Cisco Wireless Reviews

We have some clients with hotels who use Cisco wireless systems. Others have entertainment centers that use Cisco wireless systems. Additionally, we have retail businesses utilizing Cisco wireless systems. However, we are primarily transitioning towards TP-Link Omada systems because they do not require subscriptions, which is cost-effective for our customers.

The features include maintenance and monitoring functionalities. Additionally, knowledge-based data is available for implementation and installation scenarios. Currently, Cisco systems are highly robust but need to catch up slightly compared to Ruckus and Omada systems regarding innovation. Using alternative suppliers can be advantageous as they provide cutting-edge innovations and detailed information about roadmaps.

The security and encryption features of Cisco Wireless are robust but need to be updated compared to other providers. Cisco offers enterprise-grade encryption. Setting up a radio server based on networking filtering may require some effort to configure profiles. Once established, Cisco provides clean and straightforward possibilities for configuring functionalities like setting up a radio server system.

The solution's pricing is high. Pricing, features, and innovation are the fundamentals of choosing a provider or supplier. Despite the higher price, we migrated to other profiles like Ruckus and Omada because they offer more robust solutions. If you look at benchmarks, you'll see that Ruckus is one of the top-tier providers, with Cisco falling behind.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for 5 years.

The product’s stability is great.

The internet speed is high within environments. As you move further away from the access point, there is a decline in speed. Omada or Ruckus don’t have the speed degradation as you move away from the access point.

I rate the solution’s stability a seven out of ten.

The solution is suited for medium-sized businesses.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

We sometimes need second-line agencies because the first-line agencies may not have sufficient expertise to address complex issues.

Neutral

The initial setup depends on the complexity of the infrastructure, ranging from hours to days.

I rate the initial setup a 7 out of 10, where 1 is difficult, and 10 is easy.

The product is nearly too expensive in terms of quality. It varies depending on the project’s scope and specific requirements. Prices range from around 5000 euros to 30,000 for larger, more complex implementations.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven to eight out of ten.

I use the solution in my company to cover complex spaces. The tool can be useful to connect some devices to the ethernet.

For end users, the tool must be easy to connect and use. Technical stability is important for my company, and I haven't seen any problems with the product.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it can be integrated into other solutions in a particular environment, including where there are wired and wireless connections.

The coverage provided by the solution is an area of concern in some cases, making it an area where improvements are required.

From an improvement perspective, the product could be made cheaper.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for a few years. I don't remember the version of the solution.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

A few hundred people use the product in my company.

My company will probably increase the number of users for the tool.

Apart from Cisco Wireless, I have used some other solutions in my company only for testing purposes.

There are no major problems in the area of the product's initial setup phase.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

The solution can be deployed in a week.

Around ten people in my company take care of the product's deployment and maintenance.

The product's deployment phase was done with the help of my company's in-house personnel.

The product is expensive.

My company has no problems with the performance offered by the product.

Cisco offers the best solutions in the market.

To those who plan to use the solution in the future, I would say that it is a tool that needs to be completely integrated into an infrastructure.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for switching and routing. We also have access to resources around the local area network.

The product is compatible with a lot of mobile devices. It is easy to manage and administer.

The security must be improved. The vulnerabilities are easily exploitable. Security features must be added.

I have been using the solution for 13 years.

The tool is very stable. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

The tool is easy to scale. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten. We have 2000 users in a single location. A user can have four to five devices.

We were using another solution, but it was incompatible with the Identity Services Engine we deployed. So, we switched to Cisco Wireless.

I rate the ease of setup a seven out of ten. The time taken for deployment depends on the number of access points we want to connect. It takes a week to deploy the tool for 1500 to 2000 devices.

The product is expensive. I rate the pricing a ten out of ten. We are dependent on the dollar. There is a global economic issue.

I recommend people use the solution even if it means that they have to start small. Initially, the investment can be expensive, but the product is robust and enduring. We can use it for a very long time. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

I work for a manufacturing company.

We can support clients over wireless networks. We get free and easy roaming.

The product’s interface must be improved.

I have been using the solution for the last ten years.

The tool is stable.

The tool is easily scalable. Smaller companies would not be able to afford the solution. They should choose products like Aruba and Meraki. I don't recommend Cisco for smaller companies.

Support is excellent. Cisco's support team is the best in the industry. I rate support a seven or eight out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup is easy. The deployment doesn’t take much time. We can deploy the tool in three to four hours if the configuration is ready.

The solution is very costly.

Cisco has collaborated with Meraki. Meraki products are much more economical than Cisco Wireless. Meraki’s interface is better. It’s a plug-and-play solution.

I would advise people not to choose Cisco Wireless. They should choose Meraki Wireless. It is also a Cisco product. It is much better and easier to operate. Overall, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for wireless connectivity.

You don't have to meddle around with licenses, considering they're onboard with the access points. That took a load off when creating a build of material for a new wireless deployment. 

We didn't exactly dig deep into these yet. However, they're fairly easy to deploy. We have been using the virtual machines, the 1900 CL virtual controller. 

They're pretty stable, pretty good.

The solution is scalable. 

