Cisco Wireless Reviews

We primarily use the solution for wireless services. We use it for wireless LAN.

The simplicity is the solution's most valuable aspect.

It's very easy to configure the access points.

The solution is scalable.

The solution is stable.

The initial implementation is pretty straightforward.

The pricing is a bit high. It could be less expensive. If they could work to lessen the cost, it would be helpful.

The reporting of the product could be improved. When I needed to troubleshoot, I couldn't get sufficient information from the controller.

It would be useful if they could add in features like AI for easier troubleshooting.

I used this product at my previous company. It's been seven or eight years. However, I do not work there anymore.

After using it for eight years, I can vouch for its stability. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable in terms of performance. 

The scalability is okay. It's more or less affected by the infrastructure design as it is based on coverage. When we need to expand coverage, we will have to just add more.

Technical support was okay in general. However, I had one negative experience doing a proof of concept with Cisco Malaysia for a Cisco ISE product. Their engineer wasn't a master of the product. It seemed the help they gave to us wasn't that knowledgeable. 

I also have experience with Aruba and Ruckus.

The initial setup wasn't overly complex or difficult. It was pretty straightforward. Back then we were using the Cisco Network as well - both wired and wireless. The configuration was quite simple.

The cost of the product is rather high. It's one of the downsides.

We're were just a customer and an end-user. I don't have a business relationship with Cisco at this time.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. I'd rate it higher if it was more reasonable in terms of pricing and if the reporting was better.

If a company would like to implement this product, they must make sure the pricing doesn't bother them and that they buy enough devices in order to ensure proper coverage for their needs. 

We use the solution for laptops, smartphones, and for both intranet and internet communication.

Some of the features I find valuable are the FlexConnect and overall it is a good global solution.

Before deploying a wireless solution, you have to read and plan every role, every windows system, put in your access point, and then make the audit. This solution is not the best one to do this. We use another solution that is called Eko. In the future, if this solution could have better auditing capabilities it would be better.

I have been using the solution for eight years.

The solution is stable.

We have added some access points for conductivity which have integrated well and have been fine scalability-wise, we have not done other types of scaling. Our whole company is using this solution.

You can have a setup that is simple but my company is big, with a lot of regulations to adhere to. I would say out we had a difficult installation but this is not directly related to the solution but more related to the policy of our company.

I would recommend others to use this solution.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

These devices are being used for a large number of sites. We have around 3,000 APs.

For WLC, we are using 5508 and 7500 devices. We will be using 9800 devices soon.

Its stability is most valuable.

It is not easy to use. It should be made easier to use. They can maybe migrate it to the cloud so that we can manage the WLCs together.

I find the licensing part very hard to understand. Cisco is now moving towards smart licensing, so this issue will be addressed soon.

I have been using this solution for eight years.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable.

Their technical support is fine.

It is easy to install. The deployment duration depends on different scenarios. It depends on the site, the number of users, and the technicality of the site, but overall, it doesn't take very long.

I am a consultant. 

Its licensing is hard to understand.

I would absolutely recommend this solution. I would rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

The solution is primarily used to connect users to the internet. It's the main product we use for this purpose.

The performance is very good. 

The solution has proven to be quite stable over the years. It's one of its most valuable aspects.

The scalability is very good.

We've found the technical support to be helpful and responsive.

If it was even more stable, that would be ideal. The stability is good, however, it's always something that can be improved upon. 

Older versions are complex to configure and implement.

The pricing of the product is quite high compared to other solutions.

I started using Cisco in 2012. I've been using it for a long time. It's been about nine years or so at this point.

We've found the stability to be very reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's very good overall. 

You can scale the product easily. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem.

More than 100 users are using it in our organization.

I'm not sure if we have plans to continue to use it or not. That's more of a management decision. However, I would be happy to keep using Cisco, as it is a very good product.

I've reached out to technical support in the past. The service is good. I'd say that the response time is fast, and the support is professional. We've been quite happy with the level of service we are provided.

I also have experience with Ruckus, Ubiquiti, and Huawei wireless solutions.

The older product has an installation that is complex, and not easy to configure. This is the disadvantage of older Cisco products. It's possible that they've sorted this out and newer versions are much easier to configure. The wireless controller on older devices is just very difficult. With the older versions, you need to tag some columns, for example. It's just a more complex process.

I was not the person who originally configured the solution and therefore can't speak to how long the deployment actually took.

The solution is quite expensive. It doesn't offer the best pricing on the market. There are cheaper options.

