Aruba Wireless Reviews

This solution has been deployed for an enterprise environment with 105 Apps and controllers in HA for a government entity handling the user capacity of 1500 people.

Multiple SSIDs have been broadcasted with independent VLANs and user policy has been implemented.

The controllers are in HA. Both indoor and outdoor APs have been used in the environment.

The solution has been differentiated for Guests, Employees, and an unrestricted group. The APs have been deployed across 10 multistory buildings in high interference zones.

Aruba Wireless has succeeded in facilitating the implementation of a centralized wireless network to the client, covering multiple buildings expanding across the area of 58000 square meters.

There are no blind spots and users enjoy uninterrupted Wi-Fi. This has given the users complete mobility and the Quality of Service with the necessary security imposed.

It has met the customer expectations and is ready to scale for growing business demand. It has offered visibility into the network and enhanced the troubleshooting experience.

It is easy to implement and manage through a web GUI.

The adding of APs simply involves configuring a network port on the appropriate VLAN and plugging in the AP. The controller pushes the config out to the new AP.

The Airwave is the best feature for a single management point for all APs in the environment. 

It offers many reporting features as well as visual RF maps displaying heatmaps of the AP signals and client positioning. 

The addition of the APs on the existing swarm is plug and play to the desired VLAN.

The Help option within the GUI needs to be improved. It would be perfect to have it more descriptive about the functions and features it has.

The online documentation resources could be made more readily available for troubleshooting than to be engaged with the support through email and calls.

During the shipments, the firmware versions on the shipped outdoor APs, indoor APs, and controllers could be matched so that adaptation for the APs is easy.

They should add more features available on Aruba Airwave to the GUI.

We have been suing Aruba Wireless for two years.

Stability is guaranteed.

This is a very scalable product. 

Technical support is excellent. They are more willing to help and be there for the customer.

We did not switch products. Rather, our choice is based on customer requirements. It's the best-recommended product listed by Gartner on this segment.

The initial setup is absolutely straightforward.

Our in-house team is responsible for deployment.

The access points are more cost-effective over some other providers, both in cost per AP and the option of a controller-less environment. 

It's comparatively priced; it's a bit expensive compared to competitors but worth the investment because of the performance, stability, and ease of deployment.

We had been working with vendors like Cisco and Ruckus.

We provide services for clients, so it's always a different use case. For example, we work with a retailer and we focus on electronic tasks. Another is corporate offices in a bank, one of the biggest banks in Mexico. Another is massive events like the Olympics with different sponsors. There's a big difference in the type of use cases.

In the case of the contacts or the callers, Aruba Wireless offers a good user experience. For example, there are a lot of the contacts in the retail store, we are talking about 100,000 users connected at one time. After evaluation, Aruba Wireless was considered best for large numbers of users like this. 

The network times for protocol synchronization can be improved. Sometimes it's complicated, and we need to tweak it to coordinate or synchronize it to the clock at the network access point.

I have some issues with the introductory domain with the frequency that we use. For example, it's very common to have a box with a frequency channel with the introductory domains in Mexico. The access points have some issues in this release; I think it's version eight.

Sometimes the documentation is confusing. You have to figure out a lot of different placements on your own because of the outdated information.

I have used Aruba Wireless for about five years. 

Aruba Wireless seems to be very stable. I don't remember having any issues with stability. 

Aruba Wireless is scalable. You can add more people. You can use the same configuration for 50 or 2,000, or 5,000 users.

Aruba Wireless technical support is too slow, or it used to be. For example, to test a domain in Mexico, they would spend about three months.

The initial setup is complicated because you have to modify many options, and you have to spend time handling those options, and sometimes you need attendants for these options.

We always evaluate options to see what's best. For example, sometimes, the ARM is more relative, and Aruba is more efficient than others. Cisco has the same functionality, but sometimes the main link will disconnect the users. You don't have that problem with Aruba Wireless. 

For those interesting in using Aruba Wireless, I would recommend taking a simplified approach to the license. They should analyze options relevant to their systems as it can get more complex. At this moment, there are a lot of licensing options.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Aruba Wireless a nine.

We use the product predominately for beacons and peer devices.

It has very flexible features.

I believe more security options are needed.

I have been using the product for seven or eight years.

We have not had any problems with the stability of the product.

