Aruba Switches Reviews

We use Aruba switches, access points, and everything. We're a hospital chain. We've deployed them in at least 78 of our hospitals and are happy with the performance.

Overall, we're satisfied with the performance of our Aruba switches. They're working well for our current needs.

Our uptime has been flawless since implementing Aruba switches. 

We haven't had any issues expanding our network infrastructure with Aruba switches. Scalability and integration are excellent. I'd rate them nine out of ten.

The advantage I found is that they can be used as both on-premises devices and cloud-managed devices, with the option for an additional license to become cloud devices. This flexibility is very valuable to us.

There is room for improvement in the pricing because the Aruba Central licenses add a high cost.

I have been using it for the past couple of years, specifically the 2930 model.

It's very stable. I'd rate it a nine out of ten, with ten being highly stable. We haven't had any issues so far, so I'm happy with it.

We haven't had any scaling issues, so I'd rate it a nine out of ten, with ten being highly scalable. 

I have 19 people using it. They are network engineers who maintain the switches.

The network is our core business, so we use it constantly. It's always configured and running in our hospitals.

We haven't had the need to open a technical support ticket yet. Everything has gone smoothly so far.

We had a heterogeneous network with Aruba and Cisco switches. Both worked fine, but we switched to Aruba for cost reasons.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a nine out of ten, with ten being easy. 

The deployment itself shouldn't take long. Our network team handles it, and I haven't heard any complaints about the deployment process.

An HP partner did the deployment for us, and we just handled the configuration. They applied everything, and we took care of the authentication procedures and access points.

I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, with ten being expensive. The hardware itself is reasonable, but the licensing can be a bit expensive especially the Aruba Central licenses.

It's good overall. However, I plan to implement centralized management, which might slightly increase the licensing cost. But beyond that, it's been very positive.

So, if I consider stability, I would rate it a ten out of ten because I never faced any issues at all. But regarding cost, especially the licensing, Aruba needs to consider how that impacts your budget. Maybe somewhere between seven out o ten, compared to Meraki switches.

I use the tool in my company for our infrastructure's network switches, access points, and the controllers that the product provides.

There were some issues in Aruba Switches, specifically Aruba PoE Switches since working with it in our company damaged our network. The timer and the internal battery in Aruba Switches don't work sometimes, and if users want to replace the battery, it is not safe. Sometimes, there is a need to configure and reconfigure Aruba Switches every two or three months to avoid cutting off the power of the product. Considering the need to

reconfigure the switches in the controller when it comes to Aruba, I would say that, comparatively, Cisco is a stable product.

From an improvement perspective, I want Aruba Switches to have a longer life since it doesn't work properly after five years of use.

If a user wants to configure Aruba Switches after using it for five years, there is a need to keep reconfiguring the product, the controller, and access points every three to five months, which is very problematic. Considering the controllers or the access points attached to Cisco at multiple sites in our company, I can say that the switches from Cisco are good when it comes to the setup phase. If I compare the switches and controllers from Aruba and Cisco, I would say that the products that fall under Cisco's side are better.

Aruba Switches should have a longer life and not just a product that offers stability for five years. The tool should be able to function properly for around ten years. Considering factors like infrastructure, cost, management, and business decisions, the production is able to offer a long life to users.

I have experience with Aruba Switches. I don't remember the model of the solution.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a six out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Aruba offers better options when it comes to the area of scalability compared to what Cisco offers. Aruba has a better graphical user interface that helps users with the configuration part.

Around 200 people in my company use the product. There are two administrators for the product in my company.

My company doesn't use any technical support from Aruba because the switches we use are very old.

Before Aruba Switches, my company used switches from 3Com, HPE, Dell, and many other vendors for around nine years. After a period of nine years, my company switched to Aruba Switches. My company chose Aruba Switches since we wanted to move to a new product. Presently, my company's experience with Aruba Switches has been very bad.

