Cisco Wireless Reviews

There are some features I would like to have in Cisco Wireless, such as Telemetry and other IoT. However, they are available in the new version of the solution.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for approximately 15 years.

Cisco Wireless solutions are highly scalable.

The solution is highly scalable. I have about 60 access points and it is scalable with a thousand access points.

The technical support from Cisco is good.

The initial setup of Cisco Wireless is easy.

The process involves taking the Cisco Wireless device and adding it to the network. You connect the device to the controller, and then the controller can be configured. It's very quick and easy.

The price of Cisco Wireless equipment is expensive.

Cisco has introduced a subscription pricing model where you have to always pay and renew.

I plan to change to a Catalyst 9800 next year.

If companies already have Cisco wireless infrastructure, the deployment of this solution will be easy.

I rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

The support from Cisco is always excellent. It's often better than other options, including Aruba.

The product has so many features. If there are maybe a hundred features, a typical organization may only need 60 or 65 at maximum. There's a wide variety of options to choose from.  

The stability is great. It's very reliable. 

You can do multiple layers with the new OS that Cisco offers. 

The new OS streamlines the Cisco offering and it's been very good. 

The solution can scale well.

Cisco moved from the 5000 series, which was a different OS, to a newer OS, right. The 9800, for example, practically improved how a wireless switch or wireless controller should work, which was not so good in terms of Cisco in the earlier versions. It's improved a lot, however, if you are using older versions, you are on a different OS, and it's not as good as it is now. 

Older versions used to be hard to deploy. The latest OS, however, has made things a lot easier. While deployment is much better, it could always be even easier. 

The interface could be improved. 

I've been using the solution for five years or so. We used it for a while, then left it, then came back to it. 

The stability is very good. I can't find any fault. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable. 

The scalability is nice. 

We have about 10,000 to 12,000 or so users on the solution right now. 

I'm not sure if we plan to increase usage. We are already 100% covered. 

Technical support from Cisco is very good. It's always been much better than its competitors in this regard. We are quite satisfied with how helpful and responsive they continue to be. There is no equivalent on the market. They simply will not let you down.

I currently also use Aruba. I also have worked with Extreme. 

There are very similar devices and have the same features for the most part. Both are stable and excellent in terms of capabilities. Cisco, however, does offer better support.

The initial setup is now pretty straightforward. Cisco came out with a new OS that streamlined everything - including the initial setup. Where Aruba used to be easier (in terms of implementation), Cisco, with its newest updates, has very much improved and they are neck and neck in terms of ease of setup.

I can get a Cisco network up and running n 30 minutes. If someone knows how a Cisco controller works, I am sure, even with the HA, that person can build one full working controller within one hour. For me, in a lab set up with a virtual machine, in a maximum of 30 minutes, I can bring it up and make a small network work. Within one hour I can do that setup.

I can handle the initial setup myself using the GUI for the controller. 

We don't really see Cisco as a solution that provides an ROI. It's more of a required service for us. 

The licensing is usually for an average of three years, depending on what we buy.

There may be some add-ons that could cost a bit more. 

While, typically, Cisco is a little bit more costly, the costs also depend on your relationship with Cisco.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

We are using versions six and eight, a mix of both.

We tend to use the on-premises deployment model as we are in healthcare and there are restrictions on what we can do with the cloud and what we cannot do with the cloud.

For those considering the solution, I'd advise them to make sure the support is good in their area or for the solution you choose and that there are knowledgeable people around so that if there are any issues, they can be addressed. 

I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

We use Cisco Wireless so that our users can have conductivity within the building.

Cisco Wireless has improved our productivity.

The most valuable features are mobility and security.

The solution could improve by having more advanced features, such as AI that is able to do diagnosis on the network or detect incorrect configurations and is able to tell you what is the recommended practice. Additionally, it would be a benefit to have smart antennas that are able to track your movement, Wi-Fi 6 support, better transfer rates, low latency, stronger signals that can penetrate thick walls, and zero packet losses.

