AirCheck G3 Reviews

We are using G2, which is the generation two solution. It hasn't changed since we got it. Other than a few software updates, it hasn't really changed.

We use it to collect data for our Wi-Fi systems. We collect the data, and we push it up to Link-Live, and then we pull the data down and review it for any remote problems or troubleshooting assistance. We have a number of these units. We've got close to eight or nine of them that are out in the field. They're basically used by our technician staff to do that data collection for us.

We also have one for engineering so that we can take it on trips to get a better real-time view of the wireless system activity in an area.

When we do the real-time items, we're just using the data as a real-time tool. When we use Link-Live, it is going to the Link-Live Cloud, which can be called NetAlly's private cloud. It is within an account that we have visibility into. So, it is like a hosted private cloud. It is not publicly available.

We have a multiple office situation in our company where we have very geographically dispersed offices. It has allowed us to centralize some of our troubleshooting people because we can collect data remotely and more efficiently.

It allows our remote site personnel to collect data if they have a problem. They can then push it up. It goes up to the Link-Live portal, and we can then have visibility into it. We can look at the data with their portal, or we can download it to our computer, which is what I like to do, and then use AirMagnet to open and review the data. It allows us to do remote troubleshooting. It allows us to do remote Site Survey assistance, and in real-time, it helps us to do interference detection and find out who's running what in a certain area.

When we're collecting the data, we're using the AirMapper Site Survey feature. It is pretty easy to use. It is pretty straightforward. I can talk to a technician who is out in the field. I have a one-page write-up that they just follow. When they do it one or two times, it is pretty easy. It is fairly intuitive.

AirMapper Site Survey gathers the data I need. It does everything I need it for. I'd rate it a ten out of ten in terms of the ability to gather Wi-Fi site survey data.

We use phone apps a lot. We have a few different ones that we use, but phone apps only give you limited information, and because they are apps, our security posture is different on them. They give us some basic information, but they do not give as much detail as compared to what we get out of AirCheck.

The ability to push data to Link-Live is really important. On the main screen, you can see all the system parameters, and then you can also go and see all the current systems that are operating. They all have different SSIDs or system identifiers, and you can see all SSIDs that are operating in a certain area. Being able to see that and being able to dive into each one and figure out what frequency it is operating under is valuable.

It is a cloud-based service. I like the fact that our remote site personnel can push things to the cloud, and I can pull them down. Before all these cloud services, things were not as convenient. I like the convenience of being able to do that for the way I'm using this tool.

We use these out in the field, and because they're not allowed on our network, we usually have to have the person take them home and provide backhaul to them. In other words, they are not allowed through our firewalls to dump the data. So, we have to have them go to a separate wired network to dump the data. There could be an option to put an LTE and have a phone engine in it so that you can buy a SIM card for it and have it use cellular to download the data. That is something that would be nice to have. That's a little kink in this system right now. Other than using the Ethernet port to download data, it'd be nice if we could use either LTE or some other way to get the data that was collected by AirCheck G2 to our Link-Live portal. That's because our corporate network will not allow them to pass the data through. We do have a special place we can tell them to go and get it, but it is just that when they're out remotely in the field, they typically have to take it home and do it from their home computer.

My biggest complaint about it is that I wish it was cheaper. It would be nice if its cost was less because we would like to buy a few more. We're an international company. We have some in the US, and some in certain other countries that we could export to. There are a few other countries where we need to go through export control to send them, which is a problem. If they want to scale their product globally, it would be nicer if they have all the import-export items worked out or have good resellers in each country because there are certain places where we cannot buy the unit. They don't sell it there, and it is not allowed for importation because of its approval. That's why we haven't deployed it in some of these other places, and we're going through alternatives for importation.

We first got an AirCheck back in 2018. It was the first set we bought. So, that'd be four years.

We have never had an issue with it. It is very stable.

It is a hardware solution, which means you physically have to have a device. It is on par with other hardware solutions. It is not a software solution. That's why I wish it was a little less expensive because then I could buy more of them. If its cost was less, it would be more convenient. Because it is a hardware solution, it is okay, but it is not as scalable as we'd like. By design, it is only going to be about so good. So, we accept it.