Aruba Switches are very expensive. The product has many features printed on it, but the problem my company faces with the product is related to the fact that there is a need to reconfigure the solution every two months or three months after five years. Aruba Switches don't work properly in a stable manner after five years.

My company may opt to upgrade our network and infrastructure in the future, so we are considering the switches from Aruba and Cisco.

I won't suggest other people buy Aruba Switches since, for any infrastructure or network, the tool may come across as a costly product for the owner. Users expect the product to offer a long-life appliance for the infrastructure. I personally recommend Cisco Switches since it offers a longer life when compared to Aruba Switches.

I rate the overall tool a seven out of ten.

Aruba switches are divided into many categories: core, distribution, access, and small switches called Instant On. Small businesses and home users use those. We use 6400 Aruba switches, which are core switches that support the new CX operating system. We also use distribution switches such as the 8300 and category access layers such as the 6100, 6200, and 6300. There are many Aruba category switches in access layers and Instant On switches for small offices, such as Aruba Instant On 1930 and 1960.

We have set up Aruba switches for customers in Egypt's hospitality, and oil and gas industries.

With Aruba, I like its stability and lifetime warranty. I haven't seen any other vendors provide a lifetime warranty, which is the most preferred benefit with Aruba switches. Moreover, Aruba gives all its features from day one without any extra license.

Aruba offers VSX with its core switch. It is a redundancy. A call configured between two core switches or two distribution switches makes the two switches active for working. We can connect servers with the two core switches, and the connectivity between the server and the core switch is 20 gigabits with active forwarding. Other vendors provide this feature, but for data center switches, not LAN switches. This is a big feature with Aruba at layer code and distribution. At access, Aruba provides logically stacking switches. Especially the new 6000 series, which has the CX operating system. The CX operating system has logical stacking. Logical stacking does not require any modules.

If we compare Aruba and Cisco at the data center layer, Cisco has its Nexus switch. Aruba provides the new 10000 series, but it does not compare with the Nexus switch. Aruba is in networks but still not in data centers since their data center switches are not as good as Cisco's.

Aruba should enhance its performance and management solution to manage Aruba and non-Aruba switches. Aruba needs better layer management or a software management solution. When we talk about Aruba Central, the integration with the management software is not good enough. When we need to push a configuration in a switch, Aruba Central can manage Aruba access switches only. We work with the Aruba OS for normal management, but the CX switches are for monitoring only. Aruba'a management solution is a weak point. Management solutions are a weak point for other vendors, too, but we need to enhance Aruba to be better than other vendors.

I've worked with Aruba switches for around five years.

Aruba is very stable now but was not very stable seven years ago. I haven't seen anyone suffering from Aruba's stability.

Aruba switches are very easy to scale.

If the customer doesn't buy an SLA, support may arrive after two weeks or one month. It also depends on the stock availability.

Regarding tech support, levels one and two are not skilled enough. They can support normal issues, but not if we have abnormal or new issues. We have engineers with more experience.

The product is easy to set up. A single engineer with a certificate for Cisco switches can work with Aruba switches because it is the same thing. They can manage Aruba using the CLI or the GUI.

The time taken to deploy Aruba switches depends on the number of switches, such as if the customer has one or two core switches. It also depends on the distribution of the switches, whether they are distributed around the network in the company or at the same center as the customer. It also depends on whether the customer has more than one data center or more than one rack.

If the customer needs only one core switch, deploying it takes two to four hours. But that also depends on the number of the LANs and the number of points connected to the core switch.

You can divide the tool's maintenance into two parts: whether maintenance requires hardware, spare parts, hardware RMA, or if it requires configuration. Configuration depends on the engineers' skill, while spare parts depend on the vendor and if the customer buys an SLA.

Aruba switches work without a license. A license is needed when working with a management solution, but not for enabling switch features. This is a big feature of Aruba, making it better than other vendors. For example, we need to buy a license to enable features with Cisco. Aruba's features exist in a datasheet of any switch, available from day one without a license.

SLAs are available for 24 hours or four hours.

