Ruckus Wireless WAN Reviews

One service provider offered a managed Wi-Fi solution using Ruckus Wireless. They used Ruckus to offer managed Wi-Fi solutions. The clients install Ruckus for their clients, like hotels and offices.

Ruckus is primarily an enterprise solution. It might be suitable for remote office scenarios, but it is not typically used for home offices. Its price point and capabilities make it less practical for home use.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is highly regarded for managing network performance. They have simplified the configuration and installation processes, making it straightforward. It works out of the box; you just configure it, and there's minimal need for minor adjustments. However, if you're managing a large venue with thousands of people, such as 2,000 attendees, you might need to do some additional tweaking to optimize the network.

It is 99% reliable.

Sometimes, you can't do everything you need on the GUI. Some configurations can only be done through the CLI. It would be nice if everything could be managed through the GUI. Another consideration is the price. Clients are very cautious with their budgets. A few are willing to pay for the best quality without compromising the WAN. While Ruckus Wireless offers excellent quality, the price point can be high. Special registration discounts are available, but the product can be expensive.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN as a system integrator for over ten years.

I have not had any issues with Ruckus Wireless WAN's ability as long as the provisioning is done correctly. For high-volume areas with many users, such as a board room or an auditorium with around five hundred people, it's essential to use an appropriate access point model. For instance, an R350 wouldn't be suitable for such high-density environments. It remains reliable as long as the access point deployed matches the expected number of users. 

The only issue would arise if an entry-level access point is placed in a high-density area, causing latency issues and network slowdown.

There's a newer model now. You can start with ten access points with five licenses. So it's flexible. You pay as you grow. The model is quite nice because they were bundling the licenses when they started out. Now, it's one license per access point to scale slowly. The SmartZone can support up to a thousand access points, which is more than adequate for most needs. 

Scalability is a significant advantage because you don't have to spend more money changing the controller. We've not had any issues with clients because it's easy to explain: if you have ten access points, you buy ten licenses. It's straightforward. If you need to add another five, add five more licenses as you grow. 

Support is very efficient. I have no issues. The only condition is that you have to have a paid support license.

Positive

Setting up Ruckus Wireless WAN involves pulling cables and mounting the access points according to the required number. However, configuring the system is straightforward, and it takes about five minutes to set up a basic Wi-Fi network. Integrating with systems like Active Directory or other servers might take longer.

Mounting the access points requires technicians capable of climbing ladders and handling cables. One trained engineer is sufficient for the actual device configuration. 

The price could be reduced a bit. The SKUs or part numbers come with a one-year support option and a five-year support option. Depending on the budget, the client can choose the one-year option. With one year of full support, clients receive immediate assistance if anything breaks. They can renew this support every year.

IBM has a wide range of equipment. They don't only deal with Wi-Fi but also offer switches and point-to-point, point-to-multipoint solutions. However, Cisco stops at switches and offers only controllers and Wi-Fi access points.

I have handled four RMAs where something was faulty, which added about twenty bucks. I have had clients who insisted that there was no need to change the equipment I installed five years ago because it is still working. This demonstrates the reliability of Ruckus Wireless WAN.

Ruckus offers a free controller version, which sets it apart. The price point is low. For example, if you compare a Wi-Fi 6 access point to Aruba's equivalent, the price would be lower.

The most important lesson is conducting a proper WAN site survey and correctly designing the network. When these steps are done correctly, the chances of having issues are minimal. If any issues do arise, they are usually minor teething problems.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

It is widely used in Multi-Dwelling Units.

One of its notable advantages lies in the superior performance of its antennas and radios. The platform appears to be more straightforward to configure compared to Aruba, offering greater user-friendliness, especially in terms of the graphical user interface. This makes it particularly accessible for non-technical individuals who simply want administrators to oversee and manage the Ruckus controller engineering aspects.

I believe there is room for improvement in the price structure. In terms of features, I believe there is a need for further development, particularly in enterprise security. The control aspect in Ruckus seems less detailed compared to Aruba. It also needs improvement in NAC integration.

I have been working with it for thirteen years.

I am content with the stability of the on-premise setup and haven't encountered any issues with it. However, the upgrade process becomes challenging whenever it is initiated. The private cloud tends to be a bit sluggish during updates, contributing to longer update times.

