What needs improvement with Ubiquiti Wireless?

One area of improvement could be the inclusion of conditional forwarding in the Dream Router. This feature would allow me to route certain domains through specific paths, which would be a helpful addition.

We face difficulties with Ubiquiti's supply chain because their products are usually out of stock. Ubiquiti Wireless does not have local support. Having local support is very important for installers or resellers, and they don't have it with Ubiquiti. We have to try to talk with somebody in Latin America for support, which is complicated.

The biggest downfall is 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.

The technical support services need improvement.

My company has to wait for a response from the product's support team. From an improvement perspective, the product's support team should be quicker to respond. As a reseller, it would be good if Ubiquiti Wireless could provide a global cross-customer portal where we can see all our installations in just one place. If my company has to connect with our customers for maintenance purposes, we can only connect with that specific customer. It would be good to have a portal in Ubiquiti Wireless, similar to what Trend Micro offers, in which, on just one interface, the company is able to see all the customers who use Trend Micro products, and with just one click, we can connect with a specific customer.

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.

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.

The accessibility to technical support could be better. We'd like to actually speak to a person without going through chat. We'd like real-time assistance when we are trying to resolve issues. With our configurations, the UX could be better. With Cisco, for example, there are certain things you can do that you just can't do on Ubiquiti. We'd like to be able to use COmmand Line instead of the UI.

We use a program that creates heat maps for our customers. I'm not sure if Ubiquiti has some features like that, but sometimes we only have a floor plan of the office and need to determine how many access points and which models to propose to the customer. In such cases, we use those programs from other vendors. We provide managed services, rent out the equipment and take care of the internal network support. Central monitoring is the main functionality that should be included in the product we offer to bigger customers. It could improve the quality of implementation, help in integration, and provide better metrics.

They have access points that are in the firewalls, and I believe the firewalls could be significantly better. They use the USG firewall, which I believe is a poor device. VPNs for example, it is really bad, it is difficult to configure, and I don't like them at all.

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.

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

Ubiquiti requires more improvement in wireless penetration. It has significantly less penetration in indoor devices. When it comes to indoor devices, Ubiquiti Wireless does not have penetration power, so when we deploy it in closed rooms, it fails to connect. This is one drawback that has to improve. When indoor access points failed to penetrate into rooms, we had to deploy single access points in each room, which seemed to be really costly. Still, when compared to Fortinet, it has an outdoor access point model also. The outdoor access point is relatively stable in comparison. The solution needs to offer more scalability. It does not have traffic shaping or traffic policies in its wireless requirements. We have to completely depend on an additional firewall for traffic shaping and policies.

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.

Ubiquiti Wireless could improve by being more user-friendly and easy to use.

The mesh configuration and WiFi 6 coverage should be improved.

The strength of the routers could be improved. When it comes to serious routing, the solution doesn't measure up to the big guys like Juniper and Cisco, but we don't expect it to.

Especially after the last year, we would prefer if there was an option to have complete cloud control and not local control. It's better to have something that's completely cloud-based. There isn't any technical support. There is only a forum where it is hard to get answers. If you buy one and you would like to extend the warranty, you don't have the possibility to extend the warranty. If the full warranty expires, if the Wi-Fi brakes, you must buy a new product.

The product makes upgrades too often. They are always changing things. It can be hard to keep up. We'd like them to improve aspects of device management. For us, for example, some of the access points are managed by a Ubiquiti controller, and others are managed by an AirMax controller.

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.

An area for improvement is availability - I sometimes have to wait weeks for their equipment.

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.

Occasionally the upgraded firmware causes errors. When they update the interface some features disappear. There are some outstanding security flaws. We had a security incident that forced us to re-evaluate our security posture, when we did, we were corporate mandated to stop using it.

The range and maybe the quality of the signal can be improved. I had a feeling that the range wasn't long enough. Unfortunately, beyond a certain range, the signal was too weak. If I'm not mistaken, it must have been something like 100 or more than 100 meters, but I'm not sure. So, one improvement I wish for this equipment is to have a longer range, but that could mainly be due to the model we're using. In Ubiquiti NanoStation, we have some problems with the reset button. The way the reset button is placed can be very uncomfortable. We lost some of our access points due to the fact that we eventually damaged the reset button. I would prefer a simpler reset button. There could be a kind of toggle button, but that's a matter of engineering.

How easy it is to install depends on the knowledge base of the person doing it. It can get a bit technical. I would prefer if the solution offered more integration capabilities.

We need an official distributor in Egypt as we don't have one right now. Also, integration with other platforms will be good.

The solution needs to improve its features and offer more to the customer. The integration capability needs to be a bit more robust. The active directory is where they could do some more work.

It would help if the product were more secure and the controller was more user-friendly.

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.

The cost could be lower.

There should be an easier way to contact the support. If we need to do something on it, it will be easier and faster if there is a support number to call. Currently, their support is mostly through email or chat. If there is a hotline that you can call directly, that would be good. It will really help a lot. They should also include more after-sales support. They can maybe also provide more details on what's happening with the network.

