Ubiquiti Wireless Reviews

Some of our customers have a user base as high as 250.

Ubiquiti devices are centrally managed, and you can log into the access points via SSH. If the GUI isn't working for some reason, you can intervene via SSH.

It's difficult to get Ubiquiti hardware in Germany, which poses a problem because I urgently need some routers and other devices that we cannot acquire right now. 

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.

Their gateway is good for people who lack an IT background and need to rely on a GUI. For example, they have a special gateway for that product group within the wireless devices. However, I find it to be restrictive. It's a dedicated gateway from the wireless to the internet. While the approach is clever, it would be helpful if it were more like their Edge devices.

The product group known as Edge has two GUIs: one for the people without a technical background and another for advanced users. You can also use the command line interface. These devices don't have that approach. You only have the GUI. While the GUI has broad functionality, it still lacks the flexibility IT professionals need.

I have been using Ubiquiti for six or seven years.

We haven't had any problems. You even can handle a large number of access point users. You get good quality for the price. 

Scalability is one reason we use Ubiquiti. It's easy to scale up because of the centralized administration approach. 

Ubiquiti has excellent internet forums, but there's hardly any support. You can email them, and they will respond quickly but you might not get the solution you need. However, it's relatively easy to get quick information about an issue because the open-source community supports Ubiquiti very well.

The problem with their call centers is that they sometimes even don't know what they're talking about, and they are costly. You go to the internet if you have an issue, and you'll usually get your answer. Cisco has service plans that you don't get with Ubiquiti, but you pay a fair price for the hardware. 

I've worked with Cisco. Cisco products always have issues you need to patch, and it's an old brand. Cisco can do everything, but you'll need to spend lots of money educating your staff. Anyone who can use Linux can handle Ubiquiti. While Cisco solutions are powerful, you need a Cisco-certified expert, and these guys are very expensive. You need to hire them or train your staff. Either way, it costs you a lot of money For me, Ubiquiti is the product of choice because of the flexibility it provides us.

Setting up Ubiquity Wireless is simple, and when something doesn't work, you can intervene via SSH. 

I rate Ubiquiti eight out of 10 for affordability. The hardware prices are the easy part. However, the costs of maintaining and operating the infrastructure can be expensive. 

By comparison, Netgear isn't as flexible as Ubiquiti. I can automate Ubiquiti on a large infrastructure because Ubiquiti devices run on Linux. I can write a Linux script that is executed on the devices, and quickly automate it. This is also possible with Cisco, but not Netgear. Netgear devices are common, but I always call them hobby devices. If you're just an ambitious hobby user, these devices are fine, but they are not for professionals.

I rate Ubiquiti Wireless seven out of 10. These devices are suitable for small and medium-sized enterprises. If you use the Edge line of products, you need to understand protocols or networks, architectures, etc. They're perfect because you can almost do everything with Cisco products for a much better price with a significantly lower learning curve.

We use the tool internally and for client portfolios.

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 antennas.

The tool's most valuable feature is SD-WAN. It is easy to use and manage. In terms of reliability, we don't get many tickets or a service request after the installation. It's like installing and forgetting the device. In one railway construction project where we installed Ubiquiti three years ago, we've only received two inquiries since then. We provide remote support.

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.

I have been using the product for five years.

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten.

Combining internal users within our organization and clients in our existing managed service, we have approximately 3,000-3,500 users using Ubiquiti Wireless. I rate its scalability a nine out of ten.

I rated technical support as an eight out of ten because we rarely need to call them. Instead, we usually email the community or local distributors for support, and they assist us. However, in terms of implementation, we don't rely on technical support.

Positive

I used Aruba, Meraki, D-Link, and Cisco before Ubiquiti Wireless. We chose to switch from Cisco, Aruba, and Meraki to Ubiquiti Wireless mainly because most clients prefer cost-effective solutions. While brands like Aruba and Cisco are expensive. Ubiquiti is a US brand.