I have bought ten of them, and nine of them are in use. One is for our lab, and the other eight are out in the field. Our engineers and technicians use it.

For this device, I've had to call only once or twice. I didn't have any problem with support. We have an enterprise support account with NetAlly. So, we have a number. Their support has been really good. We haven't had a lot of need for it, but we have them under support.

I would rate them a nine out of ten. In the old days, they published a lot of phone numbers globally, which was really convenient. Now, I have to dig out the information if I'm out of the area or out of the country. I do travel internationally, and sometimes, I try to go online and get somebody, and then I try to call them. That's why I wouldn't give them a ten.

Positive

It was straightforward. I set up a bunch of units, and it didn't take me long for the first one, and then the rest were really a snap. It was pretty easy.

We don't buy it directly from them. We bought it through a reseller. We use a company called Anixter. They're great. They're always good.

In terms of deploying it, we did it internally ourselves. We have a managed contractor who works for us. He helps in deploying it for us, but it is not like a separate company where I put them in a box and mail them to him, and he fixes them. His desk is near my desk, and I just say that here they are, and let's get these put online. He mails them out to the people in the field who work for us.

Within a year, they justify their expense if you're using them efficiently. We have had two of them since 2018, and we've seen a return on investment with those. We bought some in December, and then we bought some in March. That's the other eight for this new global deployment. We are starting to see a return. By the end of this year, we could justify the entire cost.

It does save time for the people who need to use it. It does help us solve problems faster because we deploy it in places where we don't have somebody who can do the work. If we didn't have the AirCheck G2 units, we would have to send somebody out to these sites who had the right toolset, or we would have to mail a unit to somebody who was less experienced with it, and they would have to use it. By buying these units, we're proactive and ready for issues, and we're able to solve them quicker. Because we're able to solve them quicker, it creates a better return on our investment.

We also use AirMagnet, which is software. You put it on your PC, and you can run it with Wi-Fi adapters. It basically puts a similar analytics engine onto your laptop, and that's what I use. I don't use G2s as much because when I have a Cadillac, why would I want to drive a Chevy. That costs more money than AirCheck. These other ones are good and convenient in certain cases. Because we don't provide our field people with a company PC, we can't give them our licensed software. This is a lower-cost way of giving them similar functionality and having them help out in the field.

It costs $3,000. It would be nice if its cost was less. I could then buy more. Currently, when we buy one, we make sure that where we need it is big enough, or if it is too small, when a person has a job, they have to get a temporary one mailed to them to use, which becomes a little less convenient. 

It is not cheap, but it does everything you're going to need to have done. We're a customer because it is a well-performing device that we can give our people in the field. They feel comfortable with it, and they don't dread using it. It is very reliable, and it is consistent. We like it, but it is not cheap. 

I wish it was cheaper. There are some free apps that give me one or two things. I run about three different apps that I can use for some Wi-Fi data, but it is still on my phone. I can't put an external antenna to it. It is RF data, and the RF performance of phones is very much impacted by how you have your hand on the antenna, etc. There is a lot of variability in readings. The readings are more repeatable with AirCheck, and I get better and more consistent data, which is important.

There are the support fees that you need to pay, or you should pay. We do an enterprise support agreement. So, we get a pretty good deal, but some of the support models are just overpriced nowadays. Companies want to make so much on support. With some network devices, you go on the site, and they have a download. You just download it and put it on your device, and you're done with it. You pay one price, and you're done. With them, they are always putting their hand in your pocket for a download, but you buy three years at once. We pay just a few hundred dollars a year per device. It keeps us in compliance with our own internal processes. So, it is worth it, and we just pay for it.

We didn't really evaluate anything else. There was another product. They were the legacy Fluke Networks. They made a lot of Ethernet testers and some other things over the years. They've always had a good reputation, but we didn't really evaluate it. 

