Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

I worked for a university in Florida that wanted a campus Wi-Fi. So, we chose Cisco and deployed it on the entire campus. It was part of a bigger project that included firewalls.

The performance of the solution is valuable. It works incredibly well.

The product must be made more user-friendly.

I have worked with the product for a year.

The tool is quite stable. We have the least amount of drops. The network latency is one to five milliseconds.

The tool is scalable. However, it is not as scalable as a cloud solution. We had around 2000 users.

We contacted Cisco for some escalations to troubleshoot via remote access. The process was pretty straightforward. We raised tickets and got hold of the technical support team. They did some hotfixes.

Fortinet is easy to use. Even if we do not have formal training, the learning curve is easy. We can figure it out by going through the interface. The Fortinet Cookbook is simple to understand. Fortinet products are easier to integrate. It is a lot more complex for Cisco. However, Cisco is more stable than Fortinet.

The deployment process was a bit complex. We took two months for planning and one month for staging. We simulated everything before the deployment. It was like a parallel system. We built a new infrastructure and switched everything to the new infrastructure. Building the new structure and testing took us three to four months.

We are system integrators. We deployed the solution with some help from Cisco. However, we did not use any professional services from Cisco. We are a Cisco Gold Partner. We do all the configurations.

I have seen an ROI on the product. We know Cisco lasts for quite a while. It's easy to get a hold of. I see good value in it. It is a good investment.

The tool is expensive.

Ruckus and Aruba are not as good as Cisco.

I will recommend the solution to others. If a company wants something stable that will last them longer, they should go with Cisco, even if it's more expensive. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

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.

We are using Cisco Wireless WAN for wireless access to university students.

The most valuable features of Cisco Wireless WAN are its security functionality. We have a lab environment and we have to provide different authentications to the users which are easy to manage. Additionally, there is a lot of useful automation embedded into the system.

There are limitations on the SSIDs that could improve. We cannot enable two ways of authenticating users on one SSID. For a number of places, we have to provide different modes of certification for the user which requires us to create another SSID for the broadcast.

We have to enable routing from different VLANs, we have to enable DSCP for some extensions. Without it, we cannot receive a dynamic IP address for our clients. We have had to find some workaround ourselves. The problems we have been having occur when we have multiple VLANs. We are using management on the APs which have different access levels than VLANs.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for approximately two years.

The solution is highly stable.

I rate the stability of Cisco Wireless WAN a ten out of ten.

Cisco Wireless WAN is a scalable solution.

We have 50,000 students using the solution.  The solution is used often and we plan to increase our usage.

I rate the scalability of Cisco Wireless WAN a ten out of ten.

There is third-party support if needed.

I have not used other solutions other than Cisco Wireless WAN.

The initial setup of Cisco Wireless WAN was not simple. There were a lot of steps to do to complete the process. We had some challenges during the process. However, if I was going to do the initial setup again it would be simple. The full process of implementation took approximately three hours.

We install the systems in stages, our first stage was installing the switches, and the second was the APs. Additionally, we were working on the controller during the stages.

I rate the initial setup of Cisco Wireless WAN a three out of ten.

We did the implementation of the solution in-house by two at the controller level and a large team for the 700 APs in two different models we had to manage.

We have received a return on investment, it is worth the money we paid.

The price of the solution is expensive. The license is priced based on the number of APs and controllers used.

I rate the price of Cisco Wireless WAN a one out of ten.

I evaluated D-Link and TP-Link prior to choosing Cisco Wireless WAN.

We use ten network administrators for the maintenance of the solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN 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 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 are using the solution for the long-term to connect our desktops and laptops. For the firewalls, however, we connect the rack network with fiber and other cables. 

It offers good connectivity.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

We find the product to be stable.

It can scale. 

The security is quite good.

We cannot use wireless for the servers due to potential performance issues. They must be connected via fiber.

The solution is a little bit expensive. 

We'd like it if they could improve the integration capabilities. More specifically, if it can be integrated with other applications or any other devices like CCTV cameras that are also running on wireless, that would be ideal. 

We've been using the solution for ten to 15 years. 

The solution has been stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

We can scale the solution. It's not difficult to do so. 

We are a global company and have between 50,000 and 90,000 users. 

There are plans to increase usage in the future.

I've never used technical support services. I don't know how helpful or responsive they are.

It's a solution that is easy to set up. It's not overly complex to implement. 

I'm not sure exactly how long it took to deploy the solution.

We have a dedicated team of 600 IT engineers. They can handle deployment and maintenance. 

I'm not sure of the exact pricing. We have 20 to 30 different premises in India. I'm not sure if they are all using Cisco like us or not. Therefore, I'm not sure what the full cost is to the company.

It could be a bit cheaper. 

We pay a license fee on a yearly basis. 

I'm not sure which version of Cisco we are using. 

I'd recommend Cisco to other users and companies. I would rate it an eight out of ten. We're mostly happy with its capabilities.