I like the new troubleshooting mechanism. With a couple of clicks, you can get a PCAP file, pick up the traffic from a client, and analyze it in Wireshark notepad.

I like the new way the wireless is getting built right now, so you have groups with policies that you simply apply to an access point, or you apply a group with all kinds of features like RF policies, and SSIDs to a certain access point and the back point, that access point gets those features up and running immediately or directly after a reboot.

I would like to see centralized management, something like what Aruba offers. The current issue with Cisco is I don't have centralized management. For example, we're building wireless controllers that are basically standalone, and something like a centralized, single management pane would be nice. Something like Cisco Prime, or rather, an improved version of that would be very, very good.

The initial setup can be difficult for beginners. 

It is a pricey product.

I've been using Cisco since 2012 and the new OS since 2021.

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze.

It is scalable and easily expands. 

We have been coving entire countries with a single deployment. We have a huge number of devices - likely tens of thousands. There's a swarm of incoming IoT devices, plus everyone who has a corporate phone is basically connected to the wireless.

I haven't contacted technical support. Considering we don't have a subscription, we're on our own. Cisco support is unlike Aruba, where it's free as far as I can tell. 

I also use Aruba. I've been working with Aruba for the past two years, sporadically now and then.

The initial setup is not something a beginner can deal with; it's not Cisco Meraki. Cisco Meraki is easy to deploy, yet limited in abilities. 

With this solution, you need to have some knowledge about wireless. The new Cisco IOx is an improvement over the IOS. The command line interface is good, and you can use it to deploy. 

I'd rate the ease of setup a three out of five.

Cisco is on the expensive side. 

I'd rate the product a three out of five in terms of affordability of the product.

They could improve their lead times. The wait time for their equipment is very long now and the pricing is very steep for Cisco.

I'm a customer. I'm an engineer in a midsize enterprise that employs 40,000 people. It's a global company spread throughout the world. Scalability and wireless is something that we are looking for right now.

This product is great for someone who is looking to improve their connectivity. Of course, new users should check whether or not this is suited for the company. There are some cheaper, smaller solutions that they could use - even Cisco's Meraki. 

The solution we are using is big due to the fact that we have 300 or 400 access points per country, so we are using 80% of its features. We are tweaking everything from RF policies, and we're using advanced-style SSIDs like 802.1X authentication via radius, on the external radius server. We are using simple pressure key authentication. We are also using captive portal authentication with Cisco ISE. And we are also currently trying to implement a more advanced form of pressure key ossification, a segmented policy-based pressure key based on Cisco ISE, which is going to be used for the IoT devices. We get a lot out of Cisco.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

There were some issues during the initial installation. You need to be very careful of the images for some reason. For example, the GUI can trick you. That's my beef with them. Sometimes not everything gets displayed correctly in the graphical user interface. One example would be I would load an image and upgrade the cluster, the virtual virus control cluster, and it would go through everything. And then after the reboot, I would see it basically didn't do anything. It didn't upgrade it. Therefore, I have to stop using the  GUI and revert to CLI. That's my concern, especially during the configuration part.

Of course, for somebody who's new to the product, the GUI is the way to go since you have everything nicely presented in the graphical user interface they really did upgrade from the previous version. They've done a good job of making the user interface somewhat friendlier and better composed than the previous versions. Yet, that's small considering that sometimes they don't display the real situation and that can be sometimes very confusing. 

Most of the routers are in the enterprise network for connections and branches. We used to use them in the data center, but we stopped.

The signal at the branch is good and has been the most valuable aspect for network management. The documentation is readily available and accessible.

The pricing could be better. It could be cheaper.

I have been using it for about ten years. 

Stability is fine.

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. There are about 4,000 end users. 

The initial setup is straightforward. The documentation is available.

Normally, we start with a proof of concept for a certain environment. 

It is expensive.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten. I would recommend others to use it. 

The main disadvantage of Cisco Wireless is its cost - it's expensive. Its interface is not easy. However, I like it since I am an engineer. 

I have been using the product for ten years. 

I find the tool to be 99 percent stable.

Meraki is more scalable than Cisco Wireless.

For Cisco Wireless installation, we usually need two people. The whole deployment takes about one day. Maintenance is good for engineers, but I'm unsure about regular users. It's easy, but we need about four people to maintain the product.

I rate the tool's pricing a nine out of ten. 

I prefer Aruba over Cisco Wireless. It is cheaper and easier to deploy, and the Aruba system is easier to install than Cisco solutions. I rate it an eight out of ten. 

We use the solution because we consistently upgrade the laptops and desktops to ensure synchronization with the SIP set.

All the features of the solution are good. The enterprise environment seamlessly integrates with Cisco Wireless.

The solution's pricing should be improved.

I have contacted customer service and support about licenses and other technical aspects. I have not faced any issues.

In my latest company, we use Aruba Networks and Cisco Wireless on-site. We use Aruba for IPs on Azure, while Cisco Wireless is used on Azure as well due to the high cost of data processing. For Aruba, we use models like the 5747 and the latest 370 series. In addition, there are other services like the 7200 controller and the 5700 series used across various rooms.

The pricing is a bit high, and I would rate it a six on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the most expensive.

The solution is good for our environment. Overall, I rate it a perfect ten.