We got a demo of the first AirCheck unit we bought, and we liked it. They made us a deal, and we bought a couple. That's what started us. We bought a couple of other batches of them. We bought two, and then we bought five, and then we bought three. When we bought five, they made us a deal on five, and we didn't really want to change. The price was competitive with others that had as many features. In a big company, sometimes the cheapest one costs you more money in other things. This was the lowest cost one for us. That doesn't mean that I don't want it to be cheaper. The only reason I bought five instead of ten is that it was $3,000. If it was $2,000, I probably would've got ten of these, but I'm happy with them because they do everything we need. As a product, it is a variant of another product that was always really well-respected. So, there was no thought that it wouldn't be good, and they have lived up to that expectation.

I would advise focusing on whether it meets your needs, and if it does, I wouldn't hesitate to buy it. 

We don't use its one-button AutoTest feature to identify common problems. We also usually don't use AirMapper Site Survey's ability to create heat maps in the vendor's Link-Live Cloud service. We export it to AirMagnet and use AirMagnet to do it. If I was using it without AirMagnet, it would be a feature that would be nice, but because I have AirMagnet, I do it on my computer. It uses the same software. One is doing it on a dashboard, and the other one is doing it on your computer, and I like to bring it into the computing environment.

It hasn't reduced troubleshooting time. It still takes the same amount of time. It is just that they've made it more convenient. It also hasn't enabled us to replace multiple other tools to find the same information. 

I'd rate it a nine out of ten because of the cost. If it was cheaper, it would easily be a ten. I'm a fan of it. We wouldn't have bought $30,000 worth of this product if we didn't think it was good. We tested it. The AirMagnet series of products and these handhelds as well as their software come from a very well-known and respected name. Since purchasing them, NetAlly has done a better job in keeping that image and tradition alive by standing behind this product. I'm very happy with it.

I use AirCheck to track down rogue devices connecting to my access point.

The airCheck is the real-time spectrum analyzer to see clients that could be connecting to our network, not just rogue networks out there, but rogue clients and other interference in that particular spectrum.

The solution doesn't have much functional information online. Most of the information online is regurgitated from marketing brochures. I purchased the solution for a job and sold it afterward because it is expensive.

The AirCheck is no longer available and its software is not updated for current use. Additionally, it is not compatible with Macintosh and must be run on an emulator to access the outdated Windows software. Since Fluke sold all its intellectual property to NetAlly, there is no longer any support for the original Fluke AirCheck, which further influenced the decision to discontinue it. Going forward, I would attempt to buy the newer NetAlly product.

I have been using the solution for a couple of months.

The solution is stable.

The upfront cost of the solution is around $4,000. This cost does not include service contracts for support.

I give the solution a ten out of ten.

New users should consider purchasing the latest edition. The outdated models lack the latest Wi-Fi band, rendering them a poor investment. I made the mistake of buying an outdated version on eBay for $500, which I only used for a single project. I eventually had to resell it since it was incompatible with the new Wi-Fi band that emerged in the past five years. Hence, it is advisable to invest in the new version.

I work in the wireless team in the HQ, we don't visit the sites. We mainly provide remote support, design and validation. We bought the G2 to understand how the new functionality work (we already had the previous generation Aircheck) and to train our implementation and support teams to troubleshoot with it whenever there is an issue.

Right after buying  the tester, we created a guide for our internal use, and then I distributed the guide to our support engineers. Now, they have their own G2 testers and, whenever in the field, they follow my guide and  troubleshoot the issue while I can see the test report in Link-Live cloud portal and evaluate the results remotely. We currently have four devices. Each device is assigned to a support team, and each support team has five or six people.

Generally, the most common issue we encounter is an access point going down, meaning no coverage. Some of our sites have also specialised IoT devices that are very sensitive to interference on 5GHz channels so, being able to see the interferers on the G2 is a massive help.

With a laptop, you need to install different software packages and not all such software gives you the same information as the G2; you need more than one software solution to match the same capabilities. With the Aircheck, you go and you have everything in one device.

For example you need a packet capture software (and dedicated hardware if you don't have a Macbook) and something for signal strength. With the G2, you have a lot of tools in one package. Not to mention that you can connect the G2 to a wired port and conduct a basic cable test. We were using at least two or three other tools to identify issues before we had the G2. While having one tool instead of many hasn't really affected our cost of troubleshooting, because many other tools are free, the time and the complexity have been greatly reduced for sure.

