Cisco Wireless Reviews

I like that it's a standard wireless solution that can be rolled out throughout the campus. I also like that it is easy to manage.

It is a good end-to-end solution.

Room for improvement wise, the wireless coverage of Cisco's equipment could be better for the price position. That is, I think that the radius for the coverage could be better to make it worth the price that we pay for it.

It could be more reliable as well.

It is not a cheap solution, and the lead time can be long.

I've been using this solution for the past three years.

The stability or reliability is good. The performance is not that good.

The scalability is okay. It's limited by the controller though. If we need to expand the solution, we need to buy new controllers, which will make the solution more expensive.

At this site, we have around 2000 users. Cisco is used everyday.

Technical support is good. How you end up rating the support, whether it is good or maybe just satisfactory, depends on the type of support that you have purchased from Cisco. That is, if you want good support, then you'll have to pay more than that for normal support.

Before we chose Cisco wireless, we evaluated it based on Extreme Networks. We switched because Extreme Networks support is not good here in Malaysia.

The initial setup is quite complex and took about three months.

For deployment and maintenance, we have four staff members.

We are an integrator, and we implemented it ourselves.

Cisco is not a cheap solution. Their licensing cost is higher than that for others.

If you want to upgrade it in the future, the licensing cost will be high. I think that in the future, Cisco will be based more on software rather than hardware. This means that you will have to pay more for licensing. 

The Cisco solution has been quite reliable because it's more hardware based, but now because it's becoming more software based, the hardware might cost slightly less. However, because of COVID and the shortage of chips, this does not really apply.

Considering other solutions, I don't think Aruba is any better than Cisco. Aruba and Cisco both have a lot of range. Similarly, Ruckus also has this level of range; however, Ruckus is more specialized in wireless solutions. That's why for incoming projects, we have chosen Ruckus, which is more popular and easier to support as well.

If you are implementing a wireless solution, you can actually use any wired solution while running the wireless solution on top of it. If you are only looking at a wireless setup, then you might be better off choosing Ruckus. However, if you need an end-to-end solution, Cisco is a better option.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cisco Wireless at seven.

We moved to the solution after we had some hardware issues. 

We use it with laptops for wireless connection via the cloud.

The performance is very good. If you compare it to Aruba, we find the ability to roam much better.

The functionality has been very good.

The stability is very good overall.

It's easy to configure.

I've found it to be quite secure.

We've recently had hardware issues which have caused us some problems. 

There are some models that have more coverage than ours. We'd like for them to work towards providing more coverage across models. 

The solution is a bit expensive.

I've been using the solution for a year and a half. It hasn't been too long. 

We've had a good experience with the stability of this product. There are no bugs or glitches. It's reliable for the most part I don't recall it crashing or freezing. 

We have about 90 users of the solution in our office at this time. 

We don't really deal with support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

We also use Meraki as well.

I'm aware of Aruba's capabilities and find Cisco to be better. However, it costs a bit more than Aruba.

The installation process isn't too difficult.

I cannot speak to exactly how long it took to deploy. I can't remember the length of time off-hand. 

Three people worked on the implementation. They were a manager and two technicians. 

While we did have some access to information to help us, we mostly handled the implementation process on our own.

The pricing is on the high side. For example, it is more expensive to use than Aruba.

We have a license, however, I do not manage it. 

I would recommend the solution to others, however, it depends on the capabilities of the end-user. Some may find it difficult. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We are pleased with it so far.

Cisco Wireless is quite convenient for mobile and laptop access. 

We use a Cisco product called Room Kit for meetings. It would be nice if Cisco could improve that. I would also like a cloud solution.

I've been using Cisco for about three years, but I've worked with Ruckus and other wireless solutions for about five. 

Cisco stability is okay. We call support when we have downtime.

Our company has no more than 500 users, so scalability isn't an issue for us.

Cisco support is quite good. I can contact them, and they'll reply.

The initial setup on the first level was straightforward, but the second-level setup was complex.

We had help from a Cisco reseller. 

I rate Cisco Wireless six out of 10. My advice to people implementing Cisco Wireless is to find the right reseller. Find one who can deliver the service you need. That's the most important thing because we might not know the product, so we need support from time to time.

I mainly use Cisco Wireless for the core switch and access switch, the router, the firewall, and the access point.

The most valuable feature is the firewall.

This solution is very expensive, which means we often have to go for cheaper options instead.

I've been working with this solution for twenty-two years.

This solution is very stable, we don't have any problems with it.

We've had no problems with scalability - the intra-network is about 20 gigabytes on our campus without any issues.

I'm very satisfied with Cisco's technical support.

The initial setup was very, very simple and took three months and three weeks for the whole campus.

We used Jimma University as a consultant and had a good experience with them.

Because of Cisco's expense, we also use Huawei and Ruckus devices, and the interoperability between these three vendors is good. I would give this solution a score of ten out of ten.

I primarily offer my clients solutions with managed services, the standard managed services. It is used for wireless connectivity.

Our team is able to design the solution with the necessary features. It's flexible.

The solution overall is quite good.

Support is fantastic. They are helpful and responsive.

