Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

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.

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 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. 

The solution is primarily used for wireless connectivity.

The solution is stable and reliable.

It scales well. 

We found the initial setup to be straightforward. 

The support has proven itself to be helpful. 

We would like to have the lead times improved. Right now, when you create a design and want to provide it to the customer, they are very late to cosign everything.

The solution is pretty expensive. We'd like to see lower pricing in the future. 

I've used the solution for a while. I'm not sure how long I've used it. 

The solution is stable. We find it to be reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We can scale the solution as needed. It's not a problem.

We have more than 1,000 users on the solution.

We've contacted support, yet not necessarily for technical issues. We have used them for other things, and they were rather helpful. 

Positive

the initial setup is quite simple and straightforward. I'd rate the experience a four out of five in terms of ease of implementation. It's not difficult. 

The cost of the licensing depends on the access point.

On the low end, the solution costs probably around $1200 to $1300 for five years. It's an expensive product.

I'd rate the product a three out of five in terms of affordability.

We are Cisco partners.

I'd advise new users to check the documentation and go over it pretty thoroughly at the outset. It's important to read everything before you start. If you miss something, it may cause you to troubleshoot and spend more time than you need to figure things out. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for WiFi and for switching switches. It offers a wireless controller device and access points and switches.

It’s stable.

All the hardware, the signal, the communication between access points or switches, et cetera, is good. The devices are all of good quality.

The switches, in particular, are great. I don't remember the model, however, there is a line of Catalyst switches from Cisco - the industrial switches with 24 ports or 48 ports and a POA feature with a fiber optic port - that are great.

The quality of service is excellent.

The only disadvantage of Cisco is maybe the cost. It’s more expensive than other brands, like, for example, HP. You do have to pay for licensing yearly, which is not the case with some others. We’d like to just have a one-time payment option.

The interface could be better. When I connect to the wireless controller, the graphic or the user interface is complicated. It’s hard to understand all the models of the interface. They should work to make it easier.

I’ve used the solution for two months in this current company. I’ve used it for four or five years.

It's very stable. The resolution is very stable. Cisco is working well. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

It’s a scalable product.

In the future, the goal is to migrate to a new Cisco access point version. We are working on this. We have the requirement for a wireless controller, maybe, and an update only on the firmware version.

Maybe 400 people use the solution.

I work in the other companies with Cisco and other brands as well as Aruba and HP.

It’s an easy product to set up. It's not difficult at all. 

You do need to pay for licensing on a yearly basis. It’s a bit expensive. However, I don’t know the exact costs.

I’m a customer.

We use the latest version of the solution.

The solution is a market leader. It works great.

I’d rate it 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.

I'm a solution architect and consultant in my company (a Cisco partner and system integrator) and our standard use case for Cisco Wireless LAN is providing WiFi coverage throughout our client organizations' buildings. These organizations include banks, airports, and universities. We also use other networking products from Cisco, including Cisco Meraki for cloud-based wireless networking in smaller environments.

I have seen that many people are using a lot of the features directly available on the wireless controller. Recently, the most valuable and in-demand feature that users are enjoying is WiFi 6 support on the access points. The other good thing about Cisco Wireless LAN is how easily it provides clean access to the WiFi network.

The coverage area on some of the low-end access points isn't the best. The high-end ones are fine, but we've had bad experiences on the other ones. Compared to some of the non-Cisco access points we use, the low-end access points from Cisco have shown to give only very minimal coverage.

I am currently wondering how Cisco is going to handle the connections between 5G and the WiFi 6. These new technologies have similar features and I would expect, in the future, that there will be some integration between them.

The stability is fine. Cisco Wireless solutions are generally more stable than others, there is no doubt about that in my mind. Even our customers have experienced the same thing. The only problem is the different models. The range of models of Cisco access points is very limited compared to other vendors. And there are some challenges on the antenna configuration.

It is scalable. Right now, it has only one series of controllers for all the numbers of access points, so in terms of scaling, we can always increase the controllers even if we have thousands of access points.

The tech support for Cisco Wireless is fine. It's not usually myself that deals with them, but rather our technical deployment and support engineers. If they can't resolve any issues on their own, they simply raise a technical ticket with Cisco support.

We are also selling Cisco Meraki products along with the standard Cisco portfolio. I don't have a lot of experience with Meraki, because we mainly recommend those products to small and medium environments, especially if the customer doesn't have a lot of networking staff and they simply want to bring WiFi services up quickly. 

It is easy to set up the access points. Regarding how many people are needed for deployments, it really depends on the size of the project. We will have different scenarios ranging from only 10 to 15 access points, all the way up to 1,000 access points. All of this requires staff to physically mount the access points, and then we'll have the cabling technicians who connect all the cabling.

After that, once they all connect back to the controller, all the integrations will be done on the controller. So the wireless engineer requirement is very minimal compared to how many people are needed for the physical installation. If you've got a two-person team, they should be able to install 10 to 20 access points per day.

If you have a two-person team doing the physical access point installations, they should be able to set up 10 to 20 access points per day. 

For the Cisco Wireless implementation, the most important advice I would like to give is regarding the planning of the access points. The planning is very important because if you do not do proper planning based on the requirements, then the project might well turn out to be a big mess. That's because once you install an access point in one location, it's very hard to move around. Keep this in mind from the beginning. 

I would rate Cisco Wireless LAN an eight out of ten. I won't say it's the best there is, but it is definitely a leading solution.

I use the solution for wireless and mobile users, data sharing and file and print servers. We use the solution for conducting nearly all our services. 

Our most valuable feature involves the 802.11ac, which operates at a very high level and has updated technology. That's why we use the product, whose features we find to be very reliable.

We found the initial setup to be a bit complex due to the CLI commands. It's a little bit difficult and requires us to move and to convert. Certain CLI commands we are forced to undertake.

The solution should also enable Bluetooth Low Energy devices, which serve the purpose of maintaining and managing one's tracking system. 

The new product, 802.11ax BLE, enables features for tracking devices. It can be used for antivirus protection or in the event of any risk. It is a new technology and allows one to see where things are moving. The 802.11ax incorporates the features of the Cisco 9115ax model. The feature is very good. 

I've been using Cisco Wireless WAN for more