Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

The solution's most valuable feature is its user-friendly interface. For now, my company is testing the tool on Cisco's IoT solutions. The tool is very simple to use.

The support of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for seven years. I am not only a user of the product since I also sell it. It is important for me to know how the product works along with what new features get introduced in the tool. I am a distributor of the tool.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Sometimes, there are some bug-related problems in the product, but they are not critical issues. The reason that my company is impacted by some bug-related issues in the product is that our company might not know something we should be aware of during the configuration phase. If my company faces any problems with the product, then we can connect with Cisco's support team.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

My company caters to the needs of small, medium, and enterprise-sized companies.

Two years ago, Cisco's support was normal. For the past two years, the support has not been good. The product's support team operates worldwide.

I rate the support a five out of ten.

I rate the implementation process an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one means that it is a difficult process, and ten means that it is an easy process.

The solution is deployed on the cloud and also on an on-premises model.

The time taken to implement the product to something depends on the network of our company's customers network. If our company's customers have a simple network, the implementation can be done very fast. If our company's customers have tools like Meraki, the implementation process can take three to four days or a week to complete.

I rate the product price a six on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price.

Speaking about whether the tool gets used in our company for backup connectivity, I would say that our company's engineers use it for testing purposes.

The security features of the product have improved our company's network safety.

The product has sometimes helped our company handle network failure, failover, or recovery areas.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

I rate the overall tool a ten out of ten.

The solution is used to manage our access points in all our company branches.

I like Cisco due to the fact that it's reliable. It has worked well since 2008 without issues.

It's scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

Azure needs work. We use it as the wireless controller of Cisco. It's a bit buggy. The UI needs to be more responsive. 

Technical support could be more helpful.

The solution is expensive. 

I've been using the solution since 2008.

The solution is stable and reliable and offers good performance. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

It is very scalable. It's easy to expand.

We have about 3,000 employees that use the solution.

The setup is in an airport, and we have passengers that also need the portal for the internet. We have a lot of people using the solution.

Technical support could be improved. They are helpful. However, they could be better.

Positive

We did not previously use a different solution. 

The solution is very easy. It's straightforward and not difficult at all. 

The deployment only takes a few hours. It's not a long process. 

We have about five people that can handle any maintenance tasks. That includes maybe one engineer and four administrators. 

We handled the deployment ourselves. We didn't need the assistance of a third party.

We pay a yearly licensing fee, and it is expensive. I'm not sure of the exact amount we pay.

I'm currently looking into Aruba. 

We have a lot of equipment from Cisco. We are customers and end-users. 

I'm not on the latest version of the solution. That said, I'm renovating my wireless environment.

I'd recommend the solution to others. It is good. However, it costs a lot. I'm currently looking for something more cost-effective. 

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. There is no master controller for the controllers. When we have access points in different buildings, I need a centralized management system to achieve redundancy and operations simplicity. 

We use this solution for our campus network. I work for the university's IT team, so we use it for the faculties, administrative buildings, and labs. We're very happy with it.

The solution is deployed on-premises.

We're using the latest version.

It's a small feature, but Cisco allows me to see access points with blinking lights. This shows me which access point is which.

For example, sometimes we have more than 100 access points, and the company that did the set up unfortunately didn't document it well, so that can be a problem.

The dashboard is wonderful. It's very user friendly.

The price could be better. It's too high.

It's also hard to get the product because of climate problems.

I have been using this solution for a year and a half.

It's very stable. In comparison, Extreme's stability is not good. We do speed tests, and with Cisco, we can get 700 megabits per second.

It's very scalable. 

The solution was already set up, so we didn't need a lot of technical support.

If we need help, we can call them directly. We don't need to open a ticket.

I have dealt with Extreme Wireless, especially Extreme IQ Cloud. Compared to Extreme, Cisco is way ahead.

It's very easy to deploy. I like Cisco's dashboard. I think it's more user friendly than the Extreme dashboard.

Extreme is easy to deploy, and management is very nice, but the performance isn't good so far. We are using the essential license now, not the pilot license, which is the advanced feature license. When we get the pilot license, I don't know if my mind will change, but for now the performance is way better in Cisco.

When I'm deploying Extreme, it's hard to get information from the internet. I'm not talking about the support from the company. 