I would like to see more cloud features that some of the other competitors such as Cisco Meraki have that are very useful. In an upcoming release, I would like to see faster updates and advancements. Cisco product can show you all the traffic on the cloud, what kind of traffic, who is connected, and who disconnected. They have a lot of statistics, all the Mac addresses and IPs. You can see a lot of information. Additionally, It is very easy to find some specific equipment. For example, what port is connected and what others do not. If you also put some switches from Meraki, you also will have a lot more features, plenty of more. That is why it is expensive but it's the best definitely. This solution should take some of the beneficial features from those two solutions I mentioned and upgrade.

The stability can be problematic but in general, it is okay. Better security is important because we need to have some degree of control over who is connected and how we can restrict the level of connectivity. We have been catching people who are abusing their access. Extending the ranger further would be even better for us.

Tech support is mostly remote and could be better. When you need to get into certain different levels of configuration, you'll need to understand the network a little better. It can get a little complicated with their higher-end gear.

We have problems with conductivity with the product. When we move around the connection is not stable and drops off.

The roaming between the cells could be a bit improved. The solution should offer simpler management for guests. That would be helpful in the hospitality industry, for example.

In Ukraine at least, it's a problem when it comes to buying the hardware. For example, I made a request for 20 switches a few months ago. The solution needs to have worldwide availability. I want to get more experienced with switching hardware, however, I need more documentation in order to understand it. I don't know why they don't sell it like hardware for data centers. For example, I have a Juniper switch which costs $3,000. There's a similar Juniper switch-like item with the same characteristics and it costs $7,700. Marketing shows that it's only for offices and other stuff. For home, for office, but not for the data center. I don't know why.

The control system can be improved by making it easier. You should be able to install it on Linux, by default. It should be delivered with this option, rather than having to rely on something by a third-party.

I would like a better explanation or better documentation on how to use the onboard spectrum analyzer.

Obviously Ubiquiti wants to work with Ubiquiti. So if you are setting up any other third party product or any other different product, it sometimes can be a bit difficult. With Ubiquiti, you need to set up because you can adopt the product and that's it, where if it's not a Ubiquiti product it can sometimes be a difficult setup. It also depends on your network knowledge but it can be a difficult set up sometimes. For instance, not that you ever really do this, but if I've got somebody that comes to me and wants to go with UniFi as a switching solution but they have an existing Aruba wireless installation, you really need to know what you're doing to set up that kind of solution on Ubiquiti, on the switching. There's another setup protocol you can get by and it will definitely work. But there might be a different setup protocol these guys can actually look at to make that setup scenario a little bit easier.

They should have more VLAN features and a designing tool like a link planer. It has some dropbacks. It drops and we have to reboot it.

There's one feature that they're missing that's critical, and that is automatic channel assignment. RF channel assignment, which their current controller is not doing. Cisco has this but Ubiquiti doesn't. The only time the channel is reassigned is during reboot of the access point. But there's no dynamic channel management and power management of the Ubiquiti gear.

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.

They should make more advanced features for power users. I am a technician and I am functional, but I do need some features that I find only in Microsoft. I cannot find them in Ubiquiti. This is a very important point because although the user experience is very easy, it lacks many features that can be found in Cisco and Microsoft. Basically, Ubiquiti is a great product for beginners or home users. If you are a really proficient user, on the other hand, you will need more features. In that case, you would want Ubiquity to add more features. I think they should improve their firmware. They should make it more like Microsoft, with more features and they should make it as stable as Cisco IOS. I miss this very much because if I have a professional friend and he wants my advice about which router to use, in some cases he will need advanced features. If you want to make something for YouTube, for example, only Cisco or Microsoft will do. If they add those features, they still should not increase the price. Microsoft has had some serious issues with the same price as Ubiquiti. If the difference is small, like only 5%, it's not an issue.

In terms of what could be improved in the product, I would have to say security features are lacking. I'm not saying it's easy to hack or not very secure, but when I compare it to the Cisco Meraki solution I use at work, there are a lot of features missing. For example, you can't use antivirus protection and spam filters. For sure it's secure but there are some enterprise features missing. Another issue is that unwanted traffic passes through the firewall with Ubiquiti Wireless, whereas with Cisco Meraki there is an access control list that enables traffic to be stopped. I'm using the AP PRO which I don't think is the latest version and it doesn't support WiFi 6 and other things but it's Dual-Radio with a 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz frequency band.

Some of our customers have reported problems with their outdoor WiFi connections.

Looking at future usage as in self-steering cars and drones should be part of Ubiquiti. For now, it's too early. But this can be an important function to add. SSID (Service Set Identifier) is also something that is important looking into the future. I'm not sure if those are all of the things that can be improved because everything changes constantly in technology. It could be one of the most advanced products in the industry if it incorporated these things. There are issues with government usage and other security issues. These have to be addressed for the future.

We tried to create an access point with built-in voice and sound that we could use in schools, for example. We tried to create something that could play sounds or messages out of the access points. We wanted to, for example, use it as a school bell instead of using other equipment. It didn't work very well. It turns out when you connect to the Ubiquiti Wireless access point, it's not possible to send simple messages (like what is going on in the canteen, or some news update for the school, etc.). We had to use the on-premises version, as the cloud version wouldn't allow for this. Ubiquiti has a lot of cool features but not everything is included in the management portal. I'd like to see a bit more added, like sound messages and the camera system. They should be part of the management platform and not part of a standalone system.