Aruba Wireless Reviews

I have implemented Aruba for a few small customers. 

Price is one of the most important factors. We have a solution that's reasonably cost-effective when balanced against all the areas we need to cover. 

Aruba doesn't match some competitors in wireless signal strength. It isn't in the same class as Cisco Meraki, so I would use Cisco Meraki in situations where I need to cover a large open space. Meraki has more powerful signals going out.

Coverage and penetration have been the biggest disappointments. You should be able to connect to a visible Wifi access point. Often, people 20 meters away from an Aruba external access point need to move closer to get into the coverage radius. 

I have used Aruba for the past couple of years.

Aruba Wireless is stable. 

Aruba is scalable. I'm not doing dealing with the management or licensing, so I'm not aware of the costs compared to some other products.

I would be using it through a third party, so I wouldn't go to Aruba for support directly.

I rate Cisco Meraki higher than most others I've used in the same price range. Ruckus is stable, but it can be difficult to implement an external Wifi connection without some kind of problem with the cabling or something else.

Aruba is in roughly the same class as  Ubiquiti, which carries no licenses that I'm aware of. Ruckus is an excellent product to use for local government clients when I'm not planning to go back there. Plus, it has the advantage of being an HP-branded product. 

All wireless solutions are relatively pricey in my experience. The cost of a Wifi access point is only part of it. The implementation cost is bigger. I'm paying just over €200 for an additional internal access point. An external access point costs us €676 plus VAT, so that's about €840 for an external AP.

I rate Aruba Wireless about six out of 10. When planning for the cost of a project, you consider the price of different products, including operational and implementation costs, and make a judgment call. It's different if you have a portal. If you need to invest in a portal, it's difficult to transition away from that portal's brand. For example, if I have Ruckus access points in certain buildings and a Ruckus gateway handling all of those, I'm probably going to stick with Ruckus for any additional Wifi points. I'm not going to deviate from that.

The use case is basically for wireless authentication. We are also using Aruba clear path policy manager and we are providing our customers with free WiFi. We have our retail customers, where we give them free WiFi.

Their technological improvements and innovations are always great. They are up to market level. They’re always upgrading to whatever the latest technology is.

They are a bit of a monopoly solution.

It offers an easy initial setup.

The solution is pretty stable.

There are so many features. Even we are also not using the complete functionalities and features of Aruba. We need to explore more.

There are some issues we occasionally have. However, they are easily remedied.

Recently, HP acquired Aruba. There have been some changes in the licensing form. Platforms are changing. These kinds of things are slowly happening. However, it is not a problem.

The issue is that the delivery timelines have increased. That is not only for Aruba, even for all the partners; it is increased. That is something which they need to improve. The hardware takes too long to be delivered.

I’ve been using the solution for seven years.

The solution is pretty stable. There are some issues; however, it’s all pretty fixable. For the most part, it doesn’t crash or freeze. It’s reliable.

We have about 4,500 people on the solution. Everyone at all levels of the company uses it.

The solution is scalable. We started pretty small and we were able to grow as required. The number of people and the number of retail stores increase yearly.

We pay our partners for technical support. They handle everything.

We used to use Ruckus.

With Ruckus, we were in on the initial stage. We were facing a lot of issues depending on the management. With Aruba, we did a POC, and we were satisfied with that. That's why we moved to them.

The solution is simple to set up.

The configuration and everything it is pretty straightforward. We are using Aruba’s central console to manage the wireless. There are no complications, actually.

On the initial level, it took two months to complete the complete projects and everything.

In terms of maintenance, we are paying our partner for an AMC annual maintenance contract. We are paying yearly, and they are just maintaining our network. They're managing everything. We have around 20 people working on their team to support us.

We have a partner who is working on this with us, and they are the ones implementing the solution. They're managing our infrastructure also.

We are not calculating any kind of ROI as it's an infrastructure solution and therefore, we cannot calculate any kind of ROI here. It's used for the basic infrastructure.

We pay a yearly licensing fee.