We are customers and end-users. We use it in our organization. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

We are using the latest version of the solution. We are using an older version. I do not have the version number on hand.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product at a nine. It's very reliable and we've been very happy with its overall capabilities so far. It does not disappoint.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations.

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.

We use the solution purely for a wide extension, in over it to achieve the desired coverage. It's a structure for our employees, and it offers end-to-end coverage for our employees to gain access to our corporate environment when they need to.

If you look at the Cisco products, it's sort of like buying a Mercedes-Benz, in that you know you get a brand that's well known and has a reputation of reliability. The ease of access and the simple rollout make it a natural choice. 

The ease of rollout is one of the main reasons we ended up choosing Cisco as a solution.

The initial setup is very straightforward.

The technical support is excellent.

The pricing is above average. They are a pretty expensive option. If clients don't have the budget, it can be hard to afford. The company should work to reduce the price and make them more competitive.

The solution would be better if there was some sort of server type of tool that's included in the package. If there was something that could help you fine-tune the solution a bit easier, it would be helpful.

I've been using the solution for eight or nine years at this point. It's been a while.

The technology of the product is excellent. The solution is very reliable and stable.

In our organization, there are roughly about 500 people using the Wireless. They vary from entry-level to senior management.

Cisco's technical support is very, very good. They are very knowledgeable and responsive. We're quite satisfied with the level of assistance they provide to us when we need it. It's quite professional.

We work as a service provider, and therefore we use a variety of products, including Cisco, Meraki, Ruckus, and Hadoop.

Although we've used other solutions, we've stuck with Cisco ourselves from the start.

The initial setup was not complex. It was straightforward and very simple. The setup and deployment are one of its selling points as it is quite easy.

The deployment is pretty quick. Of course, we have a certain level of comfort with the solution after so many years, so it is easy for us. We haven't encountered any issues with the process. Other organizations should also find it relatively easy.

The solution doesn't need a lot of staff for deployment and there is very little maintenance required. Those that we do have would be fairly technical as we would require some of our CNPs to do the support and maintenance on the system.

We don't need any consultants or implementors as we have sufficient in-house expertise. We can handle it ourselves.

I don't work with the commercial side, I don't have any estimate on the cost.

That said, I do know that it is more expensive than other options.

We are a service provider.

Cisco is a well-known brand especially when it comes to technology. They're one of the market leaders and they're absolutely a no-fuss vendor. I would recommend it to anyone.

It did take me a few weeks or months to get used to some aspects of the system, however, once you learn it, you get very comfortable with the processes of deployment.

I would rate the solution at a ten out of ten. It's a superior option that's easy to implement and very reliable.

We are in the finance sector and we use this product to provide wireless connectivity access to our web application.

The integration with Cisco ISE is good, and together we use them to provide services.

In the next release, I would like to have support for Wi-Fi 6.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for more than 10 years.

This is a stable product.

The solution is scalable. In our organization, we have more than 120 users. Our customers have more than 1,000 users.

The technical support from Cisco is very good.

The installation is user-friendly. The length of time required for deployment depends on the quantity. If you have less than ten then it will take no more than between three and five hours to complete. If we have enough engineers then each access point will only take one hour.

Our in-house team is responsible for deployment and maintenance. The number of people required to deploy depends on the size of the installation.

Cisco Wireless is a little bit expensive when compared to other solutions.

In summary, this is a good product and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for the internal network connection.

The management solutions the product has on offer are the most valuable aspects of the solution. It makes everything easy to manage from the perspective of an IT administrator.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution can scale well.

We've found the product to be very stable and quite reliable.

So far, we've found that the product offers everything we need it to.

I don't see any features that are really lacking.

The technical support could be better. They aren't as helpful as they need to be when we run into issues.

I've been using the solution for the last ten years at this point. It's been about a decade. We've used it for quite a long time now.

The solution is quite stable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There aren't bugs or glitches.

The solution is pretty scalable. If a company needs to expand it, they can do so fairly easily. It's not hard.

We have between 300 to 400 people on the solution currently.

We aren't fully satisfied with technical support at this time. They are getting better, however, they need to improve their services still.

The implementation process is not complex at all. it's very straightforward. We didn't face any issues.

The deployment process was also very quick. It didn't take long to have everything up and running.

Our procurement team handles the contracts for this solution. Therefore, I don't have any insights into pricing.

We're just end-users. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

Currently, just doing the upgrade. I'm just doing the upgrade in order to have Wi-Fi 6 enabled, which is the new technology. 

I would recommend the solution to others.

Overall, I would rate the solution nine out of ten. We've been pretty happy with it.