Aruba Access Points Reviews

There are problems with Aruba Access Points, and Aruba PoE switches since they are tools that are connected to Aruba Switches. If the port is damaged, then Aruba Access Points don't work properly. Similarly, if Aruba Switches are damaged, then Aruba Access Points don't work properly.

The problems in Aruba Switches are reflected in Aruba Access Points. With Aruba Switches, if a port is damaged, not working very well, or if there is a problem with electricity or power output, then Aruba Access Points don't work well.

If Aruba can include the Arabic language and have a team that conducts surveys with its uses in the Arabic language, then it would be good.

I have experience with Aruba Access Points for nine to ten years. I use Aruba AP-205. My company also has experience with one of the models meant for businesses, known as Aruba AP-215 Access Point with a controller, as it is not safe to just use the standard tool.

There are around 200 users of the product in my company. All the people in my company use Wi-Fi and not cable connections.

The product is expensive if you want it to have a long life. The first time a person uses the product, it comes across as a very expensive product. After five to nine years of using the product, I have seen that it doesn't work very well. With the use of the solution, I have seen that in my company, we are not able to use the controller for the tool. My company can't connect with another site using the tool.

In the future, for our company to use a solution other than Aruba Access Points, we may have to change our infrastructure by starting with the core switches and other switches in our environment. My company plans to replace Aruba Access Points with Cisco. Cisco is a very compatible solution to use.

Aruba Switches work if some ports work or don't work, but Aruba Access Points don't work at all if a port is damaged.

Aruba products are good. The Middle Eastern marketplace is one of the biggest markets where Aruba products are preferred.

I rate Aruba Access Points a five out of ten.

Our primary use case is to provide public Wi-Fi services initiated by the government. This includes deploying the solution in both indoor and outdoor venues. We demonstrate the use and speed of Wi-Fi 6E access points as part of this initiative.

The controller software, which can control multiple access points remotely, is very convenient. It makes the provisioning process simple and efficient. The controller comes in two models: a local controller and a cloud-based one.

There should be enhancements to support open Wi-Fi technology for seamless authentication across different access points.

I have used the solution for about five years.

The stability of the Aruba Access Points is quite high. I would rate it at a nine out of ten.

The scalability of the Aruba Access Points is excellent. I would also rate it at a nine out of ten.

Technical support is generally good. However, it depends on whether it is handled by the company's engineer or the agent engineer. I would rate the support as eight.

Positive

Before Aruba Access Points, we used Lucas APs. Currently, we use both Aruba and Lucas, with the majority being Lucas. We sought out Aruba for their latest Wi-Fi 6E version.

The setup is straightforward and user-friendly. I would rate it almost as a nine, indicating it's fairly easy.

We considered Lucas and domestic products alongside Aruba.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We are using it in the office for the Wi-Fi network. We implemented the solution for our office in 2015, but in 2017, we implemented the solution for our warehouse. We have also implemented the solution in one of our branch offices.

Aruba's virtual controller is the most important feature.

I also have TP-Link, Huawei, and D-Link access points, and normally those solutions have a controller, which is a separate software or hardware used to control all of these. But Aruba's virtual controller basically sits in one of the access points, and if that particular access point goes down, the controller automatically migrates to the next available access point. With this feature, I firstly don't need any additional hardware for a controller. Secondly, I don't need maintenance for it. A virtual controller that roams around from one device to another automatically makes life very easy for me.

My access points are nearly ten years old, so though they now have 2.4 and 5 GHz options, features like the captive portal for the guest Wi-Fi, avoiding sticky clients between two Aruba devices, reduced authentication, and the ability to look at the IDS are all still very advanced.

When I implemented their access points, Aruba was a separate company, and customer support used to come directly from them. But recently, HP has taken over Aruba, and how we receive support has changed. If I am looking at a new solution from Aruba, I have to go via HP's process, which is not as good as Aruba's used to be. I understand HP has its own access point solution, though I do not know whether that is why Aruba is not given much preference.

I have been working with Aruba access points since 2015.

When I first bought my current units, their lifespan was five years, but I'm still using them happily. They came with a lifetime hardware warranty at the time, but I still have not been able to use that warranty because none of them have broken down, so I rate the stability of the product a ten out of ten.

I rate the solution's scalability a nine out of ten. We have approximately 500 users.

Tech support used to be very easy because I would just call or email them, and tech support would respond within an hour. It was very seamless. But now I have to go through HP and raise a different kind of support ticket, so I have to spend more time going through various layers of approval. The engineer might still be an Aruba engineer, but I have to go through the HP process first.

We implemented another solution from TP-Link two years ago, but their features are still ten years behind Aruba's. One of the features I use in Aruba is reduced authentication. I have reduced authentication assigned to my active directory. For that to work, I should have a controller set in my active directory. The active directory speaks to the controller, and the controller speaks to all the access points.

It is a little different with TP-Link. Even though I have a separate controller, which is software that has to be installed on another machine, that feature does not work. I think it's called Omada Controller. I cannot set the controller because if I set it in my active directory, it cannot speak to all the access points. So I must set every access point with their IP addresses and names for the active directory to listen to. It is not a big deal if you have four or five access points. But you can't do that in a big company with something like 50 access points. It's ridiculous.