If a customer doesn't have experience with Aruba switches, they can work with Aruba after limited job training. We provide on-the-job training for customers, after which they can work in an environment with Aruba switches.

I recommend the product to enterprise and small business customers. I recommend it to hospitality and oil and gas customers. We can recommend Aruba to any customer with a LAN or enterprise network. Aruba has features such as a lifetime warranty. In Egypt, a lifetime warranty is a very effective feature. Other competitors do not provide the same.

Along with a lifetime warranty, we get scalability and stability, and we can enable any feature without a license. Aruba switches integrate with other vendors. Aruba can work with Cisco or other vendors. For example, if we have Cisco or any other platform to run ciphers, they can work in Aruba switches. I can integrate it with any management solution, which is a valuable feature. If any customer has switches from Cisco, for example, they need to buy a management solution. The customer is forced to get the software. But if the customer has Cisco switches and is asking about integration between the old and the new network, it won't be an issue to integrate it with Aruba's solution.

I rate Aruba switches a nine out of ten.

We are using it for LAN Switches in our corporate offices with PoE switches and access points. This is primarily a normal LAN switching use case.

They are easy to configure and integrate well with the Aruba ecosystem.

The power supplies are generally susceptible to power fluctuations and failure due to these fluctuations.

We've been using it for four years as Aruba Access Point as well.

There are no serious bugs. The solution is pretty stable.

The customer service is rated nine out of ten.

Positive

The installation is easy. We generally have only one person deploying it.

I have not quantified it exactly, but I would estimate a twenty percent cost savings or improvement in efficiency of operations.

The pricing is a bit on the pricey side.

We had been comparing other vendors, such as Cisco.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use the solution in the education, manufacturing, and hospitality industries.

The solution helps us save costs.

The technology is equivalent to any other vendor in the market. The tool has comprehensive features. The products and services provided by Aruba are very stable and mature.

The tool must provide a controller-based architecture. It will enable interaction with northbound applications and southbound fabrics.

I have been using the solution for six years.

The product is very stable. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

The product’s scalability is very good. It can scale to any level horizontally and vertically. Scalability is not a challenge. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

The initial setup is very easy. The deployment can be done within 15 to 20 minutes. We have customers both on-premise and on the cloud. The orchestration is on the cloud and on-premise. The cloud solutions are very comprehensive. We can manage multiple sites and locations. It doesn't bind us to one specific location.

The product provides a perpetual license. It doesn't have a subscription-based licensing model. Aruba’s licensing structure is very flexible compared to other vendors. The price is reasonable.

Compared to Cisco and Juniper, Aruba is cost-effective. All the products have similar features. Aruba provides very good switches.

I strongly recommend the tool to others. It is scalable and reasonably priced. Overall, I rate the product a ten out of ten.

Aruba switches are primarily used as L2 switches, with some used as L3 switches as well. The ProCurve series is most commonly used, rather than the HEC or 192 series. The switches are also used for IPTV and multicast.

When it comes to basic L2 switching, we've found that Aruba switches are very user-friendly in terms of configuration and management. I haven't had the opportunity to utilize Aruba Central for managing the switches yet, so I can't speak to that aspect. However, overall, we've found the deployment process for Aruba switches to be very straightforward.

The port flexibility on the 54 series, specifically the 5406 for core usage, could be improved. When I want to upgrade to 10G, I don't have many options to choose from.

I have been using Aruba Switches for approximately 12 years.

In regards to setup and reliability, we have observed that Aruba Switches function well in various settings. Incidents with the switches have been infrequent, with only one out of 20 switches experiencing failure every three years. This results in a low mean time between failures. On a practical level, as long as the switches are well-ventilated, they have not failed in our server room.

In terms of stability, configuration, and deployment, Aruba Switches are very good. For IPTV, we use the 26 and 29 series and they have been working very well.

When using multicast, some switches may have issues with jitter when implementing IGMP. However, we have not encountered this issue with the 26 and 29 series of Aruba Switches.

