There is room for improvement in providing the flexibility to change the default management VLAN from VLAN one to another for enhanced security. Most organizations prefer not to use VLAN one for security reasons, and Ubiquiti could improve in this aspect.
Big networks with more than 80 access points are a problem. The network controller stops sometimes, and I think it's because of the high number of access points.
Radio Frequency Engineer | Wireless Solutions Designer at Optace Networks
Reseller
Top 5
2024-04-19T07:26:25Z
Apr 19, 2024
The product's area of concern revolves around its lack of support. With the tool, you cannot do an RMA. My company has never seen a Ubiquiti representative visit our premises. Once you buy the tool, you are on your own.
There are some issues with specific products like airFiber and SIBAP. However, UniFi, EdgeMAX, and UniFi Protect offer more organic potential for addressing concerns like lightning strikes and optimizing WLAN installations in high-voltage regions. Despite competition in the market, there's uncertainty about the efficacy of these devices, particularly in terms of licensing.
Director of Solutions and Alliances at a tech services company with 1-10 employees
Real User
Top 5
2023-11-03T21:08:31Z
Nov 3, 2023
The app and software should be more reliable. When we compare other solutions in the market, they seem more stable. When we talk about management, Ubiquiti's efficiency is not as good as other solutions in the market. It would be good to see some cloud management features in future releases.
The room for improvement is in the controller levels. We have the Cloud Key, but it goes offline most of the time, and we have to unplug and plug it back in again before it comes online. Using the web controller was much better than using the Cloud Key. However, maybe by now, they've made changes, but that was one of our challenges and why we decided to move away from Ubiquiti.
Ubiquiti WLAN's features need improvement for enterprises compared to other vendors. Its scalability, UI, and security features could be better. The product should have features similar to Cisco in terms of R and D for environments. Additionally, they should introduce certification programs for people to learn more about it.
Huawei Enterprise Product Manager at a manufacturing company with 11-50 employees
Reseller
Top 20
2023-05-03T19:47:00Z
May 3, 2023
In my opinion, Ubiquiti has made significant improvements, but there is still room for growth in certain areas. While I believe that Ubiquiti is an excellent brand and offers high-quality devices, I think they could enhance their products by integrating cloud access into each device. This would eliminate the need for separate devices, such as a cloud key, to ensure access through the cloud. For instance, individuals who cannot afford a UDM and want to control their devices from Nextiva are forced to buy additional devices from other brands that have this built-in option. I believe Ubiquiti can improve in this aspect and find a way to integrate cloud access into their devices.
IT Infrastructure Engineer at Digiata Technology Services
Real User
Top 20
2023-04-19T09:45:00Z
Apr 19, 2023
They should improve the solution's online console. Also, they should work on making its AP features stable. Presently, it reboots whenever we make any changes.
Ubiquiti WLAN would be improved with the addition of individual AP configuration, which would allow for fine-tuning of individual access points and logins. There are also occasional issues with syncing the controller software.
I cannot recall coming across any missing features. It already has so many to work with. When I started to upgrade, the controller for Unbuntu was really struggling to start up, however, that has since been solved.
General Manager at a tech services company with 1-10 employees
Real User
2022-04-05T19:30:06Z
Apr 5, 2022
I'm just looking around, as I take over the position in the company. I haven't evaluated the different solutions in detail. I need more time to see if there are items I do not like. The statistics you can get on it are a bit limited from what I have seen so far.
System & Network Administrator at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
2022-01-24T11:20:27Z
Jan 24, 2022
The stability isn't so good. I didn't find it very stable due to the fact that we have had troubles with them every once in a while. The main problem we encounter is that sometimes when we struggle, it's due to the fact that the equipment is always looking for the controller. When the controller is not there, not detectable, the equipment is unavailable, and the connection is not available. When that happens, the users are complaining. There seems to be a drop in service sometimes. It's definitely a reliability or stability issue we face.
Network Communication Solutions Manager at IT Solutions NV
Reseller
2021-11-03T19:09:33Z
Nov 3, 2021
Ubiquiti lacks troubleshooting tools. For example, there aren't tools that your clients can use to gather input on the AP itself. There's no visibility in the application layer or reporting. It doesn't have a lot of management features.
Infrastructure Manager at a energy/utilities company with 201-500 employees
Real User
2021-09-13T23:30:51Z
Sep 13, 2021
For me there is little room for improvement on my scenario, I have never used cloud solutions or had a glance on it. The improvement I see right now as a good feature is firmware related, if I were able to re-firmware my legacy/old Ubiquiti AP's with a generic new firmware, this would definitely extend the life-cycle of my older assets that still work smoothly, It would allow me to avoid some hardware expenses within years and keep my environment up-to-date. Another nice improvement for this would be a seamless integration with PowerBi from Microsoft to generate dashboards and aggregate the info on Infrastructure reports easier.
Room for improvement could likely happen in small areas. Largely we're happy with the product, however, the firmware deployments could maybe be managed a little bit differently. I would like it if there was a better way of integrating the hotspot manager into payment gateways. When you run a desk metric, it would be nice to have integration into payment gateways so people can buy bandwidth themselves, on your wireless network.
