Ubiquiti Wireless Reviews

The most valuable aspect of Ubiquiti is the ease of setup. It's easy to set up, secure, and use. It works on an adoption basis. I can pull the system up, design a network, and pull 20 different Ubiquiti units into it.

It depends on whether you're setting up separate VLANs or whatever, but let's assume a normal scenario with a standard network. You pull all the systems into it and adopt them all, then Ubiquiti incorporates the system into whatever structure you want.

Ubiquiti could develop a more elaborate firewall solution. Their firewall solutions at the moment are entry-level. Maybe they don't want to bring those products in because many people prefer putting a third-party firewall into a solution like that. We usually do. 

We use Untangle, but the big question at the end of the day is which market they want to target.  They're offering an entry-level firewall product, but if they improved, they could aspire to the higher end and maybe take on the likes of FortiGate and Untangle. Sophos has a complete end-to-end solution with a high-end firewall and AP.

Ubiquiti should approach things like Sophos and make a more comprehensive product. It would be so nice to integrate an end-to-end solution that gives you control over your network. I could set everything up and see it all on the same protocol, roll-out, setup, etc.

They could maybe also make their setup software a little more user-friendly. I don't know if they can improve it much, but they could make it more accessible specifically to first-time users. When you're just starting out, you might not understand you need to download the software and have certain configurations in your web browser to link to it. They could do away with that, but I'm not sure how much of a security impact it's going to have.

I've used Ubiquiti for five or six years.

Ubiquiti is extremely stable. Aside from maybe user issues and that kind of thing, I've never had any of my Ubiquiti installations go down due to product failure. I've never had an AP or switch fail on me.

Ubiquiti is highly scalable.  I've seen Ubiquiti rolled out in massive setups and huge buildings. I know companies that run large warehouses, manufacturing, etc., and their whole backend infrastructure is Ubiquiti. They are pleased with it.

They function as well as Cisco core switching. Sometimes it just depends on the scenario, but from a scalability point of view, all Ubiquiti products work together. 

I can mix old Ubiquiti access points, LR units, etc., with new Ubiquiti products. More recently, they've done things like Nano and Wifi 6. You can't mix the Wifi setups, but that's a technology issue, not a product issue. That allows a lot of scalability. Most of them don't reach layer 3 level on their standard switches, but most are layer 2. You have edge switching and layer 2. It's rudimentary networking.

We work with local Ubiquiti support, which has been excellent. I would rate them eight out of 10. 

It's a fairly easy setup even if you don't know Ubiquiti and it's your first time. You follow the instructions. Compared to something like NewCitrix, Ubiquiti is a million times easier to set up. So I think Ubiquity would be for a normal IT guy and whatever, Ubiquiti would be an easy setup where, specifically guys like that, that have to set up NewCitrix, you have to learn how NewCitrix works and then run with it like that. But from initial setup, I find Ubiquiti extremely easy to set up.

Ubiquiti is on-prem, but it has a cloud-based deployment and management system. You connect it to the system and do your setup as soon as you've done your setup, and you basically finalize your system, then you can take that cloud link away. Your system runs without it.

All the vendors' prices have gone up, so Ubiquiti has gotten more expensive. In terms of price versus performance, they're still well priced, but they are more expensive than entry-level products like Tenda and TP-Link. 

At the same time, it's still affordable enough for a home user. We do a lot of homes sometimes. So, a home user that has the money, that wants the reliability and whatever, I would put UniFi in their house before I would put in Tenda or a lower end product. In that respect, I definitely think Ubiquiti is very well priced, so I would give them easily a four out of five on pricing.

From a price perspective, compared to Cisco, where you could put one AP down for Cisco, and get a lot of users, a lot of security and everything like that. For the same price, you can put down three Ubiquiti's and those three Ubiquiti's can do what the one Cisco unit could do.

I rate Ubiquiti Wireless eight out of 10. I would definitely recommend Ubiquiti to others unless it's a scenario where you have a massive deployment or the client has an existing Netgear, HPE, or Aruba setup. 

