Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN Reviews

We use the solution for our 100-plus access points.

Cloud management, wireless infrastructure, and implementation are all valuable features.

The wireless infrastructure scalability has room for improvement.

We have been using the solution for seven years.

I give the stability an eight out of ten.

Our ability to scale is determined by our licensing and can be easily managed through cloud consoles. However, the wireless component of our end users poses some scalability challenges.

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment was completed by the system integrators and engineers which took less than one week.

The implementation was completed in-house.

There are multiple licensing options including three months, six months, and one year.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

We have around 120 access points which support around 70 users at a time for a total of around 7,000 users.

I've been working with schools for about 20 years. I previously worked in a school with four campuses and about one thousand students, where I managed all four campuses' wireless networks with Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN.

The solution's most valuable features at that time were the ease of managing on the cloud without having a server and the authentication using RADIUS integrated with the server on the cloud. It will be authenticated by MAC address, and access will be provided through that.

Updating the equipment and the scheme they use to bill for the license could be improved. We once had to move some access points from one campus to another. Since each campus has its own specifications, we had to delete the access points from one and reschedule them on the other, but we spent money on a new license. That was a management problem we faced.

We tried to implement the single sign-on with Google, which was a bit complex.

Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is a very stable solution. We had issues with models, and at that time, it was very sensible to glitches on the internet network. Since we completely depend on the internet network, any problem with the network will cause issues.

Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN has huge scalability because everything will be compatible with it.

The solution's technical support depends on the local supplier. You can contract a simple support system with the local supplier. You can also buy support with Cisco, but it's really costly.

Positive

Each product is deployed with a specific target. Aruba is more specific for security, and Ruckus is more network and wireless-focused. Aruba is the best option if you want ten access points. If you make a network of 20 to 40 access points, Ruckus will give you the best management because it has some software that makes it easier to implement and manage.

If you want to integrate everything with voice-over IP and video, Cisco is the best option because it gives you more granularity on how you can configure it.

I could do most of the deployment by myself. It was a one-man job instead of a team. Otherwise, you will need an expert in each campus. I deployed the solution on one campus during one summer vacation, and the next summer, I deployed it on another campus. The next summer, we deployed it on the third campus, and so on. Everything was deployed after a couple of years, and we could use it.

You could say we deployed the solution in a couple of months because the actual deployment happened during the summer vacations.

The solution's pricing is a little higher. Earlier, you didn't have many options. Currently, Cisco's pricing is still high, but there are other options available. All the other brands, like Aruba and Ruckus, are catching up. Pricing is becoming more of an issue with Cisco because it's still very high compared with other products. The other products are implementing the technology that Cisco has.

Meraki has a lot of levels of security implementation. The first one is very limited because you can only block ten web pages with it, and it's not very granular. If you want to do something else, you have to buy another product specifically for security and put it on the network.

Meraki now implements access points and switches and has a security brand element. It depends on what level of security you want to put in, but each one of those, on a price basis, is still a little higher than any other brand.

I would recommend the solution to other users based on their needs. If you need some specific issues addressed or if your implementation is small, you should probably go with Aruba. If your computation is middle-sized or if you're planning to grow a lot, you should probably start looking at Ruckus or Cisco.

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

We use Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN for wireless networks.

We use the solution's bandwidth shaping, URL filtering, and group policy configuration features.

The solution’s pricing could be improved.

I have been using Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN for six months.

I rate the solution ten out of ten for stability.

The solution's scalability is limitless and can meet our organization's growth. Around 200 users are using the solution in our organization.

I rate the solution ten out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s initial setup is easy.

Two people deployed Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN in our organization within a few hours.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten.

We use the solution to support the IT workforce in the wireless network. The solution has simplified management and seamless connectivity. The solution provides security from viruses and reduces my bandwidth overhead.

We have two types of monitoring. We use a third-party tool to monitor my entire network. In the Meraki dashboard, we use Meraki monitoring for the wireless client. Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is deployed on the cloud in our organization. I would recommend Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for wireless connectivity for our wireless network.

The connectivity is very good. 

It's a robust, stable solution. We haven't had any issues at all.

The graphic user interface is very nice. It makes using it very easy.

The product is simple to manage. 

It is not too expensive. 

The setup is easy.

It is stable.

The solution can scale. 

I don't really need any changes to be made. 

It may be expensive for smaller setups.

We'd like to have better mapping to showcase low-coverage areas. 

This is a recent installation. We did this installation towards the end of last year. We've used it for less than one year.

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. I'd rate the stability ten out of ten. 

The solution can scale. That said, I've never reached the limit of our deployment. We haven't tested the scalability too much. 

We have about 100 users in our office.

