Cisco Wireless Reviews

We have over 5000 students in grades 1-12 and have on average 200 users on wireless during school hours with no issues.

We have had Cisco 3502, 3602 and 3702 access points, a total of 284 diploids. And for over five years, we've only had two access points that failed.

The configuration is simple. The controllers are reliable, and the support is second to none.  The system works for us.

Price is a concern. Although Cisco has an excellent solution, being competitive in the market is important.

It is an extremely stable and scalable solution. Their documentation and support are also very good.

There is no technology without room for improvement. The main setback with Cisco solutions, not only with Cisco Wireless, is having to update the OS manually. We are now migrating to Miraki, so we've been able to work that out. 

There is also a small gap in the space of compatibility.

We've been deploying Cisco Wireless in our environment for over 20 years.

It is extremely stable.

It is extremely scalable.

Their support is very good, and their documentation is also very good.

We have only been working with Cisco Wireless. We are a partner and reseller.

Its implementation is not complex. I have trained experts working with me, so it is not at all complex.

Its price is a bit high. It is more expensive than its competitors, but when I look at the return on investment, it is worth it.

If budget is an issue, then you can go for a cheaper option. If you're not planning for a big environment, you don't necessarily need to invest in Cisco because of the price.

I would rate it an eight out of 10. Overall, I am very satisfied with this solution.

I use Cisco Wireless Wireless across my buildings for education. I have students that use Chromebooks and staff that teach using the tool. 

Cisco Wireless provides network access for students. The benefits of using Cisco Wireless are we have enhanced education, and help kids learn and research. Additionally, it helps the staff teach.

The most valuable features of Cisco Wireless are the level of control and management. I am happy with it.

The reporting tool in Cisco Wireless could improve. If I am trying to receive information about a client or user, it's cumbersome to retrieve the information on the controller system. If I'm trying to find out where a client's been, it's cumbersome. You need another tool for Historical logs, but it should be all in one.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for approximately 10 years.

Cisco Wireless is stable.

I can add more access points if needed, Cisco Wireless is a scalable solution.

We have approximately 3,000 users using this solution. We are using the solution extensively.

My experience with Cisco support has been excellent.

The setup of Cisco Wireless is straightforward and it took a couple of days to complete.

I outsource some of the implementations and the planning stage can be the largest issue.

I do most of the maintenance of the solution, such as patching.

I would recommend a third-party integrator if they need help implementing the  Cisco Wireless, they can help out a lot.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

Overall Cisco Wireless meets my needs, it has been in place for a while, and I am happy with the solution.

We use it for Wi-Fi at home. We'll have all devices connected to this Wi-Fi router.

As for valuable features, it is tough, has a nice speed, and is quite reliable.

I would improve the Wi-Fi range. Sometimes, in some rooms the signal could be a bit better, a little stronger.

I've been using Cisco Wireless for a couple of years.

I have had no problems at all with stability.

The installation is very easy and straightforward. I did it myself.

It's a good device, and I would recommend it. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at eight.

Our primary use case is to provide enterprise wireless solutions for employees. We're a system integration provider, and we have a number of customers. Our customers deploy our wireless solutions in an active-standby mode for better network stability. We mostly have customers who have standalone wireless controllers.

I like that Cisco Wireless is easy to implement. If you get stuck with any issues, they have ample documentation on the internet. It's easy to implement, and Cisco documentation is easily accessible.

In the next release, I would like to see some AI capability deployed. Other competitors like Mist and Juniper already have it. So, AI features need to be introduced next year. Cisco is the defacto brand in wireless technology, and they're a little bit behind. They need to introduce some AI features so we can introduce the customer to these new features.

Some training will help because Cisco's new offering, 9800, requires a lot of hands-on experience. This is because the Cisco 9800 controller is new compared to the previous models, like 2504 and 3504. It requires more hands-on experience to get familiar with the terminologies used in 9800. This is because there are some AP profiles and site profiles, and all these things we aren't familiar with. It's a good tool.

I've been implementing Cisco Wireless for the last five years.

Cisco Wireless is obviously very stable, and there's no doubt about that. When you go for Airwave, it's very stable. The new IOx is going to be stable, and we're deploying it for a couple of customers.

You can deploy it for whatever your user wants and their AP count. It's very good when it comes to scalability.

Cisco technical support is great. Cisco is based in Texas and provides technical support in any manner. Cisco provides support to customers who require it for updates or break-fix IT.
Support is wonderful. We haven't had a problem.

It's easy to set up and implement this solution. For a basic implementation, you can deploy it within two or three hours. This is for a basic deployment for publishing SSID and testing. At a granular level, you may need a week to deploy this solution. This is because, in wireless scenarios, you need to do tests and try different testing scenarios. It's a very good basic solution for deploying to the cloud.

From a pricing point of view, it's a little bit expensive compared to competitors like Aruba and others. But the product is also very promising and very stable. The hardware is wonderful. As a system integrator, it's okay, but you'll probably see it as expensive as a customer.

I would advise potential users to implement Cisco wireless if they're implementing Airwaves. The old models like 2504 and 5508 work well with Airwaves. But it requires some specific knowledge to take that to the controllers and unplug the device. Some connectivity is derived from the core to the controller. You need to know what type of connectivity is required, what kind of access, and all those things. Cisco 9800 is a pure IOx, and it has a very straightforward configuration. It's very easy when compared to Airwaves.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Wireless a ten for stability and performance. I don't have any issues with that.

Our primary use case for this solution is the provision of standard wireless access.

Service delivery is critical in our organization. Wireless access has enabled users to be mobile and as a result, more productive.

The most important feature for us is the standard service delivery. Once configured correctly, it is 95% reliable.

The cost model is expensive. The new licensing has no added value and seems to be Cisco's effort to take advantage of customers.

Cisco has good support services.

Simplification in terms of deployment would be good. The need for different boxes should be improved as well.

The architecture is becoming complex. It's not a three-layer architecture; it's only two layers, and the access is based on the leaf and spine. However, there are lots of components, and we need to add more components and more licenses for services. This ends up becoming costly.

I have been working for almost seven years with Cisco Wireless.

Cisco's technical support is good.

Because the Cisco architecture is quite complex, you may end up having to add more components and licenses. So, the cost could go up.

Cisco is quite complex compared to Aruba Central, which is more user friendly and easy to handle. I would rate Cisco Wireless at seven on a scale from one to ten.

Right now, this is our primary connection for the network. We have all of our end devices connect to that. All workers connect to wireless, rather than a wired connection, so they all have laptops. 

The most valuable feature for us is management of the systems. We can easily access all features.

Probably more in terms of how much power it's using. Right now it just seems like it doesn't have enough power. Maybe that is all indicated, but says exactly how much power it's using.

When it comes to wireless controllers you have issues where you want to take an access point computer to a wireless controller, you have to configure the iOS for it. That's just cumbersome and it takes time. It just is not as convenient so not having to do that would be nice. I think it's a little more complicated than that to convert the iOS file when you're doing the wireless controller where you're going to have them converted.

The stability of the power was an issue for us recently. The access point seems to have enough power, but it turns out it did not have enough power.

I did not use technical support. After an hour of trouble-shooting, I figured it out on my own.

We have prior experience with Cisco Meraki, which is a powerful solution.

It's fairly straightforward. They are not always wireless, and that can cause some complications. But, otherwise it is not complicated at all.