The solution is not 100 percent stable but they are highly stable.

I rate the stability of Aruba Switches a nine out of ten.

I don't use the full switching capacity, it is very difficult for me to comment on.

Some  Aruba Switches are quite scalable, but port flexibility could be improved. If I were to rate the general series switches, I would rate them an eight out of ten. However, for the core switch, I would rate them a six out of ten.

Aruba Switches are best suited for enterprise-sized companies.

The support Aruba Switches provides is very poor and needs improvement. They have knowledge of the solutions, but it is difficult to engage with them.

I rate the support from Aruba Switches a two out of ten.

Negative

We mainly use Aruba, Ruckus, and Cisco in our product line. When comparing them, Aruba and Ruckus are similar. I prefer Ruckus core switches as they have more flexibility for deployment. However, Cisco has a much higher price point and their core switches lack flexibility.

I find Aruba Switches' port flexibility is much better than Cisco. However, performance-wise, Cisco is the best.

The deployment process for Aruba switches is very simple. 

I rate the initial setup of Aruba Switches an eight out of ten.

There is not a switch that I would give more than six out of ten for pricing because, over the last year, the prices have been increasing very high.

I placed an order for the switches nearly 11 months ago but still have not received them due to issues with price and availability.

Aruba Switches are no longer among the cheaper switchers. Their new switch series is expensive.

I rate the price of Aruba Switches a five out of ten.

Aruba Switches are easy to deploy and configure compared to other brands like Cisco, which require more time for inter-switch configuration. Aruba Switches provides more flexibility in this regard. However, the main downside is when it comes to authentication and access control lists (ACL) on the switch, it can be more complex with Aruba Switches compared to Ruckus.

I rate Aruba Switches a seven out of ten.

The most typical use case for Aruba Switches is its reliability and good pricing compared to other solutions like Cisco.

Aruba Switches are reliable and easy to install and configure, which greatly helps maintain network integrity and efficiency in our operations.

The most valuable features of Aruba Switches include the basic features like STP and RSTP, as well as its reliability and ease of installation. The hardware is also considered better than Cisco, which is a significant advantage.

Although the pricing of Aruba Switches is good compared to Cisco, there is room for improvement in further reducing the cost to make it more preferable.

I have experience working with Aruba Switches for more than 12 years.

The stability of Aruba Switches is near perfect, rated nine to ten out of ten. I find it very reliable.

I would rate the scalability of Aruba Switches as high, giving it a score of eight to nine out of ten.

Technical support from Aruba is good. I rarely need to use it due to my expertise; the support is really nice, and the people are experienced.

Positive

The initial setup is not easy, so I rate it a five out of ten. It requires prior knowledge of switching instructions, although I find it manageable due to my over 25 years of experience with switches.

The pricing of Aruba Switches is good compared to Cisco. If they further reduce the price, it would be preferable.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I use them myself, and I sell them to my customers.

Users have to see it as a fabric completely. It’s not only one product. It’s the mixture and the association with the product.

The switches themselves do have security features. But most of it is in conjunction with the others.

The most significant features are their reliability and the options to change the ASICs. You can change a lot internally to improve performance.

For my personal use and experience, the documentation is very good. It’s very good documentation because the majority of American documentation, no matter if it’s a network product or other product, is always very good. It has been for even other products, not just IT products. And Aruba’s documentation is very well done.

It’s very well compared to some other documentation on the market from other manufacturers.

There’s always space for improvement. Improvements are mainly minor in handling, like the web interface. They make some improvements. In terms of performance, they make a lot of improvements in the backplane. These small improvements could make life easier.

I have been working with Aruba products since 2005. 

It is very scalable. I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

Technical support is very good. They’re very responsive, and it’s quite good.

Positive

It’s just a matter of some people preferring Cisco, some people preferring other brands. It’s just a way to convince a customer to change from a product. You need a good selling strategy.