Their products are durable and easy to use. Ubiquiti fits into that mid-market segment. Ubiquiti slots in below Aruba, Cisco, and all those heavy-duty systems, but it's still a robust product. In most cases, I'd suggest Ubiquiti over and above your bigger names like Cisco, Netgear, etc. It's definitely a cut above things like TP-Link and Tenda. It has its own market share right there in the middle

When you're managing more units, it helps to have handover and the capacity to switch between multiple inputs and outputs. Ubiquiti handles that well. Obviously, when you have hectic layer 3 networks and huge roll-outs, HPE and all of those other big names are more appropriate products. However, Ubquiti is the most reliable product in 80 percent of general use cases.

We are a solution provider and this is one of the wireless solutions that we set up for my clients.

Normally, we do office wireless solutions. I've done one or two home wireless solutions for people that can afford Ubiquity products. Mostly, we've implemented Ubiquity in warehouses. I've also installed it in a medical scenario and in a restaurant solution.

One of the nice features is the backup version control.

The Cloud Key is used for the adoption process, which provides a single login control solution for your switching. Nobody can just get onto your switches, or onto your wireless units. This is a nice solution from a security perspective.

When it comes to setting it up, this is one of the fastest solutions out there. It has an adoption set up, where you set up your switches, connect your APs to see the switches, and from there it detects your system. It actually tells you what it detects from the network and then you adopt that. Whether it is another switch or another Ubiquity product, it will adopt it. Obviously, it only works with other Ubiquity products.

When it comes to accessing the system, when you don't have a Cloud Key then it can sometimes be frustrating and irritating. On a cloud system, it is easy to recover passwords, but without the cloud solution, it can get tricky sometimes. They don't force you to buy the cloud key, but it can be frustrating to use without it.

Ubiquity is not recognized for providing layered network solutions.

Better third-party integration would be helpful because often, Ubiquity is a product that customers choose after they already have something else from another vendor like HPE.

This solution is very stable. Ubiquity is probably one of the most solid wireless solutions out there. I have set up their long-range, LR, where we've been two or three in a building or several buildings. I can't fault their stability at all.

This is a very scalable solution. You can put in a bigger switch or change other components. No matter what you want to do, it's very scalable.

Ubiquity does not recognize somebody who supplies legacy switching. It declares mostly layer two. It is scalable to that level, but I think in most cases, if somebody is looking for a layered solution then they're going to go to a dedicated layer specialist like Alcatel-Lucent, Cisco, or HPE.

We have approximately one hundred and fifty to two hundred end-users for this solution between different companies.

The technical support for this solution is very good. Even contacting support from South Africa, it only took me an hour to resolve my issue. I had one of Ubiquity's technical support people online. I had follow-up emails from them afterward because they wanted to make one hundred percent sure that my system was running.

In terms of waiting, the times were not longer than I had averaged with places like Microsoft or NETGEAR. In fact, Microsoft support could be hours later. This solution has actually been quicker than most of the other products.

Since I started my company, I have been using Ubiquity.

This solution is easy to install, but it's a premium product so not everybody knows how to install it, compared to the entry-level ones. If you set up a NETGEAR or a TP-Link or one of these, they are very similar. The adoption process with Ubiquity becomes too difficult if you don't know the setup scenario and without using Cloud solutions.

Generally, the initial setup is straightforward if you're connecting Ubiquity to Ubiquity and you've used components that are all theirs. If you don't understand the product and you try to say, for instance, put Ubiquity in with some legacy APs, then it's difficult.

Most laymen can set up a Ubiquity-only system from scratch.

Ubiquity is by no means the most expensive wireless solution out there. In South Africa, for some Cisco access points, it will cost you 10,000 Rand ($690 USD), whereas with Ubiquity that same access point will cost you less than 3,000 Rand ($210 USD). Cisco will also have monthly or yearly licensing fees on their products.

This solution is definitely cheaper than Cisco and less expensive than HPE in a lot of instances. They are more expensive in most cases than what NETGEAR is, but not by far. Aruba is also more expensive than Ubiquity.

There are no licensing fees that I know of. I have never had to pay a monthly fee or anything like that with a Ubiquity product.

You have to keep your switches up to date in order to support all of your wireless components. Normally, all of the firmware is the latest version.

When it comes to home solutions, people tend to shy away from Ubiquity. They look at products like TP-Link or Tenda, which are entry-level products. These products are good, but they are aimed at the home market. They're aimed at being straightforward plug-and-play, without any real security worries. Ubiquity is more premium, which is why it is more corporate or for more experienced customers.

While this product is good for small businesses, I would say that you can integrate it into an enterprise solution as well. It's a solid enough product that it will work in an enterprise environment without a problem.