You don't need to be an expert to use the tool. A person who is not an expert in WiFi might not know the meaning of signal strength and what is a good value or a bad value. With AutoTest you have a very simplified view. This is fantastic because, while the support guys might not be able to resolve the issue, they can at least point more senior people in the right direction. And that saves a lot of time.

It's very good that everything is saved in the cloud. You have historical data and you can and say, "Okay, well on that day we had this issue and today it's this other issue." You can identify a trend.

And it has reduced troubleshooting time by 50 percent.  I can definitely see an advantage with it.

I use it sometimes when I want to quickly see the MAC address of a wireless client. With the AirCheck, it is really a 30-second job. If I had to do it with a laptop, it would take at least five minutes. You can pinpoint a particular client and see which access point it is connected to. You can do a packet capture. You can do a lot of stuff. Everything is linked and that's very good. If I had to do it the old-fashioned way, I would need software to find the MAC address, then log in into the controller, see which access point it is connected to, then do a packet capture with different software. It would be a much longer process. The AirCheck has definitely made me more productive.

I like everything in the G2. Compared to the old AirCheck it is a massive step forward. I like the cloud functionality. That's very useful because somebody can go onsite, someone who is not really skilled, and I can see the test results from the office. This is my favorite function. 

I also like the remote session and the ability to log in to the device remotely. You can log in to the tester with your computer and can see the screen and operate the tester remotely. This is a very cool function, but it's very advanced. And I think you need to be connected with a cable to do that. But it is still a very good function because you can give the tester to level-one support guys and, even if they are not wireless experts, in the worst case, you can operate the tester remotely from the office.

I also like the packet capture functionality. It's very good. While you are onsite and troubleshooting the signal, you can identify a particular client and start a packet capture. And you can download the packet capture from the cloud; that's a new development. Before, you had to download it manually. Now it's on the cloud as well.

The solution’s one-button AutoTest feature to identify common problems is good. 

With the solution’s one-button AutoTest feature, not all the information is particularly useful. It could be improved with a bit of artificial intelligence saying, "Okay, the G2 sees this problem, maybe this could be the issue," and it would give some suggestions. Right now, when you do the AutoTest you get a bunch of data, but you still have to do some analysis. If you look at some wireless vendors, when there is a problem they give you serious correlation possibilities. For instance, if there is a low signal, it might be due to this or that. You have an idea of where to start your troubleshooting.

Additionally, it would be a huge boost if the AirCheck could be used for site surveys, a bit like the Ekahau Sidekick. I think this feature is coming, but -in general- more functionality towards surveying (for example turn the G2 in a survey access point) would be useful.

Also, we use 802.1x authentication for the corporate network so, to onboard the G2 I need to download the certificate onto the device. It would be nice to have this functionality through the cloud as well. Right now, you need to do it through the software (windows only) by connecting your laptop physically to the AirCheck. This is one aspect that could be improved. Lastly, many companies are worried about the security of data in the cloud and SSO through API integration is the norm today. I found Link-Live API support it a bit lacking on this side. So far, we haven't been able to integrate it into our single sign-on procedure.

I have been using AirCheck G2 for one year. 

We bought it a year ago and then we required our support team to buy it as well as part of their standard toolset, so it's still kind of new in terms of our usage. They haven't explored all the functionalities of the tester yet. It has a lot of potential, but it is still not used 100 percent.

I haven't had any issues so far. It's always been super reliable.

It probably could be scalable, but that would be a strategic decision of the vendor. I guess some features are locked and it depends on the firmware release. I think the device can do more, hardware-wise. It could be that they are testing new features before releasing them. Potentially, it is scalable, but not massively scalable, otherwise people wouldn't buy the bigger brothers, the OneTouch or the EtherScope.

I haven't dealt much with the technical support. The tester has been reliable.

I have only enquired once about API integration and they did reply quite fast. During the transition when NetAlly took over Netscout there was a bit of delay with support responses. Now, it should be fine.

