Aruba Access Points Reviews

The solution is used in our offices, and we are a state department in our country's education ministry. 

Aruba Access Points provides secure and transparent access points for all users, and our company experiences excellent coverage across the premises. Our organization is content with the solution's ability to provide visibility into our company's infrastructure. 

Our company has encountered a few issues with the product versions, firmware and the APs, but it was solved later on. Presently our company wants to integrate Aruba Access Points with ClearPass, which we need to purchase separately.

The solution should provide features to integrate audio and video devices in presentation rooms, for example, TV sets and audio sets. Our company team has faced a few challenges with guest authentication; sometimes, the guests don't receive the feedback or password in their email at all or on time while using Aruba Access Points, and we need to manually intervene to identify the issue. 

I have been using Aruba Access Points for three months. 

The solution is highly stable, and our company hasn't faced any issues. I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. The tool exhibits outstanding scalability. There are more than 200 users of Aruba Access Points in our company. For now, our company has its premises covered and we believe our existing infrastructure will be stable for the next two years, thus we are not planning to increase the usage of Aruba Access Points. 

I would rate the tech support a ten out of ten. The solution offers excellent tech support. 

In the past, I have used other solutions from Cisco and Fortinet. Our company chose Aruba Access Points because of the internal public agenda, and the solution was the most suitable for the company's needs. 

I would rate the initial setup a ten out of ten. Aruba Access Points can be setup effortlessly. The solution's deployment took a day for each site at our organization. 

The tool is available in the market at a reasonable price. 

The solution through authentication has enhanced the security of our organization's network, but we still don't have endpoint management solutions such as XDR, which we hope to deploy. Our company is pleased with Aruba Access Points. 

It's extremely easy to manage Aruba Access Points. Our company uses the tool to monitor and deploy solutions. In our company, we haven't faced any integration issues with Aruba Access Points, we had also deployed the solution in integration with Aruba Switches, we installed a complete solution. I would advise others that Aruba Access Points is a reliable solution and it operates seamlessly with multiple interesting features. I would overall rate the product a ten out of ten. 

We have an academic focus. We are a medical technology company—MedTech, specifically. All of our academic programs operate on the Aruba platform. In addition to our internal systems, all users, whether an enterprise or any other category, use Aruba wireless technology.

We have an open space with no disturbances. Aruba is the right product because additional costs may arise if you opt for alternatives. From a security standpoint, we have adopted it, and each part of the network is secure. Currently, it is comfortable for us.

We have additional security. We are using fabric technology for Extreme switches.

Since we manufacture medical devices, we must adhere to pharmaceutical guidelines. According to these guidelines, our rooms are categorized as 'head type' and thus require network connectivity. However, installing high-end APs in every room may not be feasible. Alternatives such as Cisco Meraki or Ruckus may be suitable for lower-end EPE or in areas where high-end APs aren't necessary. These brands offer smaller, in-system devices that can be installed to cover areas effectively. Installing one to two users per AP is acceptable for administrative purposes.

I have been using Aruba Access Points since 2010.

Technical support is excellent. I need to email them since it is a mandatory requirement. Under the contract, we are entitled to support. First, we need to log a call. Then, within a four-hour timeframe, they will provide a set time for addressing and resolving the issue. We are satisfied with the support.

Positive

We have used Cisco since 2006. We were initially a small company. Now, we have a global presence in software, and every investment in software is connected to a central location via a controller. Everything works fine for remote installations. During 2010-2011, we considered opting for a better product. Therefore, we switched to Aruba Access Points.

The product’s pricing is sustainable.

Ethernet throughput is much better. From a security standpoint, it is good. We face a challenge in wireless connectivity, but we can resolve it by ensuring that every device, including routers, is configured correctly for wireless connectivity. We need to ensure these features are installed everywhere. Additionally, we should review the RRP and other performance metrics for further improvement.

Aruba is easy to manage. UI is good. Endpoints present a bottleneck. We need to be concerned about the AP. We need to insert it into my network and ensure it is updated.

Regarding policy enforcement, we may only need to control the controller. From an operational and maintenance standpoint, we require local support from OEMs. Whether a sensor is connected to a switch or not, it's a one-time setup. We have a mobility controller for centralized management, and the compression provides a really good experience.

Aruba Access points easily integrate with existing network infrastructure.

I recommend the solution.

In India, we're operating on the 5 Ghz band. Additionally, we're looking to use the 6 GHz band as part of a trial bundle. We're confident in our ability to support 2.5 and 5 gigahertz frequencies, but we're closely monitoring the situation. We are a robot manufacturing company whose operations rely on the six gigahertz spectrum. While the Indian government hasn't yet opened up the 6 GHz band, it may change within the next two to three months.

Overall, I rate the solution a 9 out of 10.

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.

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.

In Oman, I successfully implemented Aruba Access Points for a hospital with nearly two hundred access points. There were around three hundred users, and the deployment, featuring two controllers of the 7200 series, went smoothly. The captive portal solution worked well, and even after I left, it continued to run efficiently. In Egypt, I replicated the same setup for the largest group of hospitals, implementing seventy-five access points in the first phase. The remaining hundred and twenty-five are scheduled for implementation this year. 

