Cisco Wireless Reviews

We use this solution to connect to the access point and link users wirelessly to the network, and centrally manage the APs.

The performance is fantastic.

It integrates with Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA). 

The pricing could be reduced.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for five years.

Cisco Wireless is a stable product.

Cisco Wireless is scalable. We have many users. We have guests that come in who have contractors, which brings our user amount to approximately 5,000.

Previously, we have not used any other solutions.

The deployment is easy. The installation takes two or three days.

When you compare it toith standalone APs, with the introduction of the controllers, it's deployed in a split second and up and running.

Because it is integrated with Cisco ASA, we have two teams of eight people to maintain this solution.

We installed and deployed this solution ourselves.

It's expensive. The price could be cheaper.

The license is a one-time purchase.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

We are customers of Cisco and I'm the company IT advisor and manager.

We find this solution very cost effective. We are using the WAP121 model which has good manageability, and stability. 

We sometimes have issues with user load. We have close to 12 users and we have performance issues, especially when we are on video calls. There are lags and connectivity issues in those situations and the throughput is not that good. From our end, performance and connectivity could be improved.

I'd like to see features such as app control, access control, and some level of a firewall feature at the level of the access points, features that are available at the firewall level, so that we can have security and manageability at WiFi level.

I've been using this solution for three years. 

We have a local support team and whenever we face issues they are very supportive. 

The initial setup was very easy. 

I rate this solution a seven out of 10. 

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.

I implement this solution in restaurants with an external aerial or near the beach. I also deployed this solution in big warehouses.

Managing a large warehouse requires the use of advanced technology that facilitates work in the warehouse, usually through tablets, laptops, and mobile phones, all of which are connected to the management system via the wireless network. Mobility in a large warehouse requires continuous connection to the computer system.

The CISCO wireless network allows all end units to be managed as a single network with a security code. The transition from one access point to another is done smoothly and according to the intensity of absorption.

The most important thing for me is 0 disconnections while working, and that all access points are in one group and will use one access code. The units are easy to install and set up

Guidelines and recommendations on where and how to install the units for perfect coverage.

Any utility to test the signal strength. Today every time we install equipment, certain times are forced to change its location due to poor reception.

And seamlessly integrate with products from other suppliers. It will also help if they include a device diagnostic feature in the next release.

I have been dealing with Cisco Wireless for three or four years.

I have a problem with the small device. Product from Series 300. Sometimes you have to reset this device. Maybe the buffer is overflowing, But after I reset the devices, it's work okay.

I have used TP-Link Solution but the Devices hung every 1-2 days

The initial setup and deployment for small businesses are very simple. But for the one with the controller, you have to set up a controller which is not a GUI utility. You have to type a lot in the command line. If you have this with GUIs instead, it will be better. The deployment time depends on the size of the customer's project. This product doesn't require maintenance, just updates to the firmware. 

I install this solution for my customers. 

I think it's affordable. Maybe there are little differences, but it's not very expensive. But with all Cisco products, you have to pay more for the power supply. You'll have to pay for the PoE converter.

I would recommend this product to new users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Wireless a nine.

I'm a senior technical consultant and we are service providers. 

Cisco Wireless is scalable and very stable. They offer good technical support. 

I'd like to have better voice security. What they offer now is not good enough to protect us from an attack or a hacker. The solution requires a firewall body inside a wireless controller so that we can define a few more things and prevent attacks. 

I've been using this product for 12 years. 

The stability of this product is good. 

Scalability is good with Cisco Wireless - we have close to 500 users at just one of our sites and no problems. 

Technical support could be improved but it's fair and they do a reasonably good job supporting us when we have issues. 

All solutions in this market are more or less the same, it's just that Cisco is less cost-effective which is why we're currently testing HP. I've also worked on Aruba Access Points and HP switching systems and find them easier to configure and manage, while still providing good performance. 

People need to be aware that everything is going wireless in the next couple of years and it's a good idea to move to wireless now so that there's a familiarity with how it all works. 

I rate this solution a seven out of 10. 

Cisco Wireless has improved in terms of the Tri-Band and the Two-Band, those types of two antennas. We've been happy with the architecture and the solution for some time. 

Obviously there are new requirements around WPA-3 and Wi-Fi 6, more wireless assurance, and those types of things. So we're looking at all of those options in terms of their next product suite.

I'm not a wireless engineer but we've had Cisco Wireless at the company for a long time, about 20 odd years. We're now looking at replacing the Wireless architecture.

Cisco Wireless is stable.

From a scalability point of view, there is a cost component which needs to be looked at and reviewed, but from a technical scalability point of view I think it ticks all the boxes.

Cisco's technical support is very good, I've never had an issue with their technical support.

Cisco has several pricing models. I think things have gotten more expensive due to the economic climate around COVID and things like that for most vendors now.

Everybody is price-sensitive. I'm just the partner, so I'm looking at the solutions for the client. I'm not the customer. The customer, obviously, would say cheap is better and because a lot of people are price sensitive now they're trying to get as much value as they can at a good price.

I'm not a wireless expert, but we've been running Cisco Wireless for a long time. On a scale of one to ten, I would definitely give them an eight.

I think the licensing models need to be reviewed in some instances. Obviously Cisco's licensing models are quite challenging, and it can be costly. Those are the two things to check.

Our customers use Cisco Wireless for networking and WiFi.

It is a stable solution.

Installation is complex and should be easier. 

I've been dealing with Cisco Wireless for two years. We have two customers who use it.

It is a stable solution.

Technical support is average.

The initial setup is complex and took about one day.

I would recommend this solution.

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

Cisco has good support services.

Simplification in terms of deployment would be good. The need for different boxes should be improved as well.

The architecture is becoming complex. It's not a three-layer architecture; it's only two layers, and the access is based on the leaf and spine. However, there are lots of components, and we need to add more components and more licenses for services. This ends up becoming costly.

I have been working for almost seven years with Cisco Wireless.

Cisco's technical support is good.

Because the Cisco architecture is quite complex, you may end up having to add more components and licenses. So, the cost could go up.

Cisco is quite complex compared to Aruba Central, which is more user friendly and easy to handle. I would rate Cisco Wireless at seven on a scale from one to ten.

We are using it just for connectivity.

It allows us to reduce the cost of cabling and provides mobility of users within the organization.

The speed and security are most valuable.

Its licensing model and cost should be improved. 

I have been using this solution for about seven years.

It is very stable.

It is quite scalable.

There are no issues with their technical support.

It is fairly easy.

We used an outsource partner.

It is expensive, and there are some costs in addition to the standard licensing fee. Its licensing model and cost should be improved.

At that time, Cisco was the main provider of such solutions, so we went with Cisco.

I would recommend this solution. I would advise getting it done by a professional who knows what he or she is doing so that you don't run into any issues.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

We use it for Wi-Fi at home. We'll have all devices connected to this Wi-Fi router.

As for valuable features, it is tough, has a nice speed, and is quite reliable.

I would improve the Wi-Fi range. Sometimes, in some rooms the signal could be a bit better, a little stronger.

I've been using Cisco Wireless for a couple of years.

I have had no problems at all with stability.

The installation is very easy and straightforward. I did it myself.

It's a good device, and I would recommend it. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at eight.