We had the old AirCheck, the one from Fluke Networks. But the G2 is a huge move forward. 

If you know what you're doing, it's not that difficult. If you don't know about certificates and advanced wireless stuff, it can be a bit difficult.

Less experienced users might need guidance in order to take full advantage of the tool, that's why I created a step-by-step guide for our internal use.

It would be good to have a series of tutorials, some videos, and a properly structured course. If you work in the field, you don't have time to read a PDF guide.  A series of videos "from A to Z", to explore all the menus, sub menus, and use cases, would be useful. It is especially important to explain  how to read the results. For example, what does it mean that this device has this signal rather than that signal? What are the implications?

We did everything in house.

For a big company, there is a slower return of investment because, in a big company, it doesn't really matter. At $2,500, it is no big deal. For a consultant, it is a huge value because your time is money. It sounds like a paradox, but -in my opinion- for a smaller company there is a better return on investment than for a big company.

In a big company, if there is an issue with the WiFi, the support team can work on that ticket for one week as priorities changes all the time. So if it takes a week or, say, three days to solve an issue, it might go unnoticed in some companies. In big environments time is stretched somehow.  But for a small company with limited man power, time is everything. You show up on a site and troubleshoot issues very quickly. You could finish the job in one hour instead of three hours and move to the next customer. It's a massive return on investment.

It is a bit expensive, to be honest. For a big company it's not a big deal. But for a small firms, like a wireless consultant or small IT support company, it is hugely expensive and that's a shame because it is a fantastic tool. 

Netally have a unique position in this market so I guess they can do whatever they want. Fair enough.

Because I work in a big company, it is a no-brainer. The yearly maintenance fee is okay; if I were a consultant, I would still buy it, but it would be a huge investment. Overall, it's a good tool to have. 

We tested something from JDSU, which is slightly different. Really, there is nothing on the market like the G2 (apart from other more expensive testers from the same company).

I have learned that I can use G2 for more than I thought. Initially I thought, "Okay, I can go and check the coverage." But actually, there are so many things you can use it for. Sometimes you quickly need the MAC address of a wireless client. You take the G2 and you see that straight away. That's one of my favorite things. It's like having a multi-tool. We often use it for quickly finding information while we are doing other tasks, things that are not necessarily support. Suppose we are testing a new access point and it is mounted on the ceiling and we need to get its MAC address quickly. It's quicker to look at the G2 than to log in the controller (or use a software scanner) and find the MAC address.

We also bought the LinkRunner testers and we use them a lot. I was also looking at the OneTouch because at one point I was approached by a vendor that was offering a massive discount (it was going end-of-life) and it was a very attractive  price. The OneTouch, from a wireless perspective, does more or less the same thing as the G2; I couldn't justify this expense to my manager.

As far as maintenance of the G2 goes, it's very easy. You don't need to know anything, other than checking for software upgrades. I believe you still need a laptop to upgrade the firmware, unless they've changed something recently. 

Mostly, this is a WiFi analyzer. I get a report from an end user saying, "Hey, I'm in my office, and the WiFi isn't working." What's complicated about that is it could be the person's laptop or their phone. It could also be the wireless infrastructure or they tried to get to some website that just happens to be down and are confusing the fact that www.company.com is down with local WiFi behavior. 

What this tool allows me to do is walk up to their office, sit next to them, and turn on the tool, then I've programmed it to do some basic checks. If it succeeds, all lights are green, then I know that it's an issue with their laptop or phone. On the other hand, if my tool has trouble connecting to the WiFi infrastructure, I know immediately that I have problems with the wireless access points or whatever constitutes the infrastructure. Therefore, the tool helps me rapidly narrow the fault domain: Is it the client's device, the infrastructure, or the remote server?

A common problem in rented buildings is that folks with a little WiFI knowledge, either the manufacturers of the (low-end) WiFi AP or the local IT staff, will change the default channels of their APs to something off the base frequencies. This is a problem for everybody:  once you understand how WiFi works, you don't do this. However, it is a common error. AutoTest picks up this error immediately and helps inform me how I might go around troubleshooting. I might, at that point, go and visit the folks who are running these APs, and say, "Here's a better way to do it where we'll all benefit if you make these changes."