Our organization handles Ubiquiti Wireless maintenance and troubleshooting internally. We also provide managed services for some clients, managing all the day-to-day transactions and monitoring their wireless networks. We have about eight wireless engineers responsible for all technical aspects, including deployment and maintenance of Ubiquiti Wireless and other technical tasks.

The tool doesn't have any licensing costs.

We don't solely rely on built-in firewall features for enterprise-level security. Instead, we often use another brand or third-party firewall the client prefers as the primary defense. For clients with less sensitive data transactions or those running via the cloud, we trust the firewall features of Ubiquiti's UDM Pro.

I rate the solution overall as a nine out of ten. There's always room for improvement, and we anticipate future developments and innovations.

The platform has a valuable console providing a centralized hub for device management, enabling users to log in and access devices effortlessly. The users gain visibility into the velocity of networking to each user. However, the standout feature lies in its ability to seamlessly manage multiple access points from a single interface.

The product or service could be improved by providing round-the-clock support directly from the company. A contract solution with 24/7 support would greatly benefit users, especially in critical situations requiring immediate assistance. It would enable users to address issues promptly and ensure uninterrupted network operation. It is important for small companies like ours, where we may need more expertise to troubleshoot problems independently.

We have been using Ubiquiti Wireless for a year.

The platform is stable. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

The platform is easy to scale.

We previously used Tableau. However, we encountered challenges integrating various access points into the same networking environment.

The initial setup is simple. However, it depends on the number of shipments per month. In our scenario, with ten shipments per month, the setup took around four hours. This time frame includes finding all the necessary information on websites, considering our need for prior experience with this equipment. Despite this, we completed the setup within the allotted time frame of four hours.

I rate the process a nine out of ten.

The platform offers a one-time purchase cost. It has competitive pricing.

Ubiquiti wireless proves especially helpful in scenarios requiring mobility. Transitioning from wired to wireless connectivity facilitates flexibility for users previously tethered to Ethernet cables connected to switches.

The platform is very simple to set up and provides a lot of information in the network. It is suitable for small companies. I rate it an eight out of ten.

The solution has a user-friendly interface. It has many essential features, including encryption. 

The solution's stability and setup process could be better. Also, there could be a LAN controller feature similar to Ruckus in Ubiquiti's next release.

We have been using the solution for two years.

The solution is stable. Although, we encounter stability issues in crowded areas.

The solution is suitable for small and medium businesses. We have 20-25 users in our organization.

I refer to support documentation in the case of queries for the solution. It is good and helpful.

The solution's initial setup could be more straightforward. It takes half an hour to complete tests and finish the process after installation.

The solution's price is reasonable for a basic device.

Compared with the solution, Ruckus has a lot of software and tools for wireless functionality. It also has a LAN controller feature which is not available in Ubiquiti. I prefer using Ruckus or Cisco products while working for large companies.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for its wireless access points and wireless connectivity.

We are mainly using it for outdoor use and they're quite unique in that sense.

The ease of installation is excellent.

The product portfolio fits well and the pricing is good. Functionality-wise, it's been great. 

Feature-wise, it does what it should do. 

It is very stable and the equipment lasts quite a long time. 

You can scale the product quite well.

The product offers fair pricing. 

It's hard to get stuff delivered on time. That's a problem for us. 

The WiFi 6 equipment is not available. That's an issue. That's more of an availability and electronics problem.

Technical support needs improvement. 

We've used the solution since 2012 or 2010. It's been a while. 

The solution has been stable for us. We don't see that many problems. Some equipment has lasted ten years without any problem. It's very reliable.

The solution is very scalable. 

Our customers range from small to very large companies, and it can handle any size pretty much.

A colleague of mine deals with support. 

In the past, it was perfect. However, lately, it has been a bit hard to get the right answers. This could be improved. We need more direct contact with the technical department.