This is definitely a very good product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for wireless connectivity. It's for mobile management. It can manage my switches and everything via mobile. 

It is very user-friendly.

The solution is very straightforward in comparison to other solutions. It's quite quick to deploy.

The solution is stable.

It is scalable. 

It offers very good pricing. 

We'd like the solution to be more stable and have fewer firmware upgrades. More features should be available straight out of the box. It could be less complex and offer more simple principles.

I've been using the solution for a year and a half.

It's very stable. It is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is good. 

My understanding is the solution can scale. 

We have four or five people using the solution. It's just for home usage. 

I've never needed the help of technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

We do not use any other solutions at this time.

It is quite straightforward to set up the solution. It is not overly complex. The deployment was fast and took less than a day.

The setup can be done in-house. There was no need to have any integrators or consultants involved. 

The pricing is quite low and very affordable. I'm not sure of the exact cost.

I did not attempt to evaluate other options before beginning to use the solution. 

We have a mixed environment. The APIs are obviously on-prem, and all the management is in the cloud.

I'm using the latest version of the solution. 

I'd recommend the solution to others. 

If you want a low-cost option, if you don't have the budget, I'd advise you go for Ubiquiti.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

We have Ubiquiti Wireless units in retirement communities, specifically in outdoor parks and then in each home. We also have them for guest access in the hotels, so throughout the building, in the rooms, in the hallways, and in the public areas. 

We replaced probably eight or 10-year-old technology for our clients with Ubiquiti Wireless, so it has made their internet connection work much better, with faster throughput, and given them more bandwidth.

What I find the most valuable is that all of the equipment talks to each other, so we can manage it from one single interface. I also find valuable the fact that the access points mesh together to provide redundancy in addition to the wired connectivity.

The network setup could be a little easier and more straightforward.

I have worked with Ubiquiti Wireless for probably three to four years. 

Ubiquiti Wireless is very scalable. I don't know that there's a limit to 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 mostly used by guests or property owners. Management accesses the wireless network as well, but they don't have any role in managing it or maintaining it. We do all that. So, it's really just internet access for guests and homeowners.

The people doing the installation are basically just connecting the wires to the access points and mounting the access points. I think we had two installers and then one engineer that's just managing everything; they're logged into the interface and adopting the access points and setting up the network control.

No tech support is perfect, but their response time could be better. However, they are very knowledgeable once they start working on any technical issue that we are having.

Positive

We did not previously use anything else. When we started with these opportunities, we evaluated other products, and this had the best price and performance. So, we went with this from day one.

We are certified and took Ubiquiti's training, which was a five-day training class. Deployment is fairly straightforward for us thanks to the training that we have had.

We did our deployment in-house. Everything's been solid since we installed it. No issues with the equipment.

There are no licensing fees. 

That is not a question I can answer. My engineer did most of that legwork. 

The advice I would give to others looking into implementing this product is this: go get trained and receive their certification first. You can use the product without training but to implement it, you've got to know where and which access points and which RF technology is involved.

On a scale of one to 10, with one as the worst and 10 as the best, I would give Ubiquiti Wireless an eight. 

We primarily use the solution for wireless connectivity to the internet in the office. You can roam around and stay connected easily.

It's a good option for SMEs.

The stability and performance are great.

It's very easy to use.

The initial setup is fairly straightforward.

The costs to use the product are very low.

This might not be the best solution for a very large organization.

They can continue to improve their offering so that they could be used in the future in large enterprises also. It only uses the local connection and it performs to a lesser extent due to this. It's hard to check on things remotely. For example, if I have a branch office somewhere in another city or even another country and someone tells me that something is wrong with the wi-fi or firewall, if I have a good wi-fi solution (for example Cisco or FortiNet), I can simply connect to an access point there. With Ubiquiti, I cannot do that. 

There seem to be no access points in Ubiquiti that allow us to use a double link. There is no link redundancy. If a link fails, I lose an access point.

I've used the solution for a few years. 

The solution is stable and the performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

This is a good solution for small and medium-sized enterprises and not more than that. It might not scale to the needs of very large companies. 

We have up to 100 users at this time.

We will likely increase usage in the future.

I've never had any issues with the product and therefore have never contacted support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they would be. 

At a previous job, I did work with Cisco. It's hard to compare the two. Cisco is simply on a different level. 