Scaling for a large organization with Ruckus can be somewhat complex. The challenge lies in the fact that scaling is limited up to a certain level, and beyond that, upgrading to the next hardware tier becomes necessary. While virtual machines offer more flexibility, dealing with scaling on a physical controller can be a somewhat troublesome process. I would rate it eight out of ten.

The technical support is generally responsive, particularly for initial troubleshooting handled by the first-line support team. However, when it comes to issues requiring escalation to level two, the troubleshooting and response time tend to be prolonged.

For the majority of my customers in the hospitality sector, I would continue to choose Ruckus. However, for those engaged in enterprise operations, I can confidently recommend both Ruckus and Aruba. Aruba, especially, makes more sense in an enterprise context due to its comprehensive features and control capabilities.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We have experience using both solutions—both the cloud deployment and the on-premises controller. Ruckus's private cloud is exceptionally well-executed, particularly for basic needs in MDUs and hospitality settings. However, for enterprise applications, it may necessitate additional equipment, especially for data plans. Yet, once integrated with data plans, it performs effectively.

The cost is quite high, and over the past year, there has been a substantial increase, nearly reaching around seventy percent. I would rate it one out of ten.

I would recommend it mostly for enterprises and medium to large-scale organizations. However, for small businesses, I wouldn't recommend it primarily due to the relatively high price point. Smaller companies may not utilize all the available features, meaning they would end up paying for functionalities that go unused. It's a highly effective product, and while there is room for improvement in certain aspects, particularly for my primary customer base in hospitality, it performs exceptionally well. I would give it a rating of seven out of ten.

In terms of the use case for Ruckus Wireless WAN, we have a WiFi First network design, so that's how we connect. We got rid of 50 percent of our ports, so WiFi First, it's mostly enterprise, and then in our malls, it's where we connect to a shopping center's WiFi while advertising and also focus advertising on products and specials inside the mall.

The best feature of Ruckus Wireless WAN apart from its seamless roaming feature where you roam beautifully on the network is its analytics tool that gives you so much insight into your deployment, so it has become more of a business intelligence type of tool as well.

I also like that Ruckus Networks, in terms of WiFi security issues on the WiFi protocols, is also the first company to give you notices of security issues, and also the first to provide patches for those issues. Ruckus Wireless WAN is very proactive and much, much faster than Cisco, Aruba, and Meraki.

In terms of room for improvement in Ruckus Wireless WAN, I cannot find a fault with it. It's pretty decent and it deploys easily. The product is also easily maintained. It has very few issues. The RMA process in Ruckus Wireless WAN also works brilliantly. There is nothing I can think of at the moment. I'm not an engineer.

Pricing could be improved in Ruckus Wireless WAN because obviously, everybody wants things to become cheaper. Another room for improvement in the product is from a delivery perspective, particularly the heavy delivery delays because of the chip shortage that a lot of manufacturers have to deal with. The chip shortage is not coming to an end, but Ruckus Networks has to make a plan because the ETA has slipped out from the average of three months on switches to fourteen months, which is very, very rough on the industry at the moment. Ruckus Wireless WAN could lose business to Chinese competitors, for example, HTC has a good wireless solution that I haven't tested yet, other than on POC, and it works great. I haven't yet experienced the HTC wireless solution in large deployments, so you never know how it's going to go, but HTC has managed to circumvent the chip shortage, so the ETA provided by HTC is much more preferred than the ETAs provided by Ruckus Networks, Cisco, and Aruba products.

What I would love, from a service delivery management perspective, is for Ruckus Wireless WAN to look at things like repeat offenders and best practices such as "your power settings on your APs are too high or too specific". APs are constantly fighting for airspace and it would be good if there was some type of analytics in the background that shows you the little nitty-gritty repeat offenders, instead of always looking at the big issue picture. It would be good for the product to focus on the small issue picture as well.