I’m not sure of the exact cost. We are negotiating our pricing and can do so on a global level. When we were comparing it to others, we found it to be reasonably priced.

We’re end-users and work with Aruba partners.

This is an in-house solution and we use the latest version.

I’d rate the solution nine out of ten.

For new users, Aruba can be a good solution. The hardware portfolio is great. They have instant access points for small-scale businesses to medium size and even large businesses. They have all kinds of portfolios in their hardware catalog. Even for COVID times, they also introduce access points for the work from home. These kinds of things are there already in their portfolio. When we are plugging in their stack, we can leverage Aruba Central, Aruba Wireless, Aruba Switches, et cetera. It's easy to manage. Everything is managed under a central console.

Our company has a conference center and we use the solution for all our conferencing needs. 

The solution has been helpful in improving the way our company functions. 

The solution is easy to configure on-premise. We always got complaints about support for our prior solution so handling configuration in-house is easier. 

Configuration could be made easier with more bandwidth than they offer at the moment. 

I have been using the solution for three years. 

The solution's stability is good. 

The solution is very flexible and scalable. We have about 10,000 users and are at about 50% of maximum capacity. 

We used to contract with outside, local vendors for technical support, but found them picky about their ability to respond. We now handle support on-premise. 

Neutral

Our company uses a few solutions for our conferencing needs including this solution and Ruckus Wireless. We added Aruba because we expanded and needed two solutions. 

The initial setup was easy compared to other solutions. We have two staff members who maintain the solution. 

We hired a third party for setup and it took about four months. I rate the setup experience an eight out of ten.

We have received a good return on investment. I would rate our ROI a six out of ten. 

Licensing for the solution is based on number of users. There was also an initial setup fee, but I don't have those details. 

Our company looked at a few other options, but chose Aruba based on recommendations from other large businesses that compare in size/scope to ours.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

Aruba is part our our network infrastructure.

The most valuable features are ease of use, a simple management interface, cost-effectiveness, reliability, and simple installation.

The web-based GUI is much simpler to use than similar products by Cisco.

Because it's cloud-based, it takes time for the floor maps and the heat map to load. I understand the reason for this but it would be nice if once you click on the flop map, instead of waiting sometimes 20 or 30 seconds, it would come up a lot quicker.

I have been working with the Aruba Wireless cloud service for between a year and eighteen months. It's fairly new but I work on it every day.

This is the most stable wireless product that we have had.

We have only had similar products by Cisco but we've had a lot of problems with them. Our partners have come out to look at them, as well as remote services, and they've told us that "everything is fine". However, we have to reboot APs here and there at all of our sites.

Once we implemented the Aruba solution, we've not had those problems since.

We have nine remote sites right now, around the world, with multiple access points per site. Some sites have two or three access points, whereas others have between 25 and 30, depending on how large the site is. In total, we have 147 access points.

We have a data network that we use, and we also have a guest network. ADF authentication logs into the data network and the guest network is open. It's pretty simple to scale.

We had a building and a site that we decommissioned, so we have between nine and eleven spare APs floating around. All you have to do is plug them into the network using the right port, give them a name, and they come online. After that, you assign a foundation license to them and overall, it couldn't be simpler.

With the spares and backups we have, should we need to scale, and we always do, it's easy.

The technical support is good. They know what they're doing although the biggest problem that I have with them is their accents.

You open up a ticket and I have nothing against the people, but it always routes to India. We open a support case and they're very difficult to understand. Not all of them, but a lot of them are. As such, we've had some problems communicating and we've had to use text messages to compensate for the accents.

Otherwise, their technical skills are top-notch.

Another thing that I'll say about their tech support is that it's easy to get in and have a ticket assigned, which gets the ball rolling when we have a problem. With Cisco, it sometimes took days to get an engineer assigned.

I also have experience with Cisco wireless LAN controllers and a little bit with the Meraki line of networking equipment.

We were primarily running Cisco products at one time. However, we pulled out the Cisco devices because they were too complicated and too expensive.

We bought out another company that is currently using Aruba wireless LAN controllers. However, we're getting rid of that system and moving them to the cloud.