While it can cause some problems in installation if you use a software controller, it's actually pretty easy. If you are familiar with the network protocols it is straightforward.

There's only one person that handles deployment and maintenance tasks. That's me. It's pretty low-maintenance. 

I can handle the initial setup myself. 

The solution is relatively cheap. I personally don't pay for the licensing and therefore can't speak to exact pricing. 

We are working with the latest version of the solution right now. 

If a company is looking for a low-cost option, I would recommend this product. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been pleased with its general capabilities overall.

We use the solution to connect our buildings and stations together.

I have found the most valuable features to be the ability to use the main centralized administration process and the internet.

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.

I have been using the solution for approximately 10 years.

One of the best features is that the solution sends you constant alarms when you have problems with the service organization. It is stable but could improve.

The scalability of the solution is good. Our clients are typically medium-size businesses. Our clients frequently tell us to install Aruba from HP, Cisco, or Juniper. They see this solution as best suited for small enterprises. We have to explain to them Ubiquiti is working on the security and stability of their wireless network.

Technical support is very poor, this is an area needing improvement. It is difficult to find someone qualified here in Latin America to have an answer to our problems. It can take up to three days for someone to come with a possible solution. We end up browsing the internet for solutions to our problems rather than waiting for support. 

The installation was not easy. The documentation was not straightforward and they were not complete. They need to improve on this. We had to navigate the internet to find solutions to many of our issues. There was not one place we could have all the information needed for the installation to go smoothly. The deployment took approximately three days.

We do the implementation of the solution. We use one technician and an engineer to do the maintenance and deployment of the solution. The typical time it takes is approximately one day to make an analysis of the information, find security risks, and make a solution.

This solution is cheaper compared to others.

Our clients have evaluated HP and Cisco solutions. They are really expensive. We have to find a solution that has a certain level of quality, that can monitor well, and has good security, this solution matches those needs.

I would recommend this solution. However, they need to work on support services.

I rate Ubiquiti Wireless an eight out of ten.

In my company, we use Ubiquiti Wireless since it is a very simple product that is very useful for the IT team in our company who manages our office network.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is a simple and useful tool that offers good performance.

The documentation and support provided by the solution areas of concern where improvements are required. If some error occurs in the solution, it is not easy to find a person to help you with the troubleshooting process, and moreover, the product doesn't have an online community website to help users.

I have been using Ubiquiti Wireless for a year. I am a customer of the product.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

In our company, twelve people use the product.

My company probably has plans to increase the usage of the product.

I have experience with Meraki.

The product's initial setup phase was easy.

The solution is deployed with the help of a router, switch, and Wi-Fi.

The solution can be deployed in an hour.

There is a professional person to handle this step-by-step process of setting up the device.

One person, who is the main engineer in our company, is required to take care of the deployment and maintenance processes of the product.

Ubiquiti Wireless is a cheaply priced product.

Ubiquiti Wireless requires a user to undergo a very easy setup phase, and it is a cheap product.

I rate the overall tool a ten out of ten.

We're primarily using the solution for WiFi access. It provides us with an access point for the network. The devices are controlled by a controller, and we can apply security policies via our network. This can help control end-users. 

The solution is very simple. The facility of the integration is great.

It allows us to offer policy control.

The solution works very well.

It's easy to set up.

Sometimes we have some micro breaks we do not know what causes them. Maybe it is based on the monitoring of the network, or maybe it is the architecture or the integration of the equipment. The stability could be improved. 

I've used the solution for a while. I'm not sure how long we've used it. It has likely been five years. 

The solution can be more stable. We have had some issues with micro-breaks which have affected connectivity. I'd rate the stability six out of ten.

It is a really scalable solution. 

We have around 100 end-users. Maybe 20 are using the network, with the rest on wireless.

We've never dealt with technical support in the past.

We did have an experience with Linksys. However, it was not a good solution. 

The initial setup is simple to set up. I did not take part in the process. However, I haven't heard of any issues. 

It takes about one hour to deploy and connect a node. It might take a month to set up a full network.

We have ten staff, including managers, that can assist with the deployment and maintenance. 

The operational team handles the setup. It's handled in-house. 

We are a small enterprise. We do not look at ROI. That said, most are working five years later.

We do not have a license. We just pay for the solution. 

We are using the latest version as we always upgrade the firmware. 

I'd recommend the solution.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.