We are running Cisco equipment mostly. From time to time, we run some of Ubiquiti's Wireless equipment as well. We've also worked with HP and Aruba.

The only difference is the life cycle of the product. They can be quite short, and that's a problem regarding maintenance and upgrading or expanding equipment and expanding installed solutions with similar equipment. 

The pricing is very reasonable. 

The costs vary. Its pricing ranges from 1,000 euros to 30,000 euros. The average price might be 10,000 euros. 

We are a reseller, and we add functions to it as well.

I'd recommend the solution. It's not that hard and not that complex. 

I would rate the product eight out of ten. 

The platform provides a straightforward network management process. It is a cost-effective solution offering freeware for all the components.

The technical support services need improvement. 

We have been using Ubiquiti Wireless for three years.

It is a stable product.

It is a highly scalable platform. I rate it a nine out of ten.

The technical support services could be faster.

Neutral

We used HP Aruba, Ruckus, and Cisco before. We decided to opt for Ubiquiti Wireless as we signed a distribution agreement with Ubiquiti. Secondly, we found their product range to be extremely well-priced while maintaining high-quality standards.

As per the technicians' feedback, the installation is straightforward. We have a team of three engineers for the product maintenance.

I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten. There are no additional expenses apart from the standard licenses.

The most recent project involved implementing a Ubiquiti Wireless solution for a large factory. The project encompassed deploying approximately 35 access points throughout the factory premises, including the offices. It provides high reliability and performance. I rate it a nine out of ten.

We have approximately 60 branches and they all use access points, and they are controlled by one software controller in our headquarters. We use it only for normal Wi-Fi and guests.

The most valuable feature of Ubiquiti Wireless is the ease of configuration.

We have an issue with Ubiquiti Wireless every three to five months for one of the access points.

I have been using Ubiquiti Wireless for approximately seven years.

The stability of Ubiquiti Wireless could improve. We have found there is too much fluctuation in the Wi-Fi and after two to three years you can notice the performance degradation.

Ubiquiti Wireless is scalable. However, the number of access points should be determined. 

When using Aruba ClearPass we discovered the controller is not talking to Aruba ClearPass, but every access point can communicate with the Aruba ClearPass. That means every access point is working alone but the controller only pushes the configuration to all access points. It is not really an access point controller.

We have approximately 1,200 people using the solution.

Ubiquiti Wireless does not have support directly, such as Cisco and Aruba do, you have to rely on community support. However, they do sell support for enterprise companies.

I have used Aruba previously.

The initial setup of Ubiquiti Wireless is easy and the implementation can take up to several hours.

The price of Ubiquiti Wireless is affordable, we pay approximately $100 and $150 per access point.

I would recommend this solution is best suited for small and medium businesses. Small businesses I would classify as 200 to 400 people using the solution. Aruba is a better solution.

I rate Ubiquiti Wireless a five out of ten.

The primary use cases of this solution include home use and hospitality, for example: small cafes, etc. It's used in most small businesses where they just need a few ITs and they need simple management, which also means that they're not too worried about the security.

Cost is a big value to the customer and that's the main thing with Ubiquiti Wireless. They don't really have any features that stand out, that would distinguish them from other vendors, so it's all about their pricing. The most attractive thing about them is their cost.

What would make this solution better is improved security. Nowadays, with consumer and enterprise level, most of the access points that I work with, e.g. Aruba, Cambium, or Ruckus, etc., they have firewalls built into the access points and they can do deep packet inspection of data coming through the access point. This gives you the ability to identify applications and you can secure and manage based on application. Ubiquiti Wireless is already simplified, so they don't do that.

The performance of Ubiquiti Wireless also needs some improvement. Though performance is very difficult to quantify because if it's performance based on one or two access points in a home, Ubiquiti Wireless is fantastic, but their performance is lacking in large environments. They end up creating problems in larger environments.