The initial setup was very easy because it is out of the box, where you have to go "next, next, next" to give you the default setup. After that, you can go in and set what you want in detail, whether you want to set the clients or set whether it's visible/not visible, all those things. It had this feature as well, I still remember from 2015, where once you configure one access point, information can automatically be transferred to other access points, and they can be set up automatically. So if I have five access points running and buy a sixth one today, I don't need to do anything for that sixth device. I need to turn it on, and as soon as it connects to the same Wi-Fi network, it picks the settings from the other units and sets itself up.

We do not require anyone to maintain the solution.

The price point in 2015 was really low compared to other enterprise-level access points, and I'm not talking about consumer access points like D-Link and TP-Link. I implemented seven access points in 2015 and only spent $6,000 for the whole project.

The only other devices I consider to be at the same level would be the access points from Meraki. Feature-wise and technical-wise, Aruba is really good. However, when it comes to support, which may be local to my market in Australia, I don't see Aruba being that easy to update or get support for, even when talking to HP or whomever the partners are. It is much easier to speak to tech support with Meraki and even Juniper Mist and access those devices.

I would have downloaded information on them because I'm looking at a new product. I'm looking at three products, Aruba, Meraki, and Juniper Mist. Just like I downloaded information from your site, I looked at the websites of these three companies, and Juniper's guys immediately called me and even offered to send me two devices to test in my environment. They also told me they would do the site surveys for free if I gave them the plans for my new site.

When it comes to features, scalability, or ease of use, I rate Aruba in the top three. But when looking at the technical part, we also need to look at how easy it is to get the devices or talk with the vendor.

We are using the solution for endpoint connectivity.

The manageability of both on-premise and cloud versions is valuable.

The licensing models lack clarity. Salespeople from Aruba were not able to explain it to me. Different people gave me different opinions. I can see the total bandwidth, but I cannot see the internal bandwidth.

I have been using the solution for the last six months.

The stability is good. I do not find any issues with it. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

The tool has very good scalability. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. The number of users depends upon the location. Some locations have 200 access points, while others have 50. The solution is used 24/7.

We also use Meraki. I can control the bandwidth with Meraki, but I can’t do it with Aruba. The choice of the product depends on the existing configurations and requirements. Meraki has advanced features.

I rate the ease of setup a seven to eight out of ten.

The deployment was done with the help of vendors.

The TCO is good. The product works well.

I do not understand the difference between Foundation licenses and Advanced licenses. Aruba is neither cheap nor expensive. The tool is priced the same as its competitors.

I was told I'd receive immediate support if I had an advanced license. Overall, I rate the solution a seven to eight out of ten.

We use Aruba access points for wireless connectivity, like connecting 30 to 40 users' laptops to the office Internet through WiFi access points.

Model 556 is a very stable and good product for users to access the Internet without any interference and disturbance while getting good speed. WiFi technologies are growing day by day. Where we had 2.4GHz and 5GHz earlier, OEMs now give devices that support 6GHz.

Aruba access points protect connectivity, and we don't get interference. The hardware is a throughput point and handles the required number of users. The product's capacity is proper, and we are not facing any challenges.

These days, every OEM gives services on their cloud. We want to move the wireless controller to our cloud. If a company has multiple offices in multiple locations, we need to direct connectivity without depending on any other location. Going with a cloud solution will make dependency no longer a challenge from a connectivity point of view. If you move an account, you get the freedom. You're not dependent on any other locations selling the same product.

I've worked with Aruba Access Points for approximately ten years.

I rate Aruba access points' stability an eight out of ten. We've been using the product for a long time, and it is a very stable product.

If you go with the cloud version, it's a good endpoint for user scalability. In-house you'll need to upgrade or change the hardware if the number of users or company size grows. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten. Approximately 500 users are using Aruba access points 24/7.

I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten because the deployment is easy.

The deployment was a physical deployment that involved cabling parts, physically mounting the product on walls, and installing the AP on a roof. If you set up the product in an office, it will take one to two days.

While we needed one man to deploy the solution, we needed three or four people to handle the physical cabling and mounting. One person is sufficient for maintenance.

We implemented the product in-house.

I rate the pricing a six out of ten because it's not cheap or expensive.

Someone considering using Aruba access points' cloud solution can choose it with WiFi 6 connected. As for the on-prem version, it depends on their requirements. If it's not a large setup, without many APs, they can choose the in-house solution.

I rate Aruba access points an eight out of ten.

Our customers use the tool in company environments. Only a few private clients who have the funds to afford it use the equipment. Normally, a private user wouldn’t have the funds to do it.

The product has high stability. The Adaptive Radio Management feature is quite good. Aruba’s differentiating factor is the shape of the access point and how it is integrated into the architecture. The security is quite high. I rate the security nine to ten out of ten. If we have a change request as a partner, we have channels to position our change request. We have to integrate the product with other networking solutions. It works very well. We have no issues with integration.