We do not have plans to increase usage. We may decrease the number. 

We've never contacted technical support. 

We previously upgraded from Cisco's 2500 series. 

The initial setup is straightforward. However, it is a global configuration and handled by another unit. I did not set it up myself. We got it out of the box and just needed to put it up. My understanding is that it would be relatively easy to set up. 

While it is on-premises, it does have some cloud reporting features. 

We received the solution partially configured. Therefore, I cannot speak of the setup process from end to end. 

We have four members in IT in our office and are supported by a bigger team at our company's headquarters. 

The cost isn't too high for an enterprise setup. 

We pay a license for three years for support and maintenance. 

While I would recommend ht eh solution to others, it does depend on the environment and usage. If it is a small setup, there are other options that are less expensive. Meraki works well in an enterprise environment. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use the product to manage three SSIDs catering to different network traffic.

Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN has a valuable cloud management feature. It is easy to manage and monitor cloud activities. It enables quick deployment within all branches for the users. It provides great performance even in 0℃ temperatures in some places.

In some cases, they could include enhanced features in the product, such as a firewall console and traffic analysis.

We have been using Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN for three years.

We encounter some issues related to DNS resolution once or twice a year. However, the stability works fine for almost 99% of the time.

The platform is easy and quick to scale. We can add up devices on SSIDs for every configuration or node.

We never contacted Cisco's technical support team directly. We receive services from an authorized partner.

We previously used Fortinet APs integrated with their UTM solution for security. It provides an efficient integration.

It is easy to set up, and we take assistance from a third-party engineer to execute the process. It takes a few hours to complete.

We take help from contractors. They assist us with any queries during implementation.

Cisco Meraki Wireless provides 20 ports and other components like switches at half the price of Aruba HP for the same features.

The platform is expensive. Its licenses for 20 ports cost around $1000, including one year of support services.

I rate Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN a nine out of ten.

The cloud management feature is a great feature of the solution.

Since we have no complaints in our company using the product so far, it looks like we are using a great product.

The solution cannot be looked upon for one year or short term because you will pay back all the discounts they offer the next time you pay for renewal. So, the aforementioned details can be considered under the solution's room for improvement.

We have been using Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN for a couple of years in our company. Information related to the version is something that we can obtain from the portal because it's available there. My company has a partnership with Cisco Meraki.

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

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten. Less than 50 people in my company use the solution.

We didn't need to contact technical support.

The solution's initial setup process was straightforward. In a couple of days, the deployment process was done.

Our in-house team did the implementation.

The box itself is very cheap. The question here is about the subscription because this is what you will pay every year. In the initial year, for purchasing, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN gives you an attractive price. While during renewal, we are not given much discount.

I would recommend others to use it and urge them to pay the subscription upfront so that they can have the best value and discount.

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

It is primarily used for wireless access, both indoors throughout the plant and outdoors.

One of the most convenient aspects of having access to the dashboard is the ability to work on access points from any location. This eliminates the need for a wireless controller, as all connections are made through the dashboard. This is the best feature of using this system.

The most valuable aspect of this solution is the single pane of glass management and reliability.

It has been very reliable.

The licensing could be improved.

Licensing is, in my opinion, the least appealing component. It can be difficult to keep licenses up to date in order for the system to function properly.

I have been working with Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN for more than five years.

We use MR74.

I would rate the stability of Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN a nine out of ten.

We rarely have any issues with them.

We only have two and didn't have any issues. 

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

There are no plans to expand our usage, and instead, we will opt for a single-vendor approach by replacing them with Fortinet.

Technical support is fine, but I would rate them a six out of ten.

The initial setup was straightforward.

When we initially purchased them, having these access points was particularly useful since I was the only one managing everything. It made my job much easier.

For small businesses, these access points are fantastic, as their stability and easy installation make them ideal. However, for larger businesses, the return on investment may not be as significant.

The cost of both the hardware and licensing is high, and it is more than what I would prefer to spend currently.

I would definitely try a proof of concept, unless you do a proof of concept, If they work, then, you use them. They are definitely reliable. 

They usually upgrade the firmware on their own.

I would rate Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for user-end connectivity. 

The tool's most valuable feature is report generation. Its dashboard helps me a lot with user analytics.

Despite being enabled, I've encountered an issue where the alert main dashboard fails to detect when any of the devices go down. Hence, the tool's notification feature should improve. We have also faced issues with integration. 

I have been using the product for five years. 

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

I rate Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN's scalability a nine out of ten. My company has three users. 

Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN's tech support is problematic and takes time to respond. We don't even have contact numbers. 

Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN's deployment is simple. 

Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN's pricing is high. 

I rate the product a nine out of ten.