Cisco Wireless Reviews

The FlexConnect feature is the most valuable.

It would be great if it is compatible with other products.

I have been using this solution for almost six years.

Until now, it has been stable in spite of some upgrades.

It is scalable. Our clients are large companies.

Their technical support is great.

We worked with Cisco Prime and Cisco Controller.

The initial setup was quite straightforward.

It is quite simple. Even if you are not a wireless network expert, you will be able to use it by doing some research. It is not difficult or super complex.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten. I am satisfied with this solution.

We have twenty switches in our corporate office.

The most valuable features are that it is easy to install and the range is good.

The price should be reduced. It should be cheaper.

I have been using this solution for five years.

We have upgraded to the newest version.

It's a stable product.

We have close to 600 users in our organization who are using this solutoin.

I do not have experience with technical support. We have not had to contact them.

Previously, we did not use another solution.

It's easy to install. 

It can take 15 to 20 minutes to complete the installation.

I completed the installation myself.

We have a team of three to maintain this product.

This is an expensive product.

We plan to continue our usage of this product and I would recommend it to others.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The mobility that it provides is really helpful. It's one full network of about 15 APs and they're all connected together; the users can move seamlessly between them.

Overall, it's a pretty good solution; however, it's end-of-life, it will be end-of-support in the next two years. The APs are also end-of-life. I was considering upgrading this year, however, we're planning to move to a new office and I don't want to buy new equipment just to install it in our current office, and then have to dismantle everything and move it to the new office. We just want to buy something that is useful for us.

The model that we have is about eight or ten years old; I'm sure the marketplace has changed a lot since then. It's good but outdated, there are other features that could be better.

The latest models, of course, have better WiFi capabilities. Our access points support 2.4 and 5 GHz. We're looking for the new AX or AC models for WiFi. I believe there is more speed with those kinds of connections.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for about three years.

It's stable. It's working fine. There are some issues regarding moving the equipment. Otherwise, every three months or so we have an AP that hangs and we just restart it, that's it. Otherwise, everything's working fine.

We haven't contacted support from Cisco.

We have some other access points, but they are normal, standard APs. For our branch office, we use fat APs, just normal wireless outlets from off-the-shelf, like D-Link and so on. 

I haven't set them up myself. There was an IT team before I started administering this network and they set up everything before me. I just received the network as it is. I just added the APs and moved them from one area to another.

Cisco Wireless is good. On a scale from one to ten, I would give them a rating of seven, although to give a more accurate rating, I would need to experience something else to compare it to. I'm considering sticking with Cisco, unless I find other models that can give better performance. Cisco has a few types of models: the standard Cisco, the normal Cisco, and the Meraki one. I'm not sure if Meraki would be a better solution for us, or if the standard Cisco Wireless controller would be better. That's why I went to your website — to find other solutions and read comparisons about them.

I like many of the features that Cisco Wireless has to offer.

Code stability is something that needs to be improved.

I have been working with Cisco Wireless for 10 years.

The technical support is fine.

The price of this product is reasonable.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Cisco Wireless is that they need to know the products. There are a lot of features that you can turn on and off, so they need to know the product itself. It's not as simple as it seems.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We have been using Cisco wireless for more than five years.

This product has a long life and you don't have any issues with it.

We are very comfortable with the access points and Wi-Fi connectivity.

There needs to be an access point that is compact and more suitable for small and medium-sized businesses.

We need an access point that can be easily managed in a big industry. As it is now, in a large organization, we would require perhaps 20 or 30 access points. Instead of this, if we had a high-range access point that is also cost-effective then it would work well.

We have been using Cisco Wireless for five years. The model that we are using is now at end-of-life and we no longer have support from Cisco.

Stability-wise, this is a good solution and the majority of people in the industry prefer Cisco and Aruba devices.

This is a scalable product.

In general, Cisco's technical support is very good. They will replace hardware if needed. However, based on the locality, the support may need improvement. 

If you have knowledge of Cisco solutions then the initial setup is easy. However, if you don't have the knowledge then it's very difficult and you need to ask for support from a third-party.

The deployment will take a week.