In the next release of Ruckus Wireless WAN, I would also like it to focus on the small things that optimize opportunities within a wireless network because if you sit with a network with five thousand access points, sometimes two APs are too close to one another or are on the same channel, and though auto channel settings sound very cool, if a third party comes in with a wireless device that's on channel sixty for five gigahertz, then that specific Ruckus AP might try to change the channel to another channel, but then the access point next to it needs to change, and so does the access point next to it, and it becomes a ripple effect of changing channels, just because a third party user is interfering with your channel. This sounds cool, but it creates so much overhead on your resources for your access points that it's not worth it because that person will just move along and then cause more confusion as he works with that device. If it's a static device, then an AP can just tell you that there's a third-party device that is interfering with a specific access point so that you can go to the site, locate the third-party device, and negotiate with the third-party owner to change the channel or lower the power settings.

Ruckus Wireless WAN having a more focused approach than a blanket approach is what I'd like to see in its next release.

I've been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for five years now.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is a very stable product.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is a very scalable product.

I haven't contacted the technical support for Ruckus Wireless WAN, but based on the emails I've read from the engineering department, the response time of the support team is very fast. Technical support for Ruckus Wireless WAN is very proactive, and it's a pleasure working with support. On a scale of one to five, with one being bad and five being excellent, I would rate support five out of five, particularly compared to other vendors.

My company decided to work with Ruckus Wireless WAN because of its price and scalability. Its licensing is very uncomplicated compared to Aruba and Cisco where the licensing structure is much more complicated. Ruckus Wireless WAN is easier to work with from a commercial perspective, and it is a very good technology. Ruckus Networks has a very strong R&D department that's constantly coming up with innovations. The product is a market trendsetter rather than a follower. Ruckus Networks also foresee future utilization. The radios on Ruckus Wireless WAN keep on improving and there's this amazing smart team functionality on radios that minimizes end-user connects and disconnects from the network. There's also a smooth handover from one access point to another. Ruckus Wireless WAN is good technology. My company researched technology and commercials, and on the decision matrix, this product came out at the top.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is easy to set up. It's very quick to deploy. Once you set up your wireless LAN controller and you start deploying access points, you can deploy the product out-of-the-box. Ruckus Wireless WAN has a self-updating function, and it immediately knows where to go. It's very easy to deploy.

The deployment of Ruckus Wireless WAN was done in-house. You can deploy an entire hotel in one day from installation to commissioning, etc. If your backbone is working and your routing is up, then the product is very easy to deploy. It's definitely not a long, painful process.

Licensing for Ruckus Wireless WAN when you compare it to other vendors, it's on par and not expensive. For me, all licensing is expensive by default, but you do get lifelong licenses, and what's cool about it is the license for Ruckus Wireless WAN, especially on the LAN controller, is not linked to an access point. It's just a quantity access point deployment, so you can rip out old APs, and put new ones in and they'll work on the wireless LAN because the license is not linked to a specific access point which is much easier to work with.

I evaluated Cisco, Aruba, and Meraki.

I'm not an engineer, but I do manage the Ruckus Wireless WAN deployment project and the network, and I've used it myself. My company is still using the product.

At the moment, some of the customers are already on the new version of Ruckus Wireless WAN. Some customers are upgraded and are on the old version because the nice thing about that product is that you can use it for ten years, but the upgrade paths at a point stop for an old device, so you'll see you can only upgrade it to a certain point. My company maintains that until the customer embarks on a network refresh where you rip and replace your old kit with the new kit, so my company works on various versions of Ruckus Wireless WAN. It all depends on the model number. Currently, in the region, my company has fourteen thousand Ruckus access points under management, and then for SmartZones or Virtual SmartZones or controllers, there are approximately eighteen wireless LAN Ruckus controllers under management.

In terms of how Ruckus Wireless WAN is deployed, for some customers, it's on the public cloud, while for some, it's on-premises. Some have hybrid cloud setups. It all depends on what the customer requires. Some customers want full control over everything, while others share a Virtual SmartZone with other customers, just under different zones.

Everybody in my company uses Ruckus Wireless WAN, and from a customer perspective, eighteen big customers use it. Customers are in the food deployment, hospitality, hospitals, and schools industries. Schools use the product a lot. Private schools in South Africa use Ruckus Wireless WAN a lot because these days, COVID has forced education to go online, so my company had a massive rollout on those access points.