It allows us to support WiFi with our existing staff. The solution has reduced our troubleshooting time by a factor of 10. Without AirCheck, I simply couldn't tackle the problem of, "Hey, I'm in my office. I can't connect."  Sure, I could of course visit with my laptop and phone, and if they also struggle to connect, then I can suspect the infrastructure  ... although I won't be sure, because of course perhaps my laptop & phone are running buggy WiFi drivers or similar.  But what then?  Is the DHCP infrastructure failing?  The authentication infrastructure?  Are there problems with signal strength / noise ratio?  Remember that phones will give you 'bars' for signal strength (which measures how loudly your device hears the WiFi signal), but they don't measure noise (which measures how much background chatter may be drowning out your ability to hear the signal ... recall the metaphor of talking to someone across the table from you in a noisy cafeteria):  you need to know the signal / noise ratio to assess the quality of radio signal.  The AirCheck automates checking all this into its single AutoTest function, and then gives you an easy-to-parse display for checking all the various components of the infrastructure which makes WiFi work.  Frankly, prior to AirCheck, we would mostly ignore WiFi tickets, because they were so time-consuming to tackle.  For VIPs, we would thrash around on their tickets, generally producing unconvincing and unsatisfactory results, degrading our department's reputation and of course wasting lots of time (change the VIPs phone, make random adjustments to the local Wireless Access Point's settings, urge them to 'try again' ...)

A lot of features are useful.

AutoTest: You press AutoTest, then in 30 seconds you have an assessment of how well the tool is experiencing the WiFi environment. What I generally find is that the infrastructure is fine, which points me toward end user's device:  that allows me to focus on the phone or laptop. Then I can use the AutoTest tool to perform a packet capture of what the device is doing, giving me more insights:  perhaps the device has refused to roam from a distant Access Point, for example (e.g. bug in the WiFi driver). Often, I find that the end user device simply isn't transmitting anything at all. Then, of course, the user sees everything is broken, but that at least narrows the fault domain to the device and gives me a place to start trouble-shooting it.

On the other hand, when the AirCheck fails AutoTest, then it gives me a whole range of insights into what might be going on.  For example, it may show a strong signal, low signal/noise ratio, high throughput ... but failed authentication.  This points me toward the Radius authentication infrastructure.  Or failed DHCP address reservation -- this points me toward the DHCP infrastructure.

One of the things that NetAlly excels at is providing tools which are useful to both neophytes and experts -- someone with little expertise can press the AutoTest button and focus on any Yellow or Red items.  in the hands of an expert, it's even more useful:  it displays a rich, detailed view of the radio environment, in terms of channels, utilization, Access Points, clients, and the various pathologies for all of these.  

I would love to have a button that pretends that you're an iPhone 5 or an Android Samsung model X, then tell me what you think the experience is. This is a very difficult thing to do because each of these things has different radios in them and behaves differently. As it is today, I can go into the user's office, and say, "The tool says everything's green. The WiFI infrastructure is fine, but their iPhone experience sucks." Is it a problem with their particular iPhone or is it a problem with any iPhone model? If I could have this solution emulate an iPhone model so I can walk into that room, and say, "My tools pretending to be your iPhone and it works fine. It must be your particular iPhone that we have a problem with." I found mobile phones in general have weaker radios, compared, say, to laptops, so they tend to be the devices which struggle first.  I suppose though that this is wishful thinking -- from an engineering point of view, I don't see how NetAlly could pack lots of different radios into a single device.

And then, they haven't found a way to separate out actual non-802.11 interference from legit 802.11 traffic on channels for which the device cannot hear the device(s) which are communicating on the central channel.  As a result, there is a screen where you can see how busy is the channel, e.g., is it a hundred percent full?  In which case, you would expect devices to have a lousy experience. But because it is hard (perhaps impossible) to distinguish between non-802.11 interference and legit utilization in this situation, they conflate the two.  They know this -- there is a box you can check telling the AirCheck to quit trying to distinguish -- I have this checked now.  Again, asking for more precision in this area is probably wishful thinking.