Some of our customers use Cisco Wireless, whereas others use Aruba. It is normally an issue of the quality of the local support team. People prefer the support of one vendor over another, which differs depending on the locale.

If anybody asks me, I would recommend a Cisco device. When you consider all of the LAN and wireless features, everything is good. Cisco is now customizing products based on customer requirements, and they are also cost-effective.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We provide seamless connectivity for the users in various locations. We can track a user and analyze them according to their behavior within the campus and according to their different locations. This gives us a full view of the locations that users gravitate towards and how they utilize the workspace areas within the campus.

The solution offers very good integration with a BYOD solution.

The solution offers very good application visibility and control integration for other analysis software.

We are looking for more interaction with end-users and need to use the engagement feature that is provided in the new series. We want interaction between the end-users and the software that we are deploying. Therefore, an integration that would use a user's mobile devices through some sort of engagement API would be a good enhancement.

We don't actually use the features to their full potential yet.  We're always exploring the features to see what we can add.

It would be great if, even if the solution is degraded, security-wise, if it could be integrated without extra overhead for the systems or wireless administrators.

I've been using the solution for 13 or 14 years now through it is different series 

The solution is very scalable using the options of the cluster-ID for the wireless. You don't have any limitations, even with one wireless controller. I haven't seen any limitations. It's very scalable and extendible. Performance-wise we can extend beyond the wireless controller through the FlexConnect feature. It's great.

On-premises, we typically have about 500 users.

Currently, our capacity is enough, so I don't foresee us expanding the solution in the near future. We'll see what happens after the COVID lockdown.

We haven't faced a huge problem from a technical standpoint. However, overall, their response to any queries has been very good overall. They are quite supportive and we've been satisfied with their level of attention.

I have only ever used Cisco.

The initial setup was simple, however, to get the full features, those performing the set up need some sort of experience, regardless of the deployment, the analysis of the location, or for the deployment for the engagement to the API.

We will be going to do that part right now. I have a feeling it will be a complex part of the process.

Deployment takes about one day or so. It doesn't take too much time.

We are an integrator. We handle the implementation for our clients.

The pricing of the solution is little expensive if you compare it to other competitors.

A long time ago, we were comparing this solution against Aruba before the acquisition to HP. We also compare other products however, the main competitor was Aruba.

We're a Cisco partner.

We use a variety of different versions of the solution, including the 800 Series, and 2800 Series. We are planning to go to the Catalyst 9000 Series soon as well. 

It's a centralized solution depending on the wireless controller and some access points have their own branches.

While not related to hardware, in relation to software capabilities, we're always looking for ways to better integrate solutions. This particular solution has been great thanks to the access technology provided. We have seamless integration with the infrastructure. The movement of the users is very easy to pinpoint. The user's onboarding onto the infrastructure is simple.

While the solution isn't perfect as a standalone, the integration capabilities on offer make it really special.

New users will really need to utilize features to get the most out of the solution.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. There are a few features that we would like to see added in the future that would make it perfect.

The primary use case is providing network coverage to mobile devices in our company.

I find this solution easy to configure and use.

The coverage should be better.

There should be an option for a wireless bridge that can be used to join two access points.

Technical support takes too long and is something that should be improved.

It would be helpful if Cisco Wireless supported the Internet of Things (IoT).

I have been using Cisco Wireless for about five years.

This is a stable product.

Cisco Wireless is scalable, and we have more than 10,000 people on-premises who are connected to the cloud using it.

We have had problems with Cisco's technical support, so I would only rate them a five out of ten. They take too long to respond and also too long to resolve the issue.

We are also using Huawei wireless.

For somebody who knows about the configuration beforehand, the initial setup is easy. I can be set up an configured in half an hour.

The suitability of this product depends on the environment and the requirements, as every place has its own circumstances. Generally, I recommend this product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is wireless infrastructure for retail and enterprise usage.

This solution has improved our organization.

The most valuable features of this solution are the Cisco CleanAir and Cisco RRM.

I would like to see less dependency on other products such as ISE and Prime for certain implementations.

Please always keep the Spectrum Expert (SE) connect mode. I feel is useful when troubleshooting.