectivity, and advanced troubleshooting capabilities. On the other hand, Ubiquiti Wireless excels in its ease of installation and setup, user-friendly interface, and flexible scalability options.
Pricing and ROI: Ruckus Wireless WAN has been praised for its reasonable and competitive pricing, with minimal installation costs. Users find the licensing process flexible. On the other hand, customers consider Ubiquiti Wireless to offer good value for the cost, with straightforward setup and no additional expenses. The licensing process is described as uncomplicated and hassle-free., The ROI from Ruckus Wireless WAN was highly positive. Users praised the ease of installation and setup, as well as the scalable solution. On the other hand, Ubiquiti Wireless offers cost-effectiveness and advanced security features. Users appreciate the improved connectivity and faster speeds.
Room for Improvement: Ruckus Wireless WAN could improve network stability, reliability, management options, configuration options, troubleshooting capabilities, and customer support. Meanwhile, Ubiquiti Wireless needs enhancements in signal strength, coverage, reliability, and stability.
Deployment and customer support: User reviews of Ruckus Wireless WAN indicate varying durations for deployment, setup, and implementation. Some users spent three months on deployment and an additional week on setup, while others completed both in a week. For Ubiquiti Wireless, some users took three months for deployment and a week for setup, while others took a week for each. The context in which users use these terms should be considered., Ruckus Wireless WAN is known for its reliable support system and efficient problem resolution. In comparison, Ubiquiti Wireless excels at providing excellent customer service, with knowledgeable and patient support personnel who offer prompt and helpful assistance.
The summary above is based on 58 interviews we conducted recently with Ruckus Wireless WAN and Ubiquiti Wireless users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"There are numerous features, but what I like about Ruckus is that they have a good coverage range due to their BeamFlex technique."
"The ratio of highest quality to value is the most valuable."
"The solution can scale well."
"The stability provided is very nice."
"It's highly scalable as long as the licenses are in place. You can expand it easily."
"Scalability is a valuable feature."
"Ruckus Wireless WAN is an easy-to-use solution."
"Tech support is good."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of setup."
"The UniFi Controller Software provides excellent statistical and monitoring facilities."
"I have found the most valuable features to be how user-friendly it is and how simple it is to do the configurations."
"The most valuable feature of Ubiquiti Wireless is the ease of configuration."
"I would say that the user experience is pretty good in this solution as well as the roaming solution part of it."
"One of the nice features is the backup version control."
"Ubiquiti Wireless is very scalable. I don't know that there's a limit to the scalability. We just add more data switches to power more access points. We haven't come across a situation where it can't handle the Ubiquiti equipment."
"It's very easy to deploy."
"The pricing needs to be reconsidered because it's expensive."
"I believe there is room for improvement in the price structure."
"We have one sole distributor here in our region. To have multiple distributors here would be very helpful to improve the supply chain."
"Of course, we'd always like it to be cheaper, but that's for every product."
"I would not consider this solution to be stable."
"There could be more power supply for the radio features."
"Integration with AirMagnet, the design software, would be good because it takes the layout of a building and positions the access points accordingly, based on the areas and the construction materials."
"Pricing is an area for improvement. The devices are relatively expensive."
"The documentation and support provided by the solution areas of concern where improvements are required."
"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."
"There is really nothing wrong with the product but there are ways the utility and features can be expanded to meet future demands."
"There's one feature missing and that is automatic channel assignment."
"We use different models of the solution but in some cases, the security could improve in the adaptive portal, be a little more robust, and easier to use."
"The product lacks some security features."
"There isn't any technical support."
"Performance could be improved in the solution because when I compare it with Ruckus and other APs, some of those APs are better performing, so you don't have to deploy too many APs to get the same level of Wi-Fi coverage and stability. It's not about how many clients the solution can handle, but it is more about stability and coverage. Another room for improvement in Ubiquiti Wireless, compared to other brands, is that it doesn't do well when used in an office network. It has a limitation on how reliable the AP of the system is."
Ruckus Wireless WAN is ranked 2nd in Wireless WAN with 45 reviews while Ubiquiti Wireless is ranked 1st in Wireless WAN with 68 reviews. Ruckus Wireless WAN is rated 8.2, while Ubiquiti Wireless is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Ruckus Wireless WAN writes " Offers robust outdoor connectivity, but signal strength and support need improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ubiquiti Wireless writes "It's cheap and easy to use but isn't suitable for large deployments or complex use cases ". Ruckus Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium Networks Wireless WAN, whereas Ubiquiti Wireless is most compared with Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, Cambium Networks Wireless WAN, Aruba Wireless, ExtremeCloud IQ and Fortinet FortiWLM. See our Ruckus Wireless WAN vs. Ubiquiti Wireless report.
See our list of best Wireless WAN vendors.
We monitor all Wireless WAN reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
yes. aprox. same issues at the half price
yes