The price could be a bit lower.

I have been using the solution since 2004.

I rate the tool’s stability a ten out of ten.

We have huge amounts of clients. We take care of the remote access of the head offices and their smaller outlets. I rate the tool’s scalability a ten out of ten. Aruba provides Aruba Instant On and a professional version. Aruba Instant On is competitive with Ubiquiti or any household brand. It is for very small outlets. It is very limited in its management. We do not sell it. We only sell big solutions.

The support persons respond quickly. They are very efficient. Sometimes, it takes a bit longer. However, they are hands-on 90% of the time. The quality of support is good. The people are knowledgeable.

The initial setup is very simple. It becomes complicated later. The configuration is complex. The solution is sometimes cloud-based and sometimes deployed in a hybrid environment. It depends on the clients.

The cost is quite high. Just like Cisco, it is quite high.

Technically, Ruckus, Cisco, and Aruba are almost similar. There are minor differences. The only thing that Aruba has, but the others don’t, is Adaptive Radio Management. All are high-quality products. The performance depends on the rollout and what the client expects. It depends on the architecture. Ruckus is not as shiny as Aruba. Ruckus is more on a carrier level. We have a few carrier customers that use Ruckus. The majority of industrial customers use Aruba.

I am an integrator. We use AirWave with Aruba. For Cisco and Ruckus, we use the individual platforms that are available for them. There are no technical issues with the tool. Pricing is the only issue. I will recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

I use Aruba Access Points in my company to support IoT network architecture.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its stability.

The disadvantage of Aruba Access Points is experienced by me when I need it to offer me a long range of coverage. When it comes to some devices, where maximum users connect with Aruba Access Points, the range of coverage area it provides is reduced. When a large number of users join Aruba Access Point, they are provided with a very small range of coverage. The aforementioned aspect related to the product is an area where improvements are required.

In the future, I want Aruba Access Points to provide more scalability options. The scalability part of the solution comes into the picture, especially when considering the product's performance issues. More scalability options are required in the solution, especially during times when my company needs to switch users or shift them to some other area.

From an improvement perspective, Aruba's technical support team should consider providing a faster response to the queries raised by users.

Training for users related to Aruba's upcoming firmware releases should be provided.

Aruba Central is a good product, and users need similar capabilities in Aruba Switches and Aruba Access Points at a very low price point. Aruba provides its users with a lifetime hardware replacement, and I want the same thing in Aruba Central, wherein users get lifetime product support and switches. In short, Aruba should make it possible for users to incur a one-time cost for Aruba Central.

I have been using Aruba Access Points since 2017. I am an end-user of the product.

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

Aruba Access Points is a scalable product.

My company has 55 end users of the product.

The support provided by the technical team of Aruba Access Points is neither good nor bad, meaning it lies somewhere in the middle.

I use Cisco and Aruba in my company. I have been using Cisco since 2008. I would describe Cisco and Aruba as products that are very similar to each other.

The product's initial setup phase was easy.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

The solution can be deployed in less than 30 minutes.

I can take care of the product's deployment phase by myself.

Aruba is cheaper than Cisco.

My company needs to pay yearly for the licensing costs attached to the product. There are no additional payments towards the solution apart from its licensing costs.

Currently, there is no maintenance required for the solution.

I recommend the solution to those who plan to use it.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

The product is quite accessible and reliable. It needs less or no maintenance. Once you install the solution, it keeps working. It needs very few upgrades. Aruba devices are quite reliable. We have found no defaults in the devices so far. The product is easy to use and easy to set up. Its durability is quite good.

The product should provide more coverage. The coverage provided should be equivalent to that of Cisco. It will be good if the product’s device provides coverage of at least 50 to 60 feet. The solution should increase security. The devices need to be more secure. Anyone who wants to hack or access the product can easily do it. The users do not receive any alerts if somebody is trying to access the tool.

I have been using the solution for the last five years.

The stability is quite good. It is excellent. We bought the devices two to three years ago, and they still work constantly without any failure.

The solution’s scalability must be improved. It should cover more number of people and area. I rate the scalability a seven out of ten. It will be great if scalability is increased a little more.

We have not contacted support yet. If we have any problems, our local vendor is capable of supporting us. The product’s support would be great. If a local vendor can support us, then if I contact someone directly from Aruba, they would definitely be able to support us.

Aruba and Ruckus work similarly. Cisco is a bit advanced in terms of security and manageability. We manage Cisco access points through one particular console. If anything goes wrong, then we can identify it easily. Cisco products are a little better in manageability. We frequently receive updates, but we can manage them well in advance through the console.

The initial setup is quite easy. It is not a problem at all. We need not do much. We need an expert to set up Cisco. Deploying Aruba and Ruckus is as easy as plug-and-play.

The deployment doesn’t even take ten minutes.

The pricing is reasonable. The product is also good. I would rate the pricing an eight or nine out of ten. For four devices, we pay around INR 30,000. We only pay for the license and the device. There are no additional costs associated with the tool.

The solution is fairly good. Anyone can use it. I will recommend Aruba. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.