Senior Manager Infrastructure at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
2021-02-04T06:15:06Z
Feb 4, 2021
The support needs improvement. The official support is kind of complex. It's not that straightforward compared to Cisco and Aruba. Their support is probably so much better. That's one of the reasons I'm looking for an alternative solution. You may find a lack of features compared to Cisco, or other options. For example, on Cisco or Aruba you've been able to find the Wi-Fi 6 access point for a long time now. If you have set up a new solution, you probably will look for something with Wi-Fi 6 coverage. Ubiquiti at that point didn't have it. Now they have it. I checked their website and they do have Wi-Fi 6 support. However, it's clear that they are behind on some pretty standard aspects. If you're talking about enterprise-level coverage, you likely have many locations. Ubiquiti can handle this, however, it's a bit complicated. To compare another solution, Meraki cloud has a cloud controller. Ubiquiti has a cloud controller, however, it requires some other stuff and probably an appliance that you need to have in order to have this centralized solution control. Cisco is more straightforward and easier to manage at this point. If you were to compare solutions in general, Cisco is a step forward. Again, there are no big differences. It's just these minor details. However, overall, it makes a difference, depending on your requirements. When I started to compare other solutions it was due to the fact that I do have technical issues with this product. There seems to be interference between the channels of the solutions. What I was told is that Ubiquiti can set up the channels automatically in order to avoid interference between channels, especially on 2.4 large coverage. That's fine, however, I heard that Cisco, for example, does have the option to do it automatically for APs. If there's a conflict between channels, and interferences become a big issue on your network, they will automatically adjust. That feature is not available on Ubiquiti. That is probably one of the reasons why I do have some technical issues regarding the overall experience.
The downside is the interface changes, where they are constantly doing firmware updates. I often felt like I was being pushed into updates, in spite of it already working. In my mind, it also raises a red flag because you have to wonder why they keep changing the firmware. You can decide to ignore the update, but then if you move the access point then it will update automatically anyway. This is a little bit of control that you give up. So, while it is easy to deploy, all of these things that happen in the background make me uncomfortable.
System & Network Administrator at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
2020-06-03T06:54:49Z
Jun 3, 2020
This is not a simple solution like you might find with other vendors. There could be some improvement with the updates and it requires a special environment to manage the Ubiquiti device. You cannot manage a device without the environment. You need to understand the architecture, the environment, and the management of the device which is somewhat complicated. It's not something that anyone can do. Another issue is that there's no option to take another device, say a second PC or a mobile phone, and try to manage the environment. It's only the initial device that can be used and you need to continue with that. If you wish to change a device, it requires reconfiguration from scratch. I think this is a negative in the solution. Even with this issue it's still a good solution.
UniFi is a revolutionary Wi-Fi system that combines Enterprise performance, unlimited scalability, a central management controller and disruptive pricing.
There is room for improvement in providing the flexibility to change the default management VLAN from VLAN one to another for enhanced security. Most organizations prefer not to use VLAN one for security reasons, and Ubiquiti could improve in this aspect.
The product could be improved with more extensive documentation or resources for network engineers.
Big networks with more than 80 access points are a problem. The network controller stops sometimes, and I think it's because of the high number of access points.
The solution should support a larger bandwidth or distance between the access points and the main stations.
The product's area of concern revolves around its lack of support. With the tool, you cannot do an RMA. My company has never seen a Ubiquiti representative visit our premises. Once you buy the tool, you are on your own.
There are some issues with specific products like airFiber and SIBAP. However, UniFi, EdgeMAX, and UniFi Protect offer more organic potential for addressing concerns like lightning strikes and optimizing WLAN installations in high-voltage regions. Despite competition in the market, there's uncertainty about the efficacy of these devices, particularly in terms of licensing.
The product must provide better warranties.
Ubiquiti WLAN needs to expand the models with external antennas. It needs to improve stability.
The app and software should be more reliable. When we compare other solutions in the market, they seem more stable. When we talk about management, Ubiquiti's efficiency is not as good as other solutions in the market. It would be good to see some cloud management features in future releases.
The room for improvement is in the controller levels. We have the Cloud Key, but it goes offline most of the time, and we have to unplug and plug it back in again before it comes online. Using the web controller was much better than using the Cloud Key. However, maybe by now, they've made changes, but that was one of our challenges and why we decided to move away from Ubiquiti.
Ubiquiti WLAN's features need improvement for enterprises compared to other vendors. Its scalability, UI, and security features could be better. The product should have features similar to Cisco in terms of R and D for environments. Additionally, they should introduce certification programs for people to learn more about it.
The product’s bandwidth could be better.
The solution needs to improve robustness, security, and stability.
In my opinion, Ubiquiti has made significant improvements, but there is still room for growth in certain areas. While I believe that Ubiquiti is an excellent brand and offers high-quality devices, I think they could enhance their products by integrating cloud access into each device. This would eliminate the need for separate devices, such as a cloud key, to ensure access through the cloud. For instance, individuals who cannot afford a UDM and want to control their devices from Nextiva are forced to buy additional devices from other brands that have this built-in option. I believe Ubiquiti can improve in this aspect and find a way to integrate cloud access into their devices.
