Cisco Wireless Reviews

Before Cisco bought Meraki, we used internal private clouds and offer them to all our customers about five years ago. We wanted a solution that has a centralized core in order to have control, instead of having to install controllers in each customer that you have. We were able to utilize the elements of the core and provide a solution to our customers similar to that of Cisco Meraki. Once the customer's contracts ended, we changed the solution to Aruba or Cisco Meraki.

If you think back five years ago, the radios and MIMOs worked better than the other solutions that you had. For now, the Catalyst line has more capabilities to deliver more conductivity for customers for each access point. You can integrate a lot of available solutions on the core to have more enhanced information and allowing businesses to have more control. In distribution centers and in factories it is better to use this solution than Meraki systems because you have more control over the setup and information that you can achieve on those older radios.

The main problem that traditional solutions like this one have is that you need to buy packages to deliver a similar solution as a Meraki one. If there was a package that you can buy and have all control features similar to the Meraki dashboard, such as user access control. We can sell this solution more easily if you have those packages available. I do not know if it is a sale strategy for Cisco to limit the functionality.

I have previously used and I am still using the IAP model solution from Aruba. This is a solution that can merge different features. For example, we can control the access points locally and there is a cloud platform to manage everything with Meraki that you do not have in traditional Cisco solutions like this one.

I have evaluated the Cisco Catalyst line solutions in the past.

I rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for so many things. We are a Saudi customs organization, and we are using it for the mobile user inside the port and for the trucks themselves. We use it for the trucks as the trucks also need to use wireless. They're moving inside the port. We need it for providing internet to the user. We also use it for the intranet network and for the internet network.

The solution is quite stable.

The installation process is very easy.

Technical support has been mostly helpful in the past.

The coverage has given us a few issues. We have some of the wireless devices flooding. The scalability is off. It needs to be better. If they could offer better coverage, we'd be much happier.

I've been using the solution for about 15 years at this point. It's been well over a decade. It's been a while.

The solution has been quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. The performance is largely pretty good.

The scalability isn't the best. It doesn't give us the coverage we need. There isn't good mapping for the wireless and the access points.

We have about 600 people who are using our access points.

We likely will be increasing usage in the future.

We've been in touch with technical support. They're okay. We've been satisfied with their level of support.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's an easy process. It's not overly complex. A company should be able to handle the process with relative ease.

The deployment takes only a few minutes. It's pretty fast. It's not that big of a project.

We have about 40 people on staff that can handle deployment and maintenance.

We do not need to pay a licensing fee to Cisco.

We've previously used Huawei and Aruba as well for wireless.

We are just a customer and end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

We're using the latest version of the solution right now.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations looking for a wireless solution. For the most part, it's worked well for us.

I'd rate the product at a nine out of ten as it's been mostly reliable.

We use this solution in our enterprise offices where some access points are installed.

Some of the valuable features of this solution are security, the controller is simple to configure, devices are easy to install, and we use the software to administrate all the APs. 

The integration with our CM and other technologies could improve this solution. If it could detect other networks better, when it comes to security, and have the ability to mark or block the suspicious activity when known would be a benefit and should be in an upcoming release.

I have been using the solution for 10 years.

There are a few issues initially with the stability but they were resolved quickly by Cisco.

The solution is scalable, it is easy to grow the infrastructure. We have approximately 10,000 uses using the solution.

The technical support is very quick in responding to our issues and returning a solution. Additionally, customer service was good, they provided us with some training on the solution.

We used HP products before we switched to Cisco. The reason we switched was that this solution was more secure, the price was better, it was easier to implement, and the integration with our infrastructure from LAN and WAN was superior.

The installation is easy.

We did not have any problem with the implementation of the solution it is straightforward. It took approximately one week. We do implementation ourselves but sometimes we use an integrator. We have approximately three engineers doing the maintenance of the solution.

The price of this solution is a little more than competitors.

We did evaluate Aruba, which is from HP, before choosing this solution. The main reason why Cisco is better is the security model. They are easy to configure and have better technology. However, they are not as cheap a solution compared to others. We are currently evaluating Cisco ISE and are using the demo. 

When we are opening up a new location we are going to continue using the solution. This solution is standard with our organization. Even though Cisco tends to be more costly than other solutions you get more than you pay for. 

I rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

We've got a very large install base with Cisco Wireless. We use it for a number of situations.
We use it in warehouses, retail branches, and offices.

It is a reliable and robust solution. Access and Mobility Groups are useful. We don't use anything very fancy.

Its licensing has been very frustrating. There is also the complexity of managing the product. These are probably the two reasons why we're looking at Aruba.