The reliability of Aruba products is better and the technical support from Aruba is more responsive.

Cisco is good but there's much better competition out there.

The initial setup is very easy.

Once the cloud is set up, you assign each AP a license through the web portal. You plug it in, make sure it's in a port that's configured for our Wi-Fi network, and it works. It's a three or four-step process and it's very simple to do.

Maintenance, such as deploying updates, can be done using a single person. I do all of it for our company and we have 147 access points, worldwide.

Doing an upgrade involves two clicks, and it can be done within 15 minutes.

This can be compared to Cisco, where you had to pre-stage everything. It was painful and it took me four hours to complete.

This is by far the best investment that we've made in a long time.

Aruba Wireless is much cheaper than our previous solution by Cisco. It is a significant saving, measured in thousands of dollars per year.

We looked at Fortinet, Aruba, and several other vendors. Ultimately, we found that Aruba was by far the best.

We authenticate through Aruba ClearPass, which is the TACACS server that we use.

This is a product that I recommend and especially if you're with Cisco, I suggest switching. Cisco just makes things complex. They are simplifying things with Meraki, which is something that I understand because I've been in the IT industry for a long time. With the company scaling back, I'm doing the job of three or four people and with this in mind, it's important to go with simplicity. Cisco, for some odd reason, just cannot keep it simple. It has to be complicated, even when it comes to their documentation.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

I have worked with versions 2.207 and 3.303 and 305. Because I am the service provider for my customers, I've worked with Ruckus, Aruba, Cisco, and UniFi. Most of my customers ask for new wireless solutions. Last week I installed 37 access points. My customers are very satisfied.

Configuring the main controller is very easy; with Aruba, it's just plug-and-play. The roaming features are great too.

Most of the access points don't include the chargers. If you want to increase your coverage, then you need to have a charger. When our customers ask about access points, we always recommend Aruba; however, when we tell them that they need to buy the chargers separately, they become upset, saying: "We already bought Aruba access points, the chargers should come with it".

This is my main concern. In the last five years, I've installed nearly 300 Aruba access points and most of my customers have complained about the chargers. If this problem was addressed, I wouldn't have any other complaints.

I have been using this solution for five years.

I have not experienced any bugs, software, or hardware issues with Aruba.

This solution is both very stable and scalable. I want to mention something about Aruba's compatibility between various model types. If you already have version 207 installed and you want to switch to version 3.3, it's not compatible; you can't add it to your network. You need to create a standalone network for this access point only.

I only spoke with Aruba's technical support one time. With Aruba, you don't need a lot of support. It is very easy to use. 

The initial setup is very easy. You just need to configure the main device. If you have a standalone or virtual appliance, you can just configure it and install the rest without connecting to the main device.

Deployment time varies, but usually, it's very fast. Most of our customers need 10 access points on-site. For me, this only takes roughly 15 minutes to install.

I used to use Ruckus. Ruckus takes a long time to configure. Cisco takes longer too. Aruba is the easiest to install. Just configure the main device, and install the rest. Nothing else is required.

I'd like to mention something else. Last week, I installed roughly 37 access points — Aruba 303 I believe. Our clients complained about the coverage. Their access points should be able to cover 50 meters, but Aruba was only covering 25 to 30 meters, max. I know Aruba, and like anything, there are advantages and disadvantages. I like Aruba for its easy installation, management and because they provide the best and most optimized connection.

The most important thing is the heat map; you need to have a good heat map and make sure it's configured correctly with Aruba. If you don't have a heat map, you may have issues.

Here in Jordan, some providers will go to a company that requires 10 access points and tell them they only need five. In reality, they just want the job and the client. Then, after everything is said and done, the client complains about the five access points not covering the whole area. 

Some preparation is required before you can get started with Aruba. The total amount of power needed for the access points needs to be calculated. I would recommend doing this yourself as some companies just want to sell their products.

Companies in Jordan were quite loyal to Cisco, but in the last five months, I have installed roughly 500 Aruba Switches. Version 1920 is very popular; it's very fast and great for network stability.

Cisco and Aruba offer the same features. My customers don't need advanced features. What's the point in spending an extra $300-400 dollars for features you won't even use?

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. If they increased their coverage, I would give them a rating of 15, not simply ten.

The primary use case for Aruba Wireless is for wireless network solutions. Clients use Aruba Wireless for various networking needs.

The solution supports both on-premises and cloud environments, catering to many customers who use either of the deployment methods.

Support for both on-premises and cloud environments has proven effective for network management. It contributes to stability, as many customers do not face network downtimes or issues.

The pricing could be better, especially with potential discounts for partners.

We have been using Aruba Wireless for over ten years.

The solution is very stable. Many customers do not complain about the product or network downtimes.

I would rate the scalability of this solution as a ten. It scales impressively well.

The customer service and technical support are excellent. I would rate it as high quality.

Positive

The initial setup of Aruba Wireless is straightforward.

The pricing of Aruba Wireless is competitive, especially compared to solutions like Cisco. The overall cost is considered reasonable.

I recommend Aruba Wireless because of its competitive pricing, user-friendly technology, and strong after-sales support.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

The primary use is for facilitating client communication.

Its graphical user interface is designed to be user-friendly, making work more efficient.

There has been a recent decrease in the level of support. When issues arise, we often require additional support, and this aspect should be enhanced.

I have been using it for more than three years.

If there is a controller in place, I would rate its stability abilities at around eight out of ten, as it tends to be quite stable. However, if it's a controller-less setup, using clusters of access points only, I would rate it lower, around six to seven out of ten. The stability tends to vary, especially when there's no central controller, which can make the configuration and management more challenging.

There are around two to three thousand users who rely on wireless connections for their daily work. It demonstrates excellent scalability, and I would rate it around nine out of ten.

I have noticed a decline in performance over the past two years, and I've been working with it for almost four years. The initial two years were quite satisfactory, but the performance has deteriorated since then. I would rate it six out of ten.

Neutral

I have experience using Cisco, HP Comware, Commvault, Palo Alto, and Fortinet.

The initial setup process for these access points tends to be time-consuming. While other products can start up in as little as ten to fifteen minutes, these access points take longer to get going. They are relatively stable once configured. We've noticed that they can remain stable for a year or even longer initially.

When it comes to installing access points, especially the IAPs, I've encountered some issues. These access points don't always remain stable, particularly during reboots or configuration changes. Even when I've configured ten access points, there's no guarantee that they will consistently come back online and perform as expected after a reboot or network interruption. This is a concern I'd like to highlight, and I believe the team should work on improving the stability of these access points.

It offers a lower cost compared to other products, which is a significant advantage. I would rate it eight out of ten.

I would recommend it due to its affordability, which stands out compared to other products. In terms of overall performance and management, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We're upgrading from version 9 to version 10, but I'm satisfied with the new proposed upgrade.

The solution is deployed on-premises.

Aruba Wireless is reliable, and the signal strength is pretty good. The controller has good features.

I want to have a virtual controller, so I would like to see integration with other vendors of the LAN network. We need security features to recognize the traffic source and to apply Zero Trust security.

I have used this solution for nine years.

The stability is excellent. I would rate it as nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability as eight out of ten.

We have multiple canvases and sites, so it's easy to scale up and across the same controller within the same enterprise network. When we add new access points, there is a limitation in the virtual appliance, but it's not that bad.

Technical support in Aruba is very good. It's better than other solutions' support.

I would rate technical support as eight out of ten.

Deployment was done through a third party.

The price is reasonable. I would rate the cost as 8 out of 10.

I would rate the solution as nine out of ten. 

We made an evaluation between Aruba and other vendors, and we've seen the Gartner Magic Quadrant report for Aruba. Aruba has employed a lot of experience and vision in their product, which is why it's better than others.

My advice is to have a professional survey with the best used tools for the survey and an excellent design. I think that's the most important. The sizing and dimensioning have to be done well from the beginning.