In terms of why someone would not use Ruckus Wireless WAN, wireless LAN is an expensive exercise, so on the day that you submit your tender, it would still depend on what the customer looks for. The customer might look for a cheaper solution. It would depend on what solution the customer chooses, but a big company usually chooses between Juniper Mist, Aruba, and Ruckus Networks. It could also be because the company has invested so much in Cisco that it just doesn't make financial sense to go with another solution or because the company uses Cisco Meraki across all offices that it could be an international decision. You have those companies that have invested so much in technology and stick to that technology, even though it's not necessarily the best or the cheapest. It will just be too expensive to go to another solution.

I would give Ruckus Wireless WAN a high rating simply because of the ease of setup, deployment, and management. It's a simple solution. Commercially, you can compare the product to other enterprise networks very well. I would give Ruckus Wireless WAN a rating of eight out of ten. There's always room for improvement, so I can't give it a perfect rating.

My company is a Ruckus partner.

We use the product to provide WiFi connectivity to hotels and large buildings.

The product’s unleashed feature works as an access point and WiFi controller. We don’t require an extra set of hardware or any licensing with it.

Ruckus Wireless WAN’s most valuable feature is unleashed.

There could be more power supply for the radio features. This particular area of the product needs improvement. They should add a reset factory feature without resetting IP addresses as well.

We have been Ruckus Wireless WAN for at least eight years. At present, we use the latest version.

I rate the product’s stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the product’s scalability a ten out of ten.

I have used HP before. We switched to Ruckus Wireless WAN, especially for its advanced radio features. I have also used less expensive products. We encountered a lot of field failures using them. For our business model, if we have failures in the field, it is a very expensive product.

The initial setup process is very simple.

The product generates a return on investment for us. We have been using it for eight years and it is still working. 

The product has competitive pricing, but always a little low price is better.

We haven’t contacted the technical support team, as we don’t have failures in the field. It is a solid product. I advise others to do a site survey and a well-thought-out design.

I rate Ruckus Wireless WAN a ten out of ten.

We use Ruckus Wireless WAN for mobile users only to access data from the server and use the server space.

Wireless six is the most valuable feature of this solution right now. It has supported the most recent laptop model.

It is good, and the Antenna position of the device is very good.

I have not found that there is anything that needs to be improved on the Ruckus side. It's good for me, and overall it is good in comparison. It is a good product.

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.

Ruckus Wireless WAN should support IoT devices.

I have been working with Ruckus Wireless WAN for four years, and the 510 models for the last three.

We are using the 510 and 550 models.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is stable. 

I have had my Ruckus device for over four years and have never complained about it. 

The device is functional. It does not hang. 

We have not had any issues, in the four years that we have used it.

The scalability of Ruckus Wireless WAN is good. We have not had any problems.

We increased to 11. Only four were deployed; seven were required.

We have approximately 100 users. All levels of positions are using this solution, we have engineering using it as well as others.

I am satisfied with the service that technical support provides.

I would rate the response time a four out of five.

We are doing a demo with Cambium. Ruckus is much better than Cambium.

I use Ruckus, Cisco, and Netgear. It is a common brand.

The device was deployed by the service provider. Only we purchased the device.

Our service provider installed the device, and it is now operational. We are currently using four devices, and everything is fine. However, we are now recording seven devices.

The service provider had one person install the device. It took one day to complete the installation.

It is less expensive than Aruba and Cisco.

I am comparing both models, a total of four. Aruba, Ruckus, Cisco, and Cambium.

Ruckus is more convenient for me because it is cost-effective compared to Aruba and Cisco. Also, the technology is different.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

We are a manufacturing company. I'm not any business partner. Only this company is in the automotive sector. We are end-users.

I would rate Ruckus Wireless WAN an eight out of ten.

The solution is mainly used by carriers or for government usage. It's not really designed for normal usage.

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.

The solution is quite simple to use.

The virtual controller is doing a fine job.

For outdoor usage, I prefer Ruckus. It's the best of all the solutions.

The only issue with the solution is that there is quite a lot of strong competition. It's very difficult to get a government or large public enterprise to buy Ruckus or Aruba over, say, Ubiquiti, which is the standard here. For example, we just lost a Ruckus deal against Ubiquiti.