The way they license this product is not simple. There are some good features in the latest version, but there are additional license costs as well, which is frustrating for us. It is not really a feature issue for us. It really comes down to cost and licensing.

They should make it a bit simpler to manage. We find the overall solution a little bit more complex than we would like to deal with. Its troubleshooting is a bit difficult, and it does require a high skill set. Comparatively, Aruba seems quite simple. One of the benefits of the Aruba product is that it is cloud-managed. We don't have to manage the management platform itself, whereas Cisco is on-premise. Its user interface could also be better.

I have been using this solution for maybe 15 years.

It is stable and reliable.

It is scalable. There are no issues with scalability. We have approximately 5,000 users.

They are very good. I am satisfied with their technical support.

Over the last 15 years, we've done so many installations, and we've had them refreshed many times. We've also done installations in the last six months. It is in the middle in terms of complexity. It is neither straightforward nor too complex.

Its licensing is not simple. There are additional license costs for features, which is frustrating for us. There are some features that are included for free in the base Aruba product, but they are available at additional costs in this solution.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a six out of ten.

We use Cisco Wireless as part of our network infrastructure. 

The wireless use is pure internet that allows access to guests, staff, and end-users. It doesn't require a lot of high-level features on the site.

We use the normal features that Cisco has, such as access controllers, security, and internet access for the users.

I am in the Middle East, in Isreal, and the problem that we have is with the support. It's not like Europe or America, which have better support. In this part of the world, support is the weak side of this solution. It is very difficult to get in touch with Cisco support if we need them.

I would like to have the option for on-premises support, rather than only having remote support available. This the biggest concern that I have because without on-premises support, we have to call another country for the best service.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for two years.

It's a reliable solution.

It's scalable, and as the company grows each year, it requires the network to grow as well.

We have 100 access points and approximately 300 to 400 users in our organization.

There are only one or two companies in Israel that provide Cisco support as a third party. Support is an area that needs to be improved, at least regionally.

The installation was done by the company. It was already complete.

The price for this product is a little bit high, which is why I am not using the most recent version. Rather, I look for products there are mid-ranged, being not too old or too new.

The licensing fee is yearly.

I am currently evaluating other solutions to determine cost versus benefits. We don't need as many high-level features in our situation.

If you have a large company and you have enough money, you should implement Cisco because it's the best solution. However, if you are in the middle to low range then it is better to look for another, more budget-friendly solution. In Isreal, the government has Cisco licenses.

Also, if the service that you are providing is not a high-level service and has normal features to access the internet, I suggest the middle to low range products.

Overall, I am happy with Cisco Wireless and the main concern that I have is with the price.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Until we switched to Ruckus about a month ago, we had used Cisco Wireless products for the past ten years at our school of about 1800 students and 250 employees, including the teachers. The teachers and students all use iPads so wireless (Wi-Fi) is a big part of our network.

We used Cisco for everything, including wired switches, wireless switches, the core switch, etc. For the wireless network we used Cisco WiSM, which is the old version of Cisco's wireless controller. Since we had used this Cisco equipment for so long and it was showing its age, we ultimately decided it was time for us to renew everything along with all the new features that are now available.

I enjoyed Cisco's Meraki MDM which we already had installed, even though at the end of the day it was too expensive for us to continue in that direction when upgrading.

Overall, Cisco was stable and worked well for all our needs until we started having more and more students and teachers using YouTube and Zoom — what with classes being isolated and everything — which put a lot of strain on our Wi-Fi network. 

The biggest reason why we could no longer continue with Cisco Wireless was because of the high cost to upgrade everything. It was disappointing that Cisco treated us as just another big company, and did not offer any leeway on their pricing given that we are an educational institute. And although the system we had in place from Cisco Wireless was good enough over the last ten years, it started to show its age when pushed to its limit during the pandemic.

Generally, and this isn't so much a question of support, it was also very difficult for us to determine exactly what the problem was when we had a problem. We didn't have enough tools for diagnosis on the system, in terms of identifying who is connected where at a certain point in time and so on. We would have liked more tools when it comes to diagnosis and traceability.

I've used Cisco Wireless for over ten years. 

The Cisco system worked well before, for many years. It was only after we started having capacity issues that we found the stability was suffering.

Along with the isolation measures, students and teachers started using Zoom and video sites like YouTube much more, which is when the wireless system started to show its limits.

After ten years of having the same system, we essentially started again from scratch when it came to upgrading. We looked into scaling up with Cisco Wireless, but unfortunately it would have been too expensive for us.

We didn't have much contact with Cisco technical support. The consultants would do the job for us, and the only time we needed them afterwards was when we had a problem with our Wi-Fi controllers. 