We want a solution that can do flex connect allowing the solution to resolve the clients without depending on the controller. The controllers should only do the policy automation, or the configuration change. We don't want the controller to be in line with the data phase.

I have used Cisco Wireless within the last 12 months.

The stability of the solution has been fine for over a decade. The newer solutions will have better technology and will give us more.

The solution is scalable. We have not had any congestion issues.

We have over 5,000 users using this solution. Will would increase the usage of this solution if more users need access.

The technical support from Cisco is very good.

The installation is not difficult and took approximately two weeks.

Cisco Wireless has saved us some costs because you don't need to provision network points for every new staff. All we do is give the staff an IT work tool, such as a wireless laptop or a wireless computer, and they can be part of the network as soon as possible.

We have to pay for the hardware and support is extra and we do pay for the support.

My advice to others wanting to implement this solution is they should have very good support. You don't have to be a leader in the market. They don't have to be challengers. You don't have to be a visionary. If you have very good support clients will be happy with the product.

I rate Cisco Wireless a five out of ten.

Cisco Wireless is easy to use.

Because my wireless controller is not fully compatible with the latest AC and AX compatible devices, we have been experiencing some issues with the wireless controller as technology evolves. We have plans to replace it. Previously it was working fine, but now we have faced several issues.

We will tweak them until we find a good solution. Let's see where this goes in the future.

It should be fully compatible with other devices.

I have been working with Cisco Wireless for ten years.

We have not experienced any issue with the stability of Cisco Wireless.

It is scalable enough. We have a 13-story high-rise building, and I have two wireless controllers to serve the entire structure.

We can easily scale it up. We currently have 50 access points, but I can scale it up to 60 or 70 if necessary.

Cisco Wireless is a scalable product.

This solution is used by 300 people.

We have not contacted technical support.

We plan to deploy Cisco SD-WAN in December.

We use Cisco WLC, and our entire VOQ is Cisco-based.

My core network, distribution network, and access network are all Cisco-based.

The installation was a bit complex.

It took me about a day to finish.

We were able to complete the installation ourselves.

There are no subscription fees.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a seven out of ten.

We're using Cisco Wireless for patient tracking or infant abduction and security — for securing the floor and our infant patients. Cisco is also used for device management, such as IV pumps and other small but significant pieces of equipment that we need to track. We're also using it for temperature monitoring in the refrigerators for drugs and things that must be kept at a specific temperature. We use Cisco Wireless for patients' access and any wireless cart, whether it's a PC or an EKG machine. And we have different channels for stuff in the health network and the staff network versus what is publicly open for the patients and family.

For me, the most valuable thing about Cisco Wireless is its ease of use and stability. 

The biggest pain point has been keeping our people and the vendor up to speed on the technology. It's getting our staff to understand that opening up a laptop and connecting to the WLAN is not the same as triangulating and trying to figure out where an IV pump is. So when you're trying to use the real-time location services, I think it's that shift from your density and your overlap. For example, you used to be able to stick an access point up if something was a little weak in an area. Now, if you stick that access point up, you might have too much coverage in that area, which is as bad as too little coverage. I think it's hard for everybody to get their heads around that. It's not just the vendor—it's also the customers. And how do we continue to partner and ensure that we're all going together as the technology changes.

I've been dealing with Cisco for 15 years or thereabouts.

Stability's good. I'm not saying we don't end up with something flakey every once in a while, but it's not often at all.

Cisco Wireless seems to be pretty scalable. But, again, they do an excellent job of saying exactly what the coverage will be. And so we have to make sure that when someone wants to add things they understand what it means. Do I have to resurvey that whole area? Because they'll say, it was just wired for wireless access, not location tracking. So now I've got to go in and check my density and things like that. It's very scalable, but when you shift gears sometimes, you have to do more work than people anticipate.

Cisco support is good, but I think it could be better. Their collaboration with their partners is probably the biggest challenge I've had. If I have an issue with an application that runs off the Cisco network and Cisco has to work with their partner to resolve it, that gets a little hanky sometimes.

