Ruckus Wireless WAN Reviews

We are an enterprise-level service provider and we supply this product to our customers for Wi-Fi solutions. We have positioned Rukus to provide wireless coverage for both the enterprise community and the public.

The most valuable features are the ease of deployment, the coverage that it offers, and the reliability. Overall, it's quite a good product.

It would be nice to some analytical features built into this solution.

I have been work with Ruckus Wireless WAN for more than five years.

We have not had trouble with stability and the devices are always working.

The degree of scalability depends on the model. We have local controllers, as well as cloud options. For seamless scalability, the cloud options are better because the local controllers have a limit on the number of IPs that we can connect. The only way to exceed the maximum is to upgrade to another model.

I have not been in contact with technical support because it would be our technical team who deals with them if any issues arise.

We also provide a Meraki solution to some of our customers. The Meraki is mobile-based, where you just have to press a button on the AP and once the configuration is done, you are connected to the cloud. It is more suitable for a distributed network.

The initial setup and deployment are easy.

We have not yet tested the integration with other devices such as cameras and IoT, but we are looking forward to seeing how Ruckus works with these types of devices.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is used to provide Wi-Fi access.

Ruckus Wireless WAN's best feature is its virtual controller.

The controller could be made less complicated, so those who are less technically sound can maintain it.

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

Ruckus Wireless WAN is very stable - once it's deployed, it takes care of itself.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is highly scalable.

Physically, Ruckus Wireless WAN is easy to set up, but when it comes to the configuration and the top, it's quite challenging. It also takes more time to deploy than Ubiquiti.

We used an in-house team.

You have to pay for the controller with Ruckus, whereas with Ubiquiti, it comes for free.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is a really good product, but the person deploying it may need a small amount of competence to do it successfully. I would rate it as eight out of ten.

We use the solution for testing.

The solution is very simple to configure.

The user interface on the switch can be improved.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for two to three years. We are using v7150 of the solution.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

More than 15 users are using this solution.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

I have used Cisco and Aruba.

The initial setup is straightforward and takes one or two hours.

Ruckus is cheaper than Cisco.

One person is enough for maintenance.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution can be used for networks in school campuses, distribution sites, and small offices.

The solution is suitable for many types of environments, such as small businesses.

I have been using this solution within the last 12 months.

I would not consider this solution to be stable.

The solution is not scalable.

There is a license required for this solution. 

Here in India, Ruckus is chosen often because it is priced low.

I have evaluated other solutions.

I would not recommend this solution.

I rate Ruckus Wireless WAN a five out of ten.

We implemented a WiFi network, with the idea to replace the wired network. 

The deploy of Ruckus wireless brought us improvements in coverage and faster wifi. 

The Beamflex technology optimize the coverage and improves the signal quality.

Asset tracking

For the two years

Stability is very good. We haven´t had problems with the services since its implemented.

Very good

Yes, and we decide to change for Ruckus, looking for a improvement in the wifi service

The setup was relatively straightforward. The SmartZone Wireless Controller, incorporates a  graphical management interface that made easy the deploy

We implement in-house

Ruckus has a wide family of Wi-Fi equipment. It is important to understand the needs and what is the correct model of equipment that covers them.

yes, Cisco

No

We use it as a wifi, wireless solution for connecting to the gateway router. 

The solution could be more stable.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for a couple of years.

While the solution is stable, this could stand improvement.

The solution is scalable. 

Tech support is good.

The solution is easy to install it. This process took around five minutes. 

The installation can be done on one's own with zero touch configuration.

There are five engineers who are responsible for the deploment and maintenance. 

I am a Ruckus consultant.

The solution is sufficiently secure and easy to use. 

We have many customers making use of the solution, perhaps 100 or 1,000. 

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

The support could be faster. It takes time for them to reply.

I also think the solution should be more user friendly.

It is stable.

The deployment access in the local system is about 200 access points. External access points are more. The number is huge. There about 1,000 users in total.

I would rate the technical support as seven or seven and a half out of ten.

I recommend this solution, but we have some distrust since working with Cisco. Some users may have had a problem and some haven't.

I would rate the solution overall as about seven out of ten.