In the professional world, you have different areas. You have very much Cisco-associated companies, and you have the former HPE ProLiant, which is now Aruba. Then you have Juniper, and you have different worlds. Customers have different preferences. So that is an issue now. You have to have a lot of good arguments to convince somebody to change a product.

Consider this: If you have a global operating, let’s say, a European-wide operating company, and they have already invested a lot of money in Cisco, for instance, it is almost impossible to convince them unless you keep exact records of when something was implemented. You need to keep track on a time scale and say, “Okay, now it’s about time to change the system.” You have to be at the right time at the right spot. Otherwise, it’s very difficult to convince them. It’s easier to convince smaller companies.

The initial setup is quite easy. Once you know what you do, it’s easy. If you don’t know what you do, especially with the latest software type, with the CX software type, it’s a bit more difficult. You have to do a little bit more command line. But once you know what you do, it’s quite easy and straightforward.

It is also easy to integrate it with other solutions. 

For the customers, we mainly sell them and implement them. That is our main aim. Our own switches work very reliably. They are a few years old, but they still do what they’re supposed to do.

Sometimes, the license is a bit too overpaid. Sometimes, the license is okay.

Overall, the pricing strategy is fairly reasonable.

Since I’m an Aruba partner, we have project prices.  

The switches themselves, on a hardware level, are about eight out of ten. They all play in the same league, the upper league or the Champions League. There’s nothing negative about them. It’s a question of philosophy.

It’s my philosophy to recommend the best of the breed. Sometimes, I do recommend products from different manufacturers. If I’m convinced another product is more suitable for the project or the customer, then I will recommend that product.

I would definitely recommend Aruba to other users. 

We are business partners for various small and medium enterprises. We get requests from customers for an existing network upgrade or a new field requirement. Based on the customer's requirement, we provide solutions from Aruba or whichever the customer wants.

Aruba has a good switching solution. It has some basic security features and full switching features for the company. It’s not used as a security device, but it has some basic features like configuring ACL. However, it cannot be used as a complete security solution.

The primary thing our clients look for in Aruba, or HPE now since HP acquired Aruba, is cost-effectiveness. Aruba is a good choice if the customer has budget limitations. We recommend Aruba switches because they are less expensive than Cisco but still provide the same features.

Aruba should be made more user-friendly.

We have been using Aruba Switches for a long time. 

The stability is good since I haven’t experienced any major critical issues.

It is a scalable solution. 

HPE provides good support for Switches.

Neutral

The deployment of Aruba Switches is not tricky.

Managing Aruba switches isn’t very difficult. It should be easy to handle if you have hands-on experience with Cisco switches.

The cost depends on the requirement. An extensive network will expand the budget. The price will be lower if there is a small requirement of one to ten switches. In comparison, Aruba is less costly than Cisco by about 10-20%.

I haven't used any AI analytics features with it yet, but the latest switches include cloud AI features.

In comparison to Aruba, Cisco is very user-friendly. Aruba could be more user-friendly since I am accustomed to working with Cisco.

I would recommend Aruba Switches to others and rate it seven out of ten.

I work in the hospitality and medical industry.

Aruba Central is valuable. I use it for management.

The solution must improve the switch models. It has only one type of switch in the CX 4100 series.

I have been using the solution for three years.

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

Our clients are enterprise businesses. I rate the product’s scalability a ten out of ten.

I rate the support a seven or eight out of ten. We do not have local solutions in our country. Most people in the companies do not know English, and it is difficult for them to speak with the technical support team. It would be good if the solution provided on-site support in Turkey.

Neutral

I rate the ease of setup a nine out of ten. The deployment takes three to four days because we work with big companies. The deployment is sometimes difficult.

I rate the pricing a seven or eight out of ten. The tool is a little expensive for customers from other countries. We have a lot of Chinese customers. Aruba is expensive for them.

I am a distributor. I don't use the tool for security because every company has a firewall. We only use AI in Aruba Central. I will recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the tool a ten out of ten.