It's a very simple solution to set up.

We find the solution to be scalable.

The stability on offer is great.

The pricing of Brazil is very expensive. When you look at other options, they are much cheaper. 

I've been working with Cisco since 2000. I've had well over a decade of experience with the product so far. I've used it for a long time. 

The stability has been great. We haven't had any issues. It doesn't crash or freeze. There aren't bugs or glitches that you have to deal with. The performance is good. 

We've found the solution to be quite scalable. If a company wants to expand it, it's not a problem.

We have about 200 people using Cisco Wireless right now. 

Technical support from Cisco is excellent. We are very satisfied with their level of attention. They have always been helpful and responsive. 

I have experience with both Meraki and Cisco.

The initial setup is simple. A company shouldn't have any issues with it. It is not something that is too difficult or complex. 

We have five engineers that can handle deployment for our clients. 

We've used both consultants and resellers when it comes to setting up the solution.

If our clients need assistance, we can help them set it up.

The cost of the solution is quite high.

Clients can pay a licensing fee on a monthly basis. 

Any extra fees would depend on the individual client projects.

We're a Cisco partner. 

I used various deployment models, including cloud and on-premises as well as hybrid.

I would rate the solution at a ten out of ten. We've been quite happy with its capabilities overall.

I am using the Cisco Wireless WAP 300, 200, and 100 series.

Cisco Wireless always has the latest technology that supports WiFi 5 and 6.

The solution could improve by having an advanced model with a controller. Additionally, the solution could be more secure.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for approximately two years.

I have found Cisco Wireless to be stable.

The solution is scalable, it has many features for scaling that you can use to control many devices.

Cisco Wireless is good for small to medium-sized businesses.

We have approximately 100 users using this solution.

The support has been good. I have had no issues with them.

The implementation is simple.

One engineer can install the solution. We have two engineers for the support of the solution.

There is no license required to use Cisco Wireless solutions.

I would recommend this solution.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for approximately 25 years.

Cisco Wireless is scalable.

We have approximately 2,500 people using this solution in my organization.

The technical support is very good.

Positive

We were previously using Linksys many years ago but they were acquired by Cisco, and we made the migration to Cisco.

The installation is straightforward.

We have four engineers and one administrator that can do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

We are on an annual license. The license and the hardware are expensive.

I would recommend the solution to others.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

Cisco Wireless can be used for a wireless solution anywhere you require. 

Cisco wireless plus, Cisco routers, or Cisco switches,  when combining them together they work very well. Some of the controller features are available now in the Cisco switches and routers. Most companies have Cisco as their backbone infrastructure and if you have Cisco solutions already in place, you should continue with Cisco.

Overall good featured product.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for more than one year.

Cisco Wireless is highly stable.

The scalability of Cisco Wireless is good.

We have approximately 300 users using the solution.

The installation is very tiring and painful, the process could be easier.

We have completed the installation of eight access point routers in three days, and this was because of some issues with the infrastructure. We had a customer that had 10 access points and the controller was there. It was simple, it was only a one-day process to put it in, connect with the controller, and it is configured.

Other solutions, such as Oracle and Aruba, tend to be less complicated.

We have two people that are required at a minimum to do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

There are annual subscriptions to use this solution. I have not been able to understand the licensing of Cisco. Some of the Cisco executives were not able to understand them either. When you first start out the price is zero but when it comes to a time of renewal you have to pay. 

I cannot say the solution should be cheaper because it has a good price point. It is not that they are very expensive, but compared to other solutions available in the market they are expensive. However, they are premium products that make the price suitable for what benefits you receive.

I have evaluated Oracle and Aruba solutions.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

I use Cisco Wireless for wired and wireless networking.

Cisco Wireless solutions are easy to use.

In the future, I would like to have Cisco add video documentation on configuring and overall learning of how to use the solutions. For example, in such areas as, security, authentication, and load balancing.

I have been using Cisco Wireless within the past 12 months.

The solution is stable.

Cisco Wireless scalability is good.

We have approximately 500 people using this solution in my organization.

We have plans to expand the use of this solution in the future.

I have not used Cisco's technical support but I have contacted the distributor for assistance.

The initial setup was easy.

The price of Cisco Wireless is expensive and there is an additional cost for support.

I rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

Cisco Wireless is for wireless networking. We use WLAN to connect endpoints wirelessly to mobile phones, tablets, and laptops that have WiFi protocol enabled. We have more than 50 employees using this solution.

Cisco Wireless is one of the more stable products so their products are scalable.

I've been using Cisco Wireless for about six years now.

It's stable.

It's scalable.

It's easy to set up if you have the technical knowledge. It's not a user-based deployment where you ask the user to go and deploy. You need to have some technical understanding of the solutions before you deploy them. On that level, it's easy to deploy.

Deployment requires network and hardware engineers but the number depends on the kind of deployment. It depends on the project server. Sometimes it's one or two. If it's a big project, I'll tend to use it more.  But broadly speaking, in terms of domain, you need network engineers, hardware engineers, and network architects.

Cisco is costlier relative to other solutions.

I would rate Cisco Wireless nine out of 10.