Ruckus Wireless WAN Reviews

It provides wireless networking solutions, including Wi-Fi access points and controllers.

The ratio of highest quality to value is the most valuable.

The primary drawback is the absence of support for our initial client in Lithuania, especially in the field. We currently reach out to technical support in various countries. Specifically, we connect with support, and I believe the upcoming contact point will likely be in Ukraine. There is a significant issue with wireless functionality in Apple devices, particularly during video calls. The challenge arises when users attempt to utilize both Microsoft and Apple products over a single Wi-Fi connection.

I have been working with it for five years.

It offers good stability capabilities.

It provides good scalability abilities.

There is a need for a local support team.

I used Fortinet and certain Cisco products. These were primarily geared towards business use, complying with standards. The emphasis was on creating products for larger-scale applications rather than for small-scale use.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The deployment time varies based on our customers' requirements. If it aligns with standard configurations, it can be completed in approximately ten minutes. However, for more complex setups or larger enterprises, the deployment might extend to ten hours.

It possesses a favorable balance between quality and price. While it may not be the most affordable option, investing in the higher-priced, top-tier product line with models like 85 and 50 proves to deliver excellent performance.

We strongly endorse and recommend Ruckus products to our customers, showcasing their effectiveness and reliability. Our extensive experience includes deploying Ruckus equipment in large-scale events, such as conferences with around three thousand attendees, where the Wi-Fi performance has proven to be excellent. Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

In my company, we sell the tool to individual houses or small customers.

Ruckus Unleashed App has areas with certain shortcomings where improvements are required.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for six years.

It is a very scalable solution. For larger implementations, you can use the product with the Ruckus Unleashed App. You only have to change the controller, which must be changed from a small environment to a large environment. If you have to change the controller, it is not cheap. The tool is pretty complicated in terms of exactly if you want to expand and you need to change the controllers. You have to change the main equipment, the controller, and it is not cheap. You have to program everything from the start.

I don't use the solution's technical support. The customer service from Ruckus is good. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

The product's initial setup phase is easy.

The product's installation phase is a fast process and can be done in a couple of hours, especially for small to medium installations.

I have seen a good return on investment from the use of the product. I have seen the product's ROI for end users but not personally since I am a reseller.

The product is available at a very good price, but it is not cheap compared to tools like Unifi. I believe it is a very good product for the price that it is offered to users.

In my office, the product is used on a daily basis for our daily operations and network management. I also use it in my house.

In general, the product is nice and comes at a good price.

In terms of the benefits, I can say that the product is very reliable.

There are no challenges with the product's integration capabilities.

The maintenance of the product is easy. I can say that it doesn't require much maintenance.

The product's security features have had the biggest impact on the network performance of food by the solution.

I highly recommend Ruckus to my customers.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We primarily use it for enterprise environments, including home, hotspots, and hot zones.

The product performs exceptionally well. They provide stable performance. While there might be limited information available, they are among the best Wi-Fi solutions I've encountered.

Pricing is an area for improvement. The devices are relatively expensive.

I have been using it for a couple of years. 

Stability is very good and rock solid. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.

It's highly scalable as long as the licenses are in place. You can expand it easily.

We primarily set it up for customers, and we have deployments of up to 2,000 users.

We do have plans to expand the user base.

We considered Extreme, Cisco and Juniper before choosing Ruckus.

The setup is quite straightforward and very easy.

The deployment involves setting up the controller and deploying the wireless units at the specified locations. It's relatively straightforward.

We have an in-house engineer who handles the deployment. We mostly use on-premises deployment.

The ROI is quite good, despite the initial cost being somewhat expensive.

There is licensing involved. For on-premises, it's a one-time purchase, albeit relatively expensive.

You only need to pay for license management. There are no additional costs. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. I would definitely recommend using this solution.

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.

Many of my company's clients use Ruckus Wireless WAN.

The most valuable features of the solution stem from what my company's clients look at, which includes the solution's bandwidth, data speed, and coverage.

The pricing of Ruckus Wireless WAN is an area of concern. Ruckus Wireless WAN should slash its current price to match the prices offered by its competitors. Ruckus Wireless WAN should offer a competitive price to its potential users.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for four years. My company has a partnership with Ruckus.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine to nine and a half out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight and a half out of ten.

My company handles 5,000 users of Ruckus Wireless WAN.

My company caters to the needs of enterprise-sized businesses who wish to use Ruckus Wireless WAN.

I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup of Ruckus Wireless WAN is very easy. I rate the initial setup of Ruckus Wireless WAN an eight out of ten.

The solution is deployed on the cloud and on-premises, depending on the preferences of our company's customers. Right now, most of the people prefer the solution to be deployed on the cloud.

The solution's deployment takes around 15 minutes.

I rate the product's price a seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. Ruckus Wireless WAN price is quite high, but if you want a very good product, then it will be pricey.

