Cisco Wireless Reviews

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.

We are using it just for connectivity.

It allows us to reduce the cost of cabling and provides mobility of users within the organization.

The speed and security are most valuable.

Its licensing model and cost should be improved. 

I have been using this solution for about seven years.

It is very stable.

It is quite scalable.

There are no issues with their technical support.

It is fairly easy.

We used an outsource partner.

It is expensive, and there are some costs in addition to the standard licensing fee. Its licensing model and cost should be improved.

At that time, Cisco was the main provider of such solutions, so we went with Cisco.

I would recommend this solution. I would advise getting it done by a professional who knows what he or she is doing so that you don't run into any issues.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

The primary use case for our customers is having a product that provides a solution to complex problems. We have more than 100 customers using Cisco Wireless. 

Being able to solve the complex issues of our customers with a stable solution is very valuable. The fact that it is also very flexible adds to the value. 

One of the issues with Cisco, particularly for smaller companies, is the cost. A small company can't afford to pay the price of a Cisco product. The price is a very important factor for our customers. 

I've been using this solution for about two years. 

The solution is stable. 

This solution is scalable. 

We receive great technical support from Cisco. 

The initial setup was relatively straightforward, although it took a little longer than expected. We have one person who deals with the maintenance and any issues that arise. 

I believe licensing is paid on a monthly basis. 

This is a great product and despite the high cost, I rate it a 10 out of 10 for performance. 

We use it for all kinds of equipment including, laptops, mobile devices, and guest access. We are just using the basic features and just the wireless connection.

If I take it away, that would be a nightmare because we have a lot of devices working through wireless.

The capacity, security, downloading, and exporting data are all very good. It's user-friendly, but if I look at Meraki versus normal Cisco equipment, then I think that Meraki will be much more user-friendly.

The price could be better. The configuration is also complex. It would be better if there's an NEC solution. That's one of the things we really want to have. It should also be as fast as possible.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for a couple of years.

It's stable, but it's expensive.

We got in touch with technical support once, and that was good.

The initial setup is complex. We currently have a complex configuration.

It's expensive. The pricing is an obstacle.

I would advise new users not to underestimate the complexity of the configuration.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Wireless an eight.

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.