Cisco Wireless Reviews

The primary use case for our customers is having a product that provides a solution to complex problems. We have more than 100 customers using Cisco Wireless. 

Being able to solve the complex issues of our customers with a stable solution is very valuable. The fact that it is also very flexible adds to the value. 

One of the issues with Cisco, particularly for smaller companies, is the cost. A small company can't afford to pay the price of a Cisco product. The price is a very important factor for our customers. 

I've been using this solution for about two years. 

The solution is stable. 

This solution is scalable. 

We receive great technical support from Cisco. 

The initial setup was relatively straightforward, although it took a little longer than expected. We have one person who deals with the maintenance and any issues that arise. 

I believe licensing is paid on a monthly basis. 

This is a great product and despite the high cost, I rate it a 10 out of 10 for performance. 

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.

We use it for all kinds of equipment including, laptops, mobile devices, and guest access. We are just using the basic features and just the wireless connection.

If I take it away, that would be a nightmare because we have a lot of devices working through wireless.

The capacity, security, downloading, and exporting data are all very good. It's user-friendly, but if I look at Meraki versus normal Cisco equipment, then I think that Meraki will be much more user-friendly.

The price could be better. The configuration is also complex. It would be better if there's an NEC solution. That's one of the things we really want to have. It should also be as fast as possible.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for a couple of years.

It's stable, but it's expensive.

We got in touch with technical support once, and that was good.

The initial setup is complex. We currently have a complex configuration.

It's expensive. The pricing is an obstacle.

I would advise new users not to underestimate the complexity of the configuration.

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

We primarily use the solution for wireless services. We use it for wireless LAN.

The simplicity is the solution's most valuable aspect.

It's very easy to configure the access points.

The solution is scalable.

The solution is stable.

The initial implementation is pretty straightforward.

The pricing is a bit high. It could be less expensive. If they could work to lessen the cost, it would be helpful.

The reporting of the product could be improved. When I needed to troubleshoot, I couldn't get sufficient information from the controller.

It would be useful if they could add in features like AI for easier troubleshooting.

I used this product at my previous company. It's been seven or eight years. However, I do not work there anymore.

After using it for eight years, I can vouch for its stability. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable in terms of performance. 

The scalability is okay. It's more or less affected by the infrastructure design as it is based on coverage. When we need to expand coverage, we will have to just add more.

Technical support was okay in general. However, I had one negative experience doing a proof of concept with Cisco Malaysia for a Cisco ISE product. Their engineer wasn't a master of the product. It seemed the help they gave to us wasn't that knowledgeable. 

I also have experience with Aruba and Ruckus.

The initial setup wasn't overly complex or difficult. It was pretty straightforward. Back then we were using the Cisco Network as well - both wired and wireless. The configuration was quite simple.

The cost of the product is rather high. It's one of the downsides.

We're were just a customer and an end-user. I don't have a business relationship with Cisco at this time.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. I'd rate it higher if it was more reasonable in terms of pricing and if the reporting was better.

If a company would like to implement this product, they must make sure the pricing doesn't bother them and that they buy enough devices in order to ensure proper coverage for their needs. 

We use the solution for laptops, smartphones, and for both intranet and internet communication.

Some of the features I find valuable are the FlexConnect and overall it is a good global solution.

Before deploying a wireless solution, you have to read and plan every role, every windows system, put in your access point, and then make the audit. This solution is not the best one to do this. We use another solution that is called Eko. In the future, if this solution could have better auditing capabilities it would be better.

I have been using the solution for eight years.

The solution is stable.

We have added some access points for conductivity which have integrated well and have been fine scalability-wise, we have not done other types of scaling. Our whole company is using this solution.

You can have a setup that is simple but my company is big, with a lot of regulations to adhere to. I would say out we had a difficult installation but this is not directly related to the solution but more related to the policy of our company.

I would recommend others to use this solution.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

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.

These devices are being used for a large number of sites. We have around 3,000 APs.

For WLC, we are using 5508 and 7500 devices. We will be using 9800 devices soon.

Its stability is most valuable.

It is not easy to use. It should be made easier to use. They can maybe migrate it to the cloud so that we can manage the WLCs together.

I find the licensing part very hard to understand. Cisco is now moving towards smart licensing, so this issue will be addressed soon.

I have been using this solution for eight years.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable.

Their technical support is fine.

It is easy to install. The deployment duration depends on different scenarios. It depends on the site, the number of users, and the technicality of the site, but overall, it doesn't take very long.

I am a consultant. 

Its licensing is hard to understand.

I would absolutely recommend this solution. I would rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

The solution is primarily used to connect users to the internet. It's the main product we use for this purpose.

The performance is very good. 

The solution has proven to be quite stable over the years. It's one of its most valuable aspects.

The scalability is very good.

We've found the technical support to be helpful and responsive.

If it was even more stable, that would be ideal. The stability is good, however, it's always something that can be improved upon. 

Older versions are complex to configure and implement.

The pricing of the product is quite high compared to other solutions.

I started using Cisco in 2012. I've been using it for a long time. It's been about nine years or so at this point.

We've found the stability to be very reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's very good overall. 

You can scale the product easily. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem.

More than 100 users are using it in our organization.

I'm not sure if we have plans to continue to use it or not. That's more of a management decision. However, I would be happy to keep using Cisco, as it is a very good product.

I've reached out to technical support in the past. The service is good. I'd say that the response time is fast, and the support is professional. We've been quite happy with the level of service we are provided.

I also have experience with Ruckus, Ubiquiti, and Huawei wireless solutions.

The older product has an installation that is complex, and not easy to configure. This is the disadvantage of older Cisco products. It's possible that they've sorted this out and newer versions are much easier to configure. The wireless controller on older devices is just very difficult. With the older versions, you need to tag some columns, for example. It's just a more complex process.

I was not the person who originally configured the solution and therefore can't speak to how long the deployment actually took.

The solution is quite expensive. It doesn't offer the best pricing on the market. There are cheaper options.

We are customers and end-users. We use it in our organization. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

We are using the latest version of the solution. We are using an older version. I do not have the version number on hand.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product at a nine. It's very reliable and we've been very happy with its overall capabilities so far. It does not disappoint.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations.

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.