I suppose another area which would be helpful would be NetAlly-certified WiFi training -- training which helps me understand how 802.11 works, so that I can more effectively wield the AirCheck.  We have been hiring Network Protocol Specialists for this, which has worked out well -- they 'look over our shoulder' remotely, as we practice using the AirCheck in our environment, and NPS staff explain to us what we are seeing.  But being able to purchase such a coaching / training session from www.netally.com directly would be helpful.

I have been using the AirCheck G2 for ~3 years

The stability is rock-solid. Normally, everything that's a computer crashes on you, but I've yet to see the AirCheck crash.  Obviously, it must be possible -- but I haven't seen it yet.

There are only three of us who use it. One of them is the network technician (me), then there are two end user help desk folks who are out in the field helping people. I'm the one who uses it most, but they will sometimes take it along and either use the wired or WiFI side when they are delivering a new machine. They use the tool to provide a final check, before they close a ticket, to say, "It looks like WiFI works here, and it looks like that jack I just gave you works here too."

I have used the technical support only occasionally, and they're good:  responsive, technical, drive to solving my problem.

I didn't have a solution before AirCheck. I had to tell people, "There's not a lot we can do for you," besides having me bring my laptop in to check.

I wanted to create a service account in Active Directory, with a non-expiring password, so that the AirCheck could automatically connect to our corporate WiFi, without my having to use my personal credentials (and remember to change the password each time I changed my AD password).  Creating a service account in our environment takes some effort, so yes, this took time. Furthermore, as I learned more about 802.11, I started creating more Profiles -- some 'check everything' while others just look for, say, non-802.11 interference or focus just on radio signal health.  So, at the end of the day, I have spent substantial set-up time on the device.  But for basic testing, just out of the box, one needs to do very little:  identify at least (1) SSID of interest and then enter credentials for it

Even though the tool is useful without training, I have done a ton of training with third-parties. We hired Mike Pennacchi from Network Protocol Specialists to do both our onsite and remote training. We could log into his device so we were seeing the same screen at the same time. Then, if any questions came up, we could ask, "What does this really mean?"  And similarly, we run VNC on the AirCheck, then share our screen in Teams/Zoom/WebEx/whatever with Mike, who then can guide us through analyzing an actual problem in our environment.  This training has made us substantially more effective in using the AirCheck

The solution saves us a factor of 10 in time. If a typical WiFI ticket would cost me an hour with AirCheck, then it would cost me 10 hours without it. At 10 hours, you start to avoid a ticket, because it is just too expensive, in terms of my time.

For a few thousand dollars, you save yourself a ton of time. It's a great deal.

I did not evaluate other solutions. I have had such good experiences with Fluke Network, NETSCOUT, and now NetAlly that I didn't bother.

It combines so many functions in one place that it's hard to find competing tools. Without this, I would have to use a whole range of other tools. I suppose it's doable, but it would take a long time.

It has provided tremendous education about how WiFI works. I understand Ethernet fairly well ... but WiFi is remarkably complicated:  I am a novice. But, with the AirCheck, you get this graphical interface which packs a lot of education and teaching into it, as well as diagnostic capabilities.  The UI takes the theory that I've studied and helps me understand, "Oh, that's what they mean." It's sort of like an educational tool in addition to something that helps you solve problems.

The multi-technology functionality is certainly convenient to have on the wired side. However, I have a lot of tools that to do wired analysis, so I rarely use it. Then again, the functionality is convenient and saves you the time of carrying two tools. For some people that will be a powerful use case. Whereas, myself, I prefer to just carry a lot of weight (i.e. multiple tools).

I would rate this solution as an eight (out of 10).

I use it primarily for signal distribution, identification, Cat5 and Cat6 identification, access point, decibel levels, and identifying all areas of IT equipment onsite.

I use the device in one area to identify access points. This device not only identifies access points, it tells me audibly and visibly the strengths of the decibels. So, it allows me to advise installation crews where exactly to place certain types of equipment, like access points.