It is a scalable solution.

When we have had to use support, everything from the service was helpful.

We have used Cisco products in the past.

The setup is not a problem, it only took five minutes or so.

We used five technicians for the deployment of the product.

I rate Aruba Wireless a nine out of ten.

We have about 30 APs and a lot of sites with centralized management on controller 7030. We use it to control the network in standalone mode and handle the active and standby modes.

All features are useful for me. It lets me perform some specific configurations depending on the site or the client. All WAN features are valuable.

Their documentation needs to be improved. Aruba's documentation is poor.

I have been using Aruba Wireless Controllers for about a year.

Its stability is okay. There is no issue with stability.

Its scalability is okay.

Their support is good. When I need to open a case, I get a fast response. I can contact the technician immediately. I would rate them an eight out of ten.

I also use Cisco solutions. Both solutions are very good and suitable for different kinds of networks. Cisco is very good for certain kinds of networks, and Aruba is good for other kinds. Cisco is simpler to deploy, whereas Aruba is more complicated and complex to deploy.

The initial setup was very complex because we deployed a new controller in a small network. It is useful for large networks, but for small networks, it is very difficult to understand all the models. If you don't use Mobility Master, the configuration and deployment are very complex. It took us six months to deploy it.

We got help from a third-party vendor, not Aruba. They were okay. We didn't have any problem.

You should know about the topology of the Aruba Wireless solution. It is very important because it depends on the size of the network. Otherwise, you might end up buying something that's not adequate for large networks.

I would rate Aruba Wireless an eight out of ten.

Aruba was our primary wireless solution until very recently.  

In the end, when you bring on a wireless solution, you only need a wireless solution. That is the intrinsic value. We had both Aruba ClearPass and Aruba AirWaves. We had all the management features also available from Aruba. These worked well together as a class of products.   

When I compare Aruba with Juniper Mist, Juniper is the more an AI-driven management solution. It is more of a modern solution, I think. Aruba needs to be more competitive with Juniper.  

We have been using Aruba Wireless for four or five years now.  

I think Aruba is stable because it was working okay. There was no problem with downtime. The issue for us with functionality was because we have much more reflection in our building due to the height of our ceilings.  

We bought the product through a reseller. For support, we needed to go through that reseller instead of Aruba self. It is hard to judge the capabilities of Aruba support directly.  

We had Aruba and we just replaced it with Juniper Mist a few weeks ago (September 2020). The AI-driven management solutions from Juniper Mist suits our business more than the Aruba solution we used before. I think Aruba did the work we needed before, but better management is the reason why we moved over to Juniper Mist.  

Before Aruba, we worked with HP Colubris. We stopped using the HP Colubris solution because HP no longer provided it. That is what happened.  

Aruba is comparable to competing solutions when it comes to price. I am going to say that the support pricing for Juniper Mist is higher than Aruba. I think that is because Juniper is more of a cloud model than Aruba.  

You do also have a cloud solution from Aruba called Aruba Central, but I have not compared prices for that.  

The advice that I would give to someone considering Aruba as a wireless solution would be to look into the Aruba Central cloud solution that they are offering right now. I think we are at a time of brand control that needs to be managed and needs to be supported. I think that working with a cloud-based solution is a better option than on-premises solutions.  

I think what is more important than a particular tool is that you also have the depth of wireless knowledge to really be able to competently manage such environments.  

On a scale from one to ten (where one is the worst and ten is the best), I would rate this product as a seven-out-of-ten. To improve on that score they would have to make Aruba more available to cloud management. They just recently started with Aruba Central and they are not as far along as Juniper Mist is with having a mature cloud solution.  

The problem for Aruba is that Juniper Mist is a new product without a longer legacy. They can start from ground zero. Aruba needs to support the older controller-based models and that may slow them down when it comes to development.  

I am a system integrator and Aruba Wireless is one of the network infrastructure products that I have experience with. We have customers using versions all the way from AP-100 to AP-535.

We have these devices in many industries, with a focus on educational institutions.

The most valuable feature is the client match. This feature continually monitors the client and provides automatic load-balancing, as well as other advanced features.

Improvements to the GUI, such as being able to search in the Mobility Master, would be nice. It is hard to find and provision APs when you have a substantial install base.