Despite positive experiences with the technology, there were challenges with the captive portal solution, ClearPass, due to a significant increase in its license cost, potentially from HP, Aruba, or the local vendor. To address this, we explored an alternative solution called Sancfor, a Chinese product, which proved to be effective and cost nearly one-third of ClearPass. The only downside was the local distribution and customer service in Egypt, particularly with Aruba Egypt, which was non-responsive and lacked satisfactory customer service.

The main strengths of Aruba Access Points lie in their connectivity, range, and straightforward configuration. Setting up the access point is a quick process, taking only seconds. Standard features such as identity access management, captive deploy tools, and VLE are available. Additionally, Aruba offers medical-grade access points like the 400 series, which is well-suited for healthcare or hospital environments.

One noteworthy feature is the impressive handshaking capability, particularly when transitioning between access points. This ensures a seamless experience without disconnection, especially when a well-designed heat map is in place. Aruba Access Points are robust and require minimal maintenance, making them reliable for long-term use.

The support from Aruba, as well as the overall HPE unit, has been lacking. The regional head and hepatic services are nonresponsive, leading to a decline in market share. While Aruba is recognized for its top-notch quality, especially in switching technology, the services and support in the African region need significant improvement. There is a suggestion to focus on enhancing services, support, and presale activities in this region to address the challenges faced by customers, particularly in healthcare. Continued emphasis on research and development, along with addressing regional issues, is recommended for sustained success.

I have been using Aruba Access Points for more than two years at this company and more than four years while I was in Oman.

It is very stable and has no issues related to its functionality.

The scalability of the Aruba Access Points is impressive. It allows for easy expansion, with the capability to add up to two hundred and fifty-four access points using the seven thousand two hundred model. To further extend the capacity, a license is required, allowing for straightforward scalability without complications.

We have multiple hospitals under my jurisdiction, and some of them are currently using Fortinet. Fortinet has proven to be competitive with high service levels, aggressive market strategies, and cost-effectiveness, and in comparison to Aruba Fortinet excels. Additionally, Fortinet's integrated firewall serves as a controller, eliminating the need for a separate controller, which enhances investment and management efficiency. While both Aruba and Fortinet deliver strong performance and functionality, Fortinet stands out in terms of cost savings and simplified management.

The installation and deployment of Aruba Access Points are straightforward The process, from mounting to configuring the access point to the controller, is simple and takes only a few minutes. However, a drawback is highlighted regarding ClearPass, particularly for the captive portal feature called GuestFire. The complexity arises due to ClearPass being a separate solution with additional licensing costs, especially in Egypt, where prices have increased. This has made the solution comparatively expensive, making companies consider alternative options in the market for captive portal functionalities in Wi-Fi, such as VMware.

It can be accomplished by a single person.

The implementation of Aruba Access Points in the previous company showed a positive impact with the return on investment (ROI) achieved within three to five years. The calculation of ROI considered improvements in communication, internet access, and Wi-Fi services, contributing to the overall success of the implementation. While it may be challenging to precisely calculate ROI for certain aspects like service level improvements, the tangible benefits, and cost savings were realized within the calculated timeframe.

The cost of Aruba Access Points has been on the rise, which may be due to market dynamics or regional factors, such as in Egypt. Additionally, the availability of Aruba products is a concern, with a lead time of approximately twelve months. This prolonged waiting period and a lack of responsiveness from HP, the parent company of Aruba, have led to the cancellation of some orders. The supply chain for Aruba appears to face challenges, impacting product delivery timelines.

The key advice is for Aruba to avoid the adamant behavior of acting as the king of market. It is extremely easy to lose relevance due to a lack of market awareness and adaptation. Aruba should continually update itself, stay attuned to customer feedback, and remain vigilant about market trends. The company needs to be proactive in crafting solutions that align with customer preferences and needs. The representatives and resellers in each country should not merely be resources but active contributors, engaging with customers and staying smart in addressing market demands. In essence, the message to Aruba is to stay dynamic, responsive, and customer-focused to avoid becoming obsolete in a rapidly evolving market.

We use the tool for our devices. We use it for laptops, wireless phones, and tablets.

The product helps find issues in devices.

The stability must be improved. Sometimes, the user gets disconnected from the network.

I have been using the solution for four years.

The tool’s stability is good. I rate the stability a seven out of ten.

The tool is scalable. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten. We have 300 users. It is not extensively used.

The technical support is perfect.

The setup takes a long time. We took three months to complete the setup. The deployment process is the same as Cisco’s.

We used consultants to deploy the solution. We had an issue with the access ID for the captive portal. The engineers couldn’t solve it at that time. It took too long. We used a pre-shared key. We needed three engineers and technicians for the deployment.

The product is cheaper than Cisco and Huawei. We pay a yearly license fee.

I will not recommend the tool to others. I wouldn’t want people to go through the issues I went through. Overall, I rate the solution a 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.

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.