We had two controllers for high availability and when we realized that the second one was not working, we contacted support. Unfortunately, we didn't have SMARTnet for it, so we ordered SMARTnet to be able to exchange the device, and they said we just renewed the SMARTnet so we had a penalty of one month without the second controller.

We did not appreciate the way they handled it, because even though it wasn't a lot of money to them as a big company, it was a lot of money to us. I don't believe that was the right way for them to behave, especially with a school. We would have teachers come and tell us, "What's going on with the Wi-Fi? It doesn't work." But I couldn't really tell them, "It's a Cisco resource," and all that.

Actually, we have now switched to Ruckus only about a month ago. After evaluating the costs for upgrading the entire wireless network, we found that it would have been too expensive for us to continue with Cisco Wireless.

For deployment and maintenance we had three technicians and we also had support from our consulting company. We actually changed consulting companies twice, and we used them mainly for making updates and changing the setups.

With the most recent consulting company, we unfortunately lost contact with them and didn't have the documentation to finish the job that they had started.

The licensing system is very rigid. I work for a school and we are just treated like big companies. At some point, there's a limit to what we can do about that.

I can't remember what we paid for the equipment, though in the end we bought some extra switches from an aftermarket company. We started doing our own replacing of equipment, which we didn't really use. The SMARTnet contract was only for the core switch and the Wi-Fi controllers, and we didn't go that way for the rest of the equipment.

If we had, it would have cost something around $2000-$3000 per switch, and we have 30 of them, so it wouldn't have been affordable for us.

The best advice I can give is to always get a second opinion. When I arrived six years ago, we had way too many access points, and the density was causing a lot of interference. It was only after removing some access points that we had better Wi-Fi. When asked, the school said that they had originally added more access points because the Cisco technicians told them to.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a seven out of ten. 

Some of my clients have used this product as a Mobility Express Solution and a Mobility Controller. There are numerous potential use cases for this product.

The ability to make different types of networks, such as land networks, is the most valuable part of the solution.

There are some areas of improvement in roaming and streaming.

In the next release, I would like to see VPN features and the client match feature available in Aruba Wireless. Additionally, I would like a feature to see where a particular client is during roaming and the information about a client should be shared better throughout their connection activity.

I have been using the solution for approximately four years.

The stability is very good.

The solution is scalable. It is great because if you have an enterprise, you can deploy the solutions with the network controllers physically or with the Mobility Express you can make a cluster without the controller. We have 20 to 30 clients and at our main office, we have 200 employees which use the solution wirelessly.

The technical support is great, I never had any problem with them. When I needed support or to make a ticket they always responded to me.

My clients, and I, have used Ruckus networks previously. My clients wanted to move to Cisco because they know the value Cisco offers and are thinking of implement some IoT solutions in the future, they wanted top quality. Later they also found Cisco is a little bit easier to implement.

I did not have any problems doing the installation. I had enough step by step information from Cisco to follow and with the troubleshooting.

It took me approximately three months to deploy the solution, but this involved going to different parts of Ecuador to fully implement it. The deployment took two engineers to put the AP physically into place.

The price is a little high. However, you get what you pay for. The quality of the product is high, you will find it is worth the money. There is some additional cost, for example, customer support.

I have evaluated Aruba Wireless in the past, they had some features Cisco does not that were useful.

I recommend this product because it is easy to implement, and it has good performance with utilities that are needed within the office.

I rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for a corporate Wi-Fi network and we have another network for authentication for corporate devices, such as scales or hand scanners. These devices must have access to some internal resources and do not need accessing to the internet.

We have hardware controllers on our sites and a number of access points all over. The number is up to 25 currently.

We are using Cisco access point 2802, and they are very reliable. We have a number of those access points all over our network, approximately 550. I have been working with this company for about a year and the project was deployed a year before. The access points have been working now for two years without one failure.

In general, the solution completely meets our needs. However, the wireless controllers themselves could be more reliable. When they work in high availability mode, we have had some issues with them. Sometimes the cluster dissipates, the primary controller fails and the secondary does not completely switch on reducing functionality.

I have been using the solution for approximately one year.

The stability could improve, there are some issues. We were told the version of the software we are using on all of the controllers is best for Cisco IOS, but we might need to update our software. Doing so might fix the stability issues we are experiencing.

The solution is scalable. There are approximately 3,000 users using the solution simultaneously in the supermarket network and it can scale upwards to 100,000.

We have a partner that helps us with the solution's deployment and maintenance. In general,  we have three technicians that help with the solution but if we run into more complex situations we contact Oracle.

We are using the Wireless Controller 3504 on Wi-Fi 5.

If they work on fixing the reliability of the solution we will be fine using the product in the future.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.