Ruckus Wireless WAN has every feature that my company's clients need. Lately, Ruckus Wireless WAN has made itself available on the cloud while also offering Ruckus One to cover everything related to the expectations of the solution's users. My company will only have to look into the solution if any of our customers come up with any new requirements related to Ruckus Wireless WAN.

I would tell those who plan to use the solution that it is a good product that is easy to maintain while also offering reliability.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

I have not found any issues with the solution so far. Whenever I encounter an issue, I chat with support and open a ticket. I have found the communication, hardware, and time to be fine. I have not found any issue in communicating and getting a service. However, the pricing of the solution is very high. I have found Aruba to be cheaper compared to Ruckus. I believe that there should be a reasonable difference in price in the market.

I have not used the location services feature. I don’t know how to monitor it. Cisco has a working Aruba where the latter also has a server. I have not used the monitoring tools either.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for more than ten years. We are resellers of the solution.

The tool offers stable, reliable, and consistent connectivity over WiFi.

The solution is scalable.

Technical support was helpful. I had sought technical support over one report three to four months back. They were fine. I would rate the technical support between eight to nine.

The initial setup is very easy and you can customize it as per the customer’s LAN and WAN requirements. The installation is different from client to client. It depends on the physical condition to install or finish the project.

I have a couple of people who do the physical deployment while I handle the configuration and server settings.

We do a survey where we ask customers about the kind of WiFi service that they are going to use like voice service, data service, etc. After the survey, we generate a heatmap using my account in the zone planner. I forward the report to the presales team after which they forward the quotation to the customer. If the customer approves the quotation, we go ahead with the installation.

The point where we get stuck is when the customer asks for multiple quotations. When we provide multiple quotations, there is a high chance of customization.

I am not satisfied with the pricing of the solution.

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. We are the resellers of the solution and we work with it on an infrastructure level. I have experience in the installation of the solution. I have installed ZoneDirector 1200, SmartZone 100, Wi-Fi 5, Wi-Fi 6, and a couple of access panels. You can trust and rely on the consistency and reliability of Ruckus Wireless WAN on the WiFi. I had instances where customers had asked me to replace the competitor products with Ruckus.

I have been working with WiFi for more than 17 years. I am not able to convince customers because of the pricing of the solution. Otherwise, we could have sold lots of this tool to the customers. We provide maintenance to our customers. There is also no specific maintenance required for this solution since I have installed a couple of solutions for customers and they are working fine. There is no maintenance required to upgrade until the customer complains that ‘We do not upgrade anything and all the soft software is available on this.'

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.

We use Ruckus Wireless WAN to control our guest users. We brought our traffic on a network. We also integrate Cisco Integrated Network Access Controller with our Ruckus Wireless controller. We use this integration for two purposes: security tagging and to bring users into a group according to the health of their system. If it’s a guest, they should not have access to our critical infrastructure assets. If a user is an admin, they will be placed on the WAN that is relevant to the management WAN of the devices.

Scalability is a valuable feature. For example, if you have a person from the HR department on the tenth floor and another person on the first floor, they should have access to the same VM or network. The Ruckus Wireless controller allows you to control this regardless of where the APs are physically located. You can control it from a central point, which makes it easier to manage.

Huawei is a competitor of Ruckus Wireless WAN solutions. They offer IoT-enabled solutions, and their access points are very robust for outdoor use and can manage up to 500 users. However, their products’ bandwidth and frequency range are not as good as some locally available products, and the cost is also higher.

The GUI interface of Ruckus Wireless WAN could be more usable, especially the drag-and-drop feature. When switching a WAN, users should not have to go into the configuration and manually change the WAN. Instead, there should be a drag-and-drop feature like most other vendors offer. This would make the process easier to understand and complete.

Additionally, Ruckus Wireless WAN should consider adding a special provision for APs. This would be helpful for marketing campaigns, but it is not mandatory.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for two years.

The product is stable.

Almost 1,500 endpoints, including IoT devices, and one administrator are working with this solution.

Ruckus Wireless WAN has local support, and the local staff and office are very active. They respond to calls promptly, and Ruckus Support is also very good, with a quick response time for emails and tickets.

Cisco is more focused on its branches. Huawei has more customers in telecom operating sectors, such as optical fiber and other devices. Ruckus is the only brand we can test on, with a focus on the app and controls.

You can quickly get help online from the Ruckus Wireless WAN community. You can even watch videos on YouTube on how to install and upgrade your servers. There was a complete series of installation videos, and I could install it myself. It was very easy and convenient.

If you're planning to install Ruckus Wireless WAN and need to research something you can't find anywhere else, the Ruckus community is robust. Simply Google a Ruckus-related question, and you'll likely have an answer within two to three minutes. Other devices, even Cisco’s unified devices, are still relatively new. While Cisco has a strong community, if you're looking for a solution to a problem without contacting support, you may not be able to find much help online.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight 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.