We've been using the initial one, but we've swapped it out since then, and it's been relatively painless. And when we've expanded, the new buildings get new wireless. And when we've bought new hospitals, they get new wireless. So you've got the stuff that's been in there for a long time, and you've got the stuff that hasn't been there for long at all. So we have a routine for what to do when we've got a new building.

I don't know the details about the pricing. Typically it just gets lumped into my project. So I'm not sure what we're paying in licensing fees. 

I'd give Cisco Wireless an eight out of 10. I don't know what to compare it to, but I'm hesitant to give anybody a 10. I'd give them an eight. If you are considering Cisco Wireless, I suggest looking at the total cost of ownership. This stuff doesn't last forever. So when you put it in the ceiling, when will you need to replace it? It's not a one-time investment. And then what is it going to take to get it there? Because sometimes you may end up with the impact you have every time. Hospitals are constantly renovating. Depending on what you need wireless for, you may have to spend tens of thousands re-surveying and repositioning your access points to optimize if you remodel an area. You may have thought, "Oh, I already have wireless in there. Just because I'm moving these three or four walls doesn't mean..." Well, it does mean something. The total cost of ownership matters. Make sure remediations are built into your capital budget if you're doing construction.

The primary use of Cisco Wireless is for IT solutions. 

I have been using the solution for approximately 10 years. 

I find the solution to be very stable. 

The solution is highly scalable.

We have approximately 1500 users using this solution.

We have been satisfied with the technical support of Cisco Wireless.

The installation is not too difficult but the solution could improve by making the configuration easier.

We did the implementation of the solution ourselves. 

We have approximately 10 engineers and managers that do the implementation and maintenance.

The price of the solution is fair.

I have evaluated Aruba, D-Link, and Ruckus solutions.

I rate Cisco Wireless a seven out of ten.

I've worked with system integrators and I have deployed the product on multiple types of environments. I've worked at the corporate offices. I've worked on 3G, 4G offloading, public Wi-Fi networks, et cetera.

You don't have to manage or deploy multiple types of Wi-Fi networks for different use cases. With something like Cisco, your one Wi-Fi solution can cover most or all of your use cases.

It is a good fit for large enterprises or even service providers.

Overall, it's a good solution.

The product is very scalable. 

It's configured well and it supports a lot of configuration options such as the proper corporate SSIDs, tunneling features, and integration with Cisco NACs, or other third-party NACs.

The stability of the solution is good.

The technical support has been helpful.

The third-party integration capabilities could be better. It still works within Cisco-related products, however, third-party integration is still something that needs some relaxing.

The new licensing model isn't as good as what they had before.

I've been dealing with the solution for more than a decade. It's been 10 or 11 years at this point.

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

It can scale into whatever level I want to go to. The actual wireless is quite scalable. Scalability is not any trouble.

I've been satisfied with technical support. They are helpful and responsive.

I've also used Aruba. I actually prefer Aruba to Cisco.

The solution has a moderate level of complexity when it comes to the initial setup. It's not too difficult. However, it's not as straightforward as one would hope, either. 

Depending on what type of network the customer wants, the deployment time varies. It can be either one SSID or a proper BYOD case with a corporate SSID, depending on the solution. 

With the new licensing model, the DNA licensing model, it's a bit on the expensive side. It used to have an option for the perpetual and subscription-based models, however, now they've started pushing you to the subscription models.

I'm a Cisco partner.

I'd rate the product at a nine out of ten. Overall, we've been happy with the capabilities of the product.

That said, if I had to choose between Cisco and Aruba, I'd probably choose Aruba.

We use this solution to provide network access and to manages wireless network devices.

The LAN network conductivity is good.

I have been using this solution for approximately two years.

The solution is stable but it could be improved. However, this could be because there are not enough APs.

The solution is scalable and we have 1,000 users using this solution in my organization.

The support is good.

The implementation and maintenance are done by our five-person technical team.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco Wireless seven out of ten.