At this stage, there are only minor improvements needed. Overall it's a very good product.

I've been using the solution for two to three years. However, I only use it occasionally. It's very rare that I actually use the product.

We've had absolutely zero technical issues. The solution is very stable. It's worked fine ever since the integration entered into ClearPass. Ever since then, the radius attributes work fine now.

We haven't had any issues with scalability. The solution has been fine in that sense.

I haven't been in regular contact with technical support. The last time I might have contacted them was about three years ago. We had an issue when we were trying to integrate Ruckus into ClearPass on Aruba into the ClearPass radio system. That was solved, however. The issue was that at the time Ruckus didn't accept all the attributes.

These days, it's my understanding that they are very good at assisting clients. We're satisfied with their level of service when we need to work with them.

Integration, if you're lucky, only takes a week or less.

We're implementors as well as resellers. We handle the implementation for our clients.

The pricing, when compared to Ubiquiti, isn't competitive enough. If you want to have a Government or Public sector client they will ask why they should pay 200 euros if they can get something for 40 euros.

We're Ruckus reseller and implementors.

This solution is very high-quality. I'd advise other organizations to look for the best solutions for their situation. However, I know how difficult this is to sell. It's difficult to sell quality when organizations just want to see the price tag. This is especially true in the government and public sector, that are always constrained by budgets.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

It's a very good product. It's a high-end product and it plays in the right league. We do have customers who are willing to spend money, but it's very difficult to find these jobs nowadays.

I use the solution in my company since the product was already in place before I started working in my current organization.

To be honest, all I have done with the tool is to check access points and ensure they are running. The tool is also used to issue guest WiFi passwords.

The license model offered by the product is an area of concern where improvements are required.

To be honest, as far as I am aware, and from my research, the issue is pretty much only with the tool's cost. Some of the configurations in the tool are a bit awkward. With the access points, when I try to apply the configurations now, it doesn't take the firmware.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for a year and seven months. I use the solution in my company as an end user.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten. It takes a minute to find out why it is not responding when going to an access point.

The scalability of Ruckus Wireless WAN benefits your operations since it is pretty good. The issue I have with the tool is associated with the fact that we have a limited number of licenses. In my company, we are considering scaling up a little bit, but the cost of licensing may prohibit it. Also, the controller we have at the moment has reached the end-of-life phase. My company may have to look at changing all the access points and going to a different provider or upgrading the controller, after which it may not be possible to use some of the current access points, and it may cause us to change those for some working-based ones.

Around 50 people use the tool. I really can't say a number with any level of accuracy.

The actual wireless or configurations going into the solution need to be looked upon. Going into the solution to check it is something that is done very frequently.

I tend to use a third-party provider for technical support for the solution. Based on other people's opinions, the technical support is excellent, and I rate it a ten out of ten. I have no personal experience with the tool's support team.

Positive

I have some experience with Cisco, but not as a real user. I switched from Cisco to Ruckus after I switched over to my current organization from another company.

I was not involved in the product's initial setup phase. It was installed prior to my joining.

I have not investigated pricing because it was present in the company when I started. My company is using the rules and plans from the product's document so that we can try to make some decisions and find out some details.

I have not had an opportunity to investigate how Ruckus Wireless WAN can handle network density and high-traffic scenarios.

I have not looked at AI features in Ruckus Wireless WAN.

From my limited experience, I would recommend Ruckus Wireless WAN to others, but I won't be able to say why I would do that.

I rate the tool a seven or eight out of ten.

We use Ruckus Wireless WAN for connectivity.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is an easy-to-use solution.

The solution's AI offering and pricing could be improved.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for three years.

I rate Ruckus Wireless WAN ten out of ten for stability.

Around 400 users are using the solution in our organization on a daily basis.

I rate Ruckus Wireless WAN ten out of ten for scalability.

The solution's initial setup is easy. I rate Ruckus Wireless WAN ten out of ten for the ease of its initial setup.

We implemented the solution through a third-party integrator. Two people are required to deploy the solution. The solution's deployment took a few hours.

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.

The solution is maintained by one person in our organization.

Overall, I rate Ruckus Wireless WAN ten out of ten.