I am a site administrator for about 25 sites. At one particular site, they reported that the circuit was totally down. This means that their communications with their PCs, tablets, and telephones (which were Voice over IP) were not functioning. Therefore, the entire site was down. This was a state facility. 

My job is to resolve the issue regardless of what the problem is. When I go out and troubleshoot, I'm able to take that NetAlly device and verify the equipment is working. I can verify if the LAC has signal coming into the facility along with every access point from that point forward. Thus, I can troubleshoot the entire system from point A to point Z for that matter. About two weeks ago, I had to do that and it saved a lot of time and money. 

The state was going to overnight some very expensive equipment, and I told them that I didn't need that equipment because NetAlley identified that our equipment was functioning perfectly. To make a long story short, the problem was on the provider's side, not ours.

It is a very clean device. It has resolved troubleshooting issues 100 percent, streamlining our networking operations.

All of the features are valuable. It is a wonderful tool. It allows me to troubleshoot and bypass network operating personnel. It takes the place of an IT troubleshooting department, because now I can do all the troubleshooting. I can walk into an environment and know what is going on. I don't have to call for IT assistance.

The solution’s one-button AutoTest feature is able to identify common problems. This is a major feature and plus for this particular device. You are able to hit one button and then identify different areas of the IT environment.

The information provided by the solution for resolving connectivity and performance problems is very thorough. The reporting functionality is extremely good as I can pass that information on with little input. The device will identify issues and problems, e.g., the diagnostic material. When you have Internet access, it sends the information to your email address, which is very useful.

The battery life needs improvement. For example, when you are doing an Ethernet test, that seems to drain the battery pretty quickly.

I would like it if they could somehow build/develop a type of fiber optic module with the device. That would be good. 

The tool itself has a series of features. I think that each set of features should have its own way of identifying, "Here is the problem, and this is how NetAlly fixes that problem or resolves that issue." Typically what happens because there are so many features, marketing might not be familiar with all the things that a solution can do and the problems that it will solve. So, they'll give two or three quick phrases of what it can do, and if you're not really familiar with the issues, then you won't understand what is being said.

Approximately a year.

It is a pretty rock-solid device that is well-built.

I have never used the technical support for this device.

I used several tools previously. I used toners, butt sets, Sidekick, and Fluke tools, but AirCheck is an all-in-one solution.

The first time I used it, there was return on investment. It is not only the time involved, but its ability to solve issues for the client quickly. The client is impressed with what you're telling them, because now you can show them (by means of this device) where the issue lies, which gives the customer confidence. Before I get to the customer, I have to travel. A lot of that time is now saved.

This solution has provided visibility into our network that we could only get by using many other tools. One device takes the place of many, which is time efficient and cost-efficient. 

It saves me a tremendous amount of time when I am troubleshooting. For example, if a site only has 20 devices, then you could save three or four hours. However, if a site has 100 devices spread out over a mile, then it could save you a couple of days.

The solution has made our networking staff more productive, saving me at least 20 hours a week.

The price is fairly expensive, if you are a single individual. For me, it's well worth the cost of the unit. Depending on the nature of the work that you're doing, the upfront costs can be expensive. Typically, what happens in an environment is a department might have one device as opposed to technicians having them individually.

We purchased our unit outright.

I am the only one using AirCheck right now due to the cost of the device.

I looked at several brands. I do a lot of research before I make decisions on technical tools. It just so happened that the makers of this particular device had a client that I was very familiar with, and it was a medical facility. That particular example made me look further into this particular unit. Being used in a medical facility of a significant magnitude, I was pretty comfortable with my decision in using this device at a state-run facility.

Thoroughly research the functionality and features of this particular tool. I am finding that the tool itself has so many features and so much functionality that the cost benefit could be missed. A client looking into the device might not realize its potential or ability to solve certain niche problem.

It is easy to use. A novice would have to get used to trusting the tool. More advanced technicians would find this tool extremely helpful. The learning curve depends on the level of the technician. If you are a novice, then the learning curve might be overwhelming. However, for an advanced technician, the learning curve is pretty quick and intuitive.

I would rate this solution an eight (out of 10). If they fixed the battery, it would be a 10.