They should improve the solution's online console. Also, they should work on making its AP features stable. Presently, it reboots whenever we make any changes.
Ubiquiti WLAN would be improved with the addition of individual AP configuration, which would allow for fine-tuning of individual access points and logins. There are also occasional issues with syncing the controller software.
Ubiquiti WLAN only supports 2.4GHz Wi-Fi radio and would be improved by including support for 5GHz.
I cannot recall coming across any missing features. It already has so many to work with. When I started to upgrade, the controller for Unbuntu was really struggling to start up, however, that has since been solved.
I'm just looking around, as I take over the position in the company. I haven't evaluated the different solutions in detail. I need more time to see if there are items I do not like. The statistics you can get on it are a bit limited from what I have seen so far.
The stability isn't so good. I didn't find it very stable due to the fact that we have had troubles with them every once in a while. The main problem we encounter is that sometimes when we struggle, it's due to the fact that the equipment is always looking for the controller. When the controller is not there, not detectable, the equipment is unavailable, and the connection is not available. When that happens, the users are complaining. There seems to be a drop in service sometimes. It's definitely a reliability or stability issue we face.
Ubiquiti lacks troubleshooting tools. For example, there aren't tools that your clients can use to gather input on the AP itself. There's no visibility in the application layer or reporting. It doesn't have a lot of management features.
For me there is little room for improvement on my scenario, I have never used cloud solutions or had a glance on it. The improvement I see right now as a good feature is firmware related, if I were able to re-firmware my legacy/old Ubiquiti AP's with a generic new firmware, this would definitely extend the life-cycle of my older assets that still work smoothly, It would allow me to avoid some hardware expenses within years and keep my environment up-to-date. Another nice improvement for this would be a seamless integration with PowerBi from Microsoft to generate dashboards and aggregate the info on Infrastructure reports easier.
The new user interface could be improved - some of the features in the old UI are missing in the new UI.
I think the coverage could be increased.
Room for improvement could likely happen in small areas. Largely we're happy with the product, however, the firmware deployments could maybe be managed a little bit differently. I would like it if there was a better way of integrating the hotspot manager into payment gateways. When you run a desk metric, it would be nice to have integration into payment gateways so people can buy bandwidth themselves, on your wireless network.
The support needs improvement. The official support is kind of complex. It's not that straightforward compared to Cisco and Aruba. Their support is probably so much better. That's one of the reasons I'm looking for an alternative solution. You may find a lack of features compared to Cisco, or other options. For example, on Cisco or Aruba you've been able to find the Wi-Fi 6 access point for a long time now. If you have set up a new solution, you probably will look for something with Wi-Fi 6 coverage. Ubiquiti at that point didn't have it. Now they have it. I checked their website and they do have Wi-Fi 6 support. However, it's clear that they are behind on some pretty standard aspects. If you're talking about enterprise-level coverage, you likely have many locations. Ubiquiti can handle this, however, it's a bit complicated. To compare another solution, Meraki cloud has a cloud controller. Ubiquiti has a cloud controller, however, it requires some other stuff and probably an appliance that you need to have in order to have this centralized solution control. Cisco is more straightforward and easier to manage at this point. If you were to compare solutions in general, Cisco is a step forward. Again, there are no big differences. It's just these minor details. However, overall, it makes a difference, depending on your requirements. When I started to compare other solutions it was due to the fact that I do have technical issues with this product. There seems to be interference between the channels of the solutions. What I was told is that Ubiquiti can set up the channels automatically in order to avoid interference between channels, especially on 2.4 large coverage. That's fine, however, I heard that Cisco, for example, does have the option to do it automatically for APs. If there's a conflict between channels, and interferences become a big issue on your network, they will automatically adjust. That feature is not available on Ubiquiti. That is probably one of the reasons why I do have some technical issues regarding the overall experience.
There are some connectivity issues that need to be resolved. Additionally, the frequency has to be improved.
The downside is the interface changes, where they are constantly doing firmware updates. I often felt like I was being pushed into updates, in spite of it already working. In my mind, it also raises a red flag because you have to wonder why they keep changing the firmware. You can decide to ignore the update, but then if you move the access point then it will update automatically anyway. This is a little bit of control that you give up. So, while it is easy to deploy, all of these things that happen in the background make me uncomfortable.
This is not a simple solution like you might find with other vendors. There could be some improvement with the updates and it requires a special environment to manage the Ubiquiti device. You cannot manage a device without the environment. You need to understand the architecture, the environment, and the management of the device which is somewhat complicated. It's not something that anyone can do. Another issue is that there's no option to take another device, say a second PC or a mobile phone, and try to manage the environment. It's only the initial device that can be used and you need to continue with that. If you wish to change a device, it requires reconfiguration from scratch. I think this is a negative in the solution. Even with this issue it's still a good solution.
The strength of the signal from the access points could be improved.