I've had people put this in and because Ubiquiti Wireless doesn't solve tune and they weren't capable of tuning it themselves, they ended up with six access points, but the power and the channel assignments have been all wrong, so they haven't been getting any benefit out of the access points.

Ubiquiti Wireless also tends to turn the access points up to the maximum power, and if you're designing an enterprise network, you need to actually turn the power down on your access point and increase the density of your access points to give proper performance improvements. They're not an enterprise product. They're a home and consumer and small business product.

Scalability is an issue. Ease of manageability at scale is also an issue. For example, looking at one of its competitors: Aruba, you can easily scale that to 500 to a thousand access points and still have it all under control.

You also have the ability to do software-defined wireless networking with competitors of Ubiquiti Wireless, which is something you can't really do with Ubiquiti. Ubiquiti Wireless is a point solution.

I have a long list of things that they've got to do to improve the product. There's so many things that they need to do. One of the things that is quite important is that they get rid of the cloud key and have smart insight and access points.

With the other vendors, you buy the access points, then access the virtual controller which will give you that connection into your cloud management. With Ubiquiti Wireless, you have to buy a separate cloud key, or you have to run a separate software server, or you have to buy a Dream Machine Pro or a Dream Machine just to manage your network remotely. They need to move away from that and move to clustering and Virtual Controller in their IP.

I've been working with Ubiquiti Wireless for two years.

If I we're to rate the stability of Ubiquiti Wireless, I'll rate it a six out ten. They have a reputation of crashing when you do a firmware update sometimes.

Ubiquiti Wireless is not easy to scale. Scalability is a problem. Get your five AP (access points) and you're fine, but if you want to put 50 AP, you'll have a big problem. It's not scalable.

Another thing is from the management perspective with cloud keys and the way that they use cloud keys, it isn't scalable.

It's also not multi-tenanted, so you can't really use it. When you have multiple branches and sites, management becomes a big problem.

Ubiquiti Wireless doesn't have any support that you can call. I've used their online support and it's not great. Part of their value proposition is they're super cheap because there's no tech that you can call. You can't find an engineer to speak to, or to help you.

A lot of the support is done through the online portal, so if you want technical answers on how to fix issues, you have to go to the community. After everything's installed, they make people figure out issues and solutions for themselves. Their support documentation is not fantastic.

Setting up Ubiquiti Wireless is very simple, very basic.

To set up a network: getting access points installed, and depending on what I was using for a firewall, and getting an SSID secured and set up, it takes 20 to 30 minutes. That does not include mounting it anywhere, but just getting it out of the box, connecting it to a switch, then actually getting it configured. It's straightforward.

The price point for Ubiquiti Wireless is really good.

I've worked with Aruba Networks Wireless WAN, Cambium, and Ruckus Wireless WAN.

I'm a wireless specialist. That's what I do. I design wireless and put them in.

Deployment of Ubiquiti Wireless depends on the customers, but it's not deployed on my premises. I sell it and I design it. I'm an engineer who designs for customers, so we deploy it in different scenarios, but mostly it's deployed into the small business type of environments.

This solution requires regularly maintenance. You have to do firmware updates, and that's it.

My advice to people looking into using this product is that first of all, it would depend on what they are doing. What type of network implementation are they going to do?

Before I give advice, I would be asking a lot of questions. If Ubiquiti Wireless will be used in an educational institution, or in an institution that requires a higher level of security, or one that requires ease of management or good scalability, I will tell them not to use it.

If it will be used in a little cafe and they want to put two access points in, and they want a little guest network that people can sign in, and they want people to be able to log in through Facebook, etc., then using Ubiquiti Wireless will be fine.

Ubiquiti Wireless is a seven out of ten for me, because of its target market, and it does what it's supposed to do in the market it's supposed to be in. It's really good for its price point and for its target market.

I work with Ingram Micro and we sell a large amount of Ubiquiti Wireless, and there's a lot of SME that use them quite successfully. It's just that large implementations can become a huge challenge with this solution.