Its client match feature is crucial as it helps ensure that devices are optimally connected to the network. It enhances the quality of service by prioritizing media traffic and reducing potential disruptions. The roaming features are also essential and primarily managed through the MCC technology. It focuses on maintaining the quality of service during media traffic, ensuring a seamless user experience. When connecting multiple Access Points, users can independently select their feature controller technology. This simplifies management and deployment, as you only need to configure one AP, and it can then replicate settings to others. Another valuable aspect is integration with other technologies, as it can be incredibly useful when replacing or upgrading systems.

We encountered some challenges when deploying different models of access points, particularly as our network expanded. Initially, using smaller models like the 200 or 300 series worked well, but as the network grew, issues related to signal strength and coverage became noticeable. The newer models, such as those supporting Wi-Fi 5 and Wi-Fi 6, had stronger standards but suffered from slower signal penetration, which resulted in dead spots. Another concern is that when clients wish to migrate to higher-end models, it necessitates running additional cables to address these coverage gaps, mainly due to the higher models having less penetration. I would appreciate for the higher-end models to offer the same signal strength as the older, smaller models, even while maintaining the latest standards, as this would enhance the overall network performance and coverage. There was an issue with equipment delivery where a different model was received, resulting in signal coverage gaps due to differences in signal strength compared to what was initially tested. Having stronger signal strength in the higher-end models, similar to the lower-end models, would be a valuable improvement.

We have been working with it for three years now.

It provides exceptional stability and reliability. I would rate it ten out of ten.

The scalability is highly satisfactory and it is a straightforward process to expand the network. If you're using a centralized mobility conductor architecture and you have ten thousand clients, and you want to add another ten thousand, it's as simple as adding another mobility conductor. You can set up this new conductor as a multiple instance, ensuring active redundancy, and then you add additional controllers and access points. The key benefit here is that you only need to configure one mobility conductor initially, so adding new ones is relatively painless. You can migrate configurations and add more control planes to accommodate the growing network seamlessly.

They provide good customer support.

Positive

I have experience working with both Cisco and Aruba, and I noticed some key differences, particularly in the context of client deployments and the flexibility of the two systems. With Cisco, the deployments are typically smaller, involving just a few access points. One noticeable difference is that Cisco requires additional licensing for features like security and DTC encryptions, and to fully utilize the capabilities of a Cisco switch, you often have to purchase separate performance licenses, which could be somewhat complex, especially when dealing with high-performance switches. Aruba's approach is more straightforward and flexible and the licensing is more user-friendly. It's a one-time purchase, and there's no need for additional licensing for various features.

The initial setup is straightforward.

When it comes to configuring virtual instances, the difference in time efficiency between using a mobility controller and a mobility connector is significant. With a mobility controller, the process takes longer because you need to configure the controller first, and then provision the access points individually. This step can be time-consuming, as you have to configure the controller and then proceed with the provisioning of each access point. With a feature controller, you save a significant amount of time, as you only need to configure the first access point as the feature controller, and the subsequent access points are provisioned automatically. This streamlined approach means that setting up the feature controller typically takes less than an hour, making it a much quicker option for deployment. For monitoring the access points and switches, there are typically two phases: configuration and ongoing monitoring. Self-configuration can be quite efficient while monitoring ongoing operations can be managed effectively. In situations where you're deploying a substantial number of access points, having multiple team members working in parallel, perhaps as many as ten people for more than five hundred access points, can expedite the process further.

The pricing has been quite favorable. As partners, we often engage in negotiations with Aruba, which enables us to secure discounts, making the pricing even more attractive. Overall, I would say the pricing is reasonable and meets our expectations.

It offers remarkable client-handling capacity. Specifically, the Aruba 505 can accommodate up to 266 clients, which is a significant advantage. The speed and performance of these access points are highly commendable, making them well-suited for various applications, including educational institutions such as schools. Additionally, Aruba has introduced gateway technologies, which are handy for multiple branches. By deploying gateways in these branches, you can use technologies like SD-WAN to efficiently manage and route traffic over the Internet while being centrally managed from the headquarters. This enhances scalability and flexibility, ensuring that the network can easily adapt to expanding requirements.

We use the solution for official purposes.

Aruba is a controller-based solution. We have some multi-story buildings. We only need to maintain one controller, and we can manage it from a single IP address.

The solution’s updates and firmware are complicated to upgrade.

I have been using Aruba Access Points as a customer for five to seven years.

The product is stable.

The solution’s scalability is good. 70-80 users are using this solution in our organization.

The technical support is good, and there is no issue.

Positive

We have used Cisco and D-link. We chose Aruba since they provide a lifetime warranty with zero maintenance and can be managed easily.

The initial setup is easy, and one person is enough to deploy within five hours. It's plug-and-play only. We can buy it on the access phone and install it on our network. It will automatically take an IP address, then we can use it.

The product is costly and comes with a lifetime license. There is neither renewal nor subscription. It is a one-time solution.

The solution is easy to maintain.

We don't have any issues with the network. I recommend this solution if someone asks me what to choose.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.