I have been using Aruba Wireless since 2007.

The stability has been great.

We haven't had any trouble with scalability. 75% of our clients are using Aruba Wireless.

I have a lot of experience with wireless networking products from Aruba and Juniper. I also have some experience with Ruckus.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward and the deployment is quick. With our experience, it is pretty easy to do.

We integrate Aruba Wireless and other devices for our customers.

My advice for anybody who is considering Aruba Wireless is to try it. If you try it then you're going to like it.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We are using different versions depending on the customer. We have about 400 or 500 customers. Some of them are Aruba, some of them have other technologies. Different versions are deployed all over. We use it as a wireless device manager where appropriate.  

There are only so many features in Wireless controllers. The fact that Aruba has a virtual controller onboard the internet access points makes it cheaper than to buy Aruba Central licenses or Meraki Cloud licenses. That probably makes it most valuable.  

Aruba Wireless is among the leaders in the market. We are not talking about basic access points. As a leader, they keep ahead of the field.  

We have been using it for a year-and-a-half.  

The stability is very good.  

It is very scalable.  

The technical support is good. My impression is that pre-sale support is very good with Aruba. Their global presence is important. I do not have to deal with any other technical support because they have a follow-the-sun type of system that uses different support teams. When I ask for support, we get it and we get it during regular business hours. I never phoned anywhere else but the North American team. They are good and responsive.  

Installation is pretty straight forward.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Aruba wireless eight-out-of-ten. Nobody would get a ten.  

The primary use we have for the product is for users' corporate mobile access.  

The most valuable feature is the fact that it can work with many devices. It supports everything that we need it to. Whatever features are required from an enterprise standard, it supports all of them. The main advantage is broad device support.  

The area that has the most room for improvement is upgrades. What we have seen many times now is that new releases tend to have bugs. Sometimes the bugs are a little bad and cause some undesirable issues. The new code in the upgrades or something leads to conflicts. I would say testing releases before making them available is one of the areas which Aruba needs to improve most with the wireless product. More comprehensive testing is required for a better, more reliable end-user experience.  

It is not necessarily testing more often, it is just for new releases. The testing they need to do is to work more closely with different environments and take notice of where issues tend to occur. They should have some idea of what environments are experiencing issues more often by now because of which companies are reporting the issues. They can make compensations for testing in those environments.  

I do not have any new features that the product requires off the top of my head. I think that more than improving the product, there are management portfolios and other peripheral things that could be better integrated. But just doing better testing is the main improvement that they need to make.  

We have been using Aruba Wireless for between seven and eight years now.  

Aruba Wireless has been a stable solution for us. Once it was set up correctly it was fine. We had some initial hiccups. We still have issues with upgrades sometimes. Except for mostly minor issues, it has been a good solution.  

Aruba Wireless is easily scaled between a lot of devices and a lot of endpoints. When we decided to use it as our solution we had planned to use it exactly for its ability to scale. We went through a massive scaling and did not have issues with devices and endpoints.  

Right now we have 30,000 users and around 45,000 devices between those users. It does not seem that there are many limitations for scaling the product's use.  

Technical support is good. The only issue we have had with them is that we often have to be referred to their engineering response team. That situation actually happens most of the time. On the other hand, we do not need to use support very often.  

So, yes, we get support for the product and we eventually get the solution we need, but most of the time it gets referred to their engineering team to get the complete solution. Overall, the support is pretty good.  

The initial setup was a little bit complex because our environment is complex. Because of that, I would say the initial setup was complex. It may not be as complex for other companies.  

It took almost a year for deployment. But there are two sides to the setup. One is the product is good and it can be configured to do what we need. But our environment was complex because it involves some legacy devices and some really advanced new devices and technologies as well. It is good that the product is able to support both of those needs.  

We have a couple of IT specialists, one architect, and a development operations engineer for deploying the updates and maintaining the solution. In total, it is around four or five people who maintain the product. Not everyone needs to be dedicated to it full-time.  

The advice that I would give to others who are looking into implementing Aruba starts with that it is a good product. It has some really good features. But the other reality is that you might need to be prepared to face some hiccups with any upgrades and with the setup.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate the Aruba Wireless solution as a seven-point-five out of ten. Because of the upgrade issues and the persistence of those, I would rate it a seven.