With Cisco products, there's a ton of information on YouTube, in Cisco documentation, and on Cisco's website. With Extreme, I couldn't get that information.  

With the same infrastructure, switches, logical topology, and physical topology, Extreme's performance isn't very good. It might be because of the license. When I talk with the company, they say, "If you don't have the Extreme pilot license, you can't get high balances." 

For example, you can only get 150 megabits. It's like one channel at a time. They say that when we install the license, we'll get higher balances, but we haven't experienced that yet. We are waiting for the installation to complete, and then we'll get the license.

Cisco's performance is much better.

I also have experience with Huawei. Cisco's deployment is much better in comparison.

The solution was set up before I started working on it, so I continue to deploy it. 

Compared to Extreme, it doesn't take a lot of time to deploy. We have more than 1,000 access points. It takes about several hours to deploy. It's quick to install.

The price is too high. The licensing is on a yearly basis. 

The price was built in with the total price of the access points. We bought other products, like cable covers, and some switches, so I don't know the exact price for the licenses.

The price of Cisco is twice as high as Extreme because of the exchange rate in Turkey. At the time, our currency decreased catastrophically against the dollar.

I would rate this solution nine out of ten.

We just deliver wireless coverage, general and specific, for auditoriums and stuff like that.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is its fast transition.

It’s a stable solution.

The product is scalable.

The implementations are easy.

There’s an easy onboarding process for non-native users.

When you have a question related to support, getting direct or faster access to someone technical would be ideal.

The pricing is a bit high.

I’ve used the solution for about 15 years.

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

The product can scale quite well.

Perhaps we made the right decision as we knew beforehand how much we needed to use through bandwidth, number of users, and number of VPs. We did our homework. We knew which product type/model we had to buy and deploy. That ensures that scaling is easy.

We might have 2,000 to 3,000 users on the solution, depending on the day. They are mostly students.

We likely will expand usage. We're running the next wave of installing extra eight pieces for delivering more coverage, and in a way also more bandwidth or throughput.

Technical support should be faster and more accessible.

I've also used, for example, Aruba.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It’s not difficult to set up.

I’d rate the solution a two out of five in terms of ease of use with one being the easiest and five being difficult.

The first setup was done in-house. And over the years we had some external consultancy, however, the main setup was done in-house.

The licensing costs are a bit on the high side.

I’d rate the solution a 3.5 out of five in terms of how expensive it is, with five being the most expensive. The licensing of Cisco is pretty high, especially in comparison to other options, such as Aruba.

I’d advise those considering the solution to go onto the internet and find as much documentation about the solution as you can.

I’d rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We are using Cisco Wireless WAN for our branch WAN connectivity. We use it for wireless. It's the heart of the networking of our enterprise.

Cisco Wireless WAN's most valuable feature is it is robust.

The price of Cisco Wireless WAN could improve, it is expensive.

I have used Cisco Wireless WAN for approximately 10 years.

Cisco Wireless WAN is stable.

The scalability of Cisco Wireless WAN is good.

We have approximately 200,000 users using this solution. We have no plan to increase the number of users.

The technical support for Cisco Wireless WAN is good.

I have used other solutions previously.

The initial setup of Cisco Wireless WAN is straightforward.

The time it takes for the implementation of the solution depends on the solution you are deploying. The wireless controllers take a couple of hours, switches are fairly quick, and data center switches could take a few hours. With routers, it takes a few hours depending on the requirement, the location, and the type of connection, it varies between one hour to eight hours.

I used a consultant for the deployment of Cisco Wireless WAN.

We have approximately 20 engineers that support the solution.

The cost of Cisco Wireless WAN is expensive. There is an annual subscription to use the solution.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN a nine out of ten.

Cisco Wireless WAN is user-friendly.

If there's a problem, it's usually when Cisco pushes out updates. The users don't always push the updates to their computer, and it causes some issues. It's reliable as long as everyone is doing what they're supposed to.

We don't see many troubleshooting issues. Normally, it's a user error when it comes to the JSS or the VPN. Once they log into the system or they get on the internet, then they log directly into the JSS, so they can do their work. 

There isn't much that can go wrong with the system itself. Any instability is usually caused by internet service provider not providing enough bandwidth to do some of the functions.

We do tech support for a lot of stuff that goes wrong with these computers on a daily basis, but fortunately, the Cisco VPN's just not one of them that we have an issue with.

Cisco Wireless WAN is part of our imaging software. When we image the computers, it goes on there. When a new user comes and gets a computer, we show them how to log into the VPN or log onto the internet. Once you click the button, you're logged in. There's no complexity. It's really user-friendly.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN nine out of 10. My only advice to future Cisco Wireless users is to keep your system updated. Don't delay updates because that's what usually causes problems. People don't accept the updates and put them off because they're doing other things.

We have around nearly 150 access points. We use Cisco access points for our business core systems for the employees. All the users connect through this wirelessly.

Stability is one aspect that I find very valuable. The signal strength is also very strong.

The connectivity is reliable, and it doesn't have many issues.

The console interface is not very user-friendly. It's a bit complex and difficult to navigate. Even some integrations can be challenging. But we can manage eventually.

Therefore, for me, some areas of improvement include integration, pricing, and console. 

Scalability is easy, it is stable, and configuring certain things like Mac filtering is also simple. However, I feel the need to enhance the security aspect, especially for guest connectivity.

I've been using it for around five years.

Stability is really good in Cisco Wireless WAN. I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

There are no restrictions on scalability. It is a scalable product. We have 150 access points, and there are 350 employees.

The support is good. They have a vendor here currently, and their support is good.

Neutral

The initial setup is not difficult. It's easy because we have been using Cisco for a long time.

Moreover, very little maintenance is required. We just perform some checks and minor tasks. There isn't much maintenance required.

It is a bit expensive compared to others. So it's a little costly.

For us, this is an all-in-one product. It doesn't have separate licenses. When purchased, the product comes with a license. It's a one-time purchase.

We were migrating from the on-prem to the cloud version. We made a comparison analysis b/w different technologies.

Cisco wireless on-prem has moved to Cisco Meraki Access, and Cisco Meraki is the better. We can use the cloud solution. The only thing is the price is a little high. Other than that, all the features and security aspects are really good with Cisco.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. The overall rating is seven due to the higher price and the need for enhancements in the console and security features. The guest Wi-Fi and non-console options are lacking in the older version, although I believe the new version might address that.

We primarily used the solution for wireless connectivity. We used it for daily work. We use our own laptops, and the solution allows us to connect to the network at work.

Cisco does not work well in China. We've moved over to Aruba. 

The solution was deployed school-wide. We used everything Cisco, not just wireless. It works great with other Cisco tools. 

The solution is not well received in China. It gave us headaches as it doesn't work well in the company. 

It is difficult to get support from Cisco. 

The cost is fairly high for licensing. 

Scalability could be better.

Stability is hit or miss if you have other Cisco integrations. 

Cisco Firewall cannot recognize some applications and that makes dealing with policies difficult. Even when we whitelist, it does not work well.

My company started using Cisco in 2011. We upgraded in 2015 and realized that the solution does not provide good service in China, and we have since moved away from it and toward Aruba.

The stability is hard to qualify. It is around seven out of ten in terms of reliability. Without other Cisco integrations, it is stable. If there are more Cisco integrations, like Cisco SE, stability becomes more difficult.

I'd rate the scalability seven out of ten. It is not extremely scalable. 

We have around 500 users and around 800 or 900 devices. Some users have many devices. 

Technical support was not helpful or responsive. At the beginning stage, they were very good; however, over time, they grew worse and worse. When I worked with Cisco Firewall before, we tried to get help for a whole year, and nobody could help us, so we gave up.

Neutral

We've recently moved from Cisco to Aruba. I've noticed a few differences between the two, and I'm trying to educate myself on both solutions. Aruba made a late delivery, so we just finished setting it up last month.

We use Aruba for everything and Palo Alto for Firewalls. 

The initial setup depends on the environment. The Cisco Wireless part is easy, however, when deploying other Cisco applications, we had a lot of trouble, and it made the network more complicated. 

I'd rate the ease of setup seven out of ten. 

I cannot recall how long the deployment took. It was deployed a long time ago.

Cisco is expensive. We renew the licensing yearly. I cannot recall how much we paid for this product specifically.

I'd rate the solution six out of ten. I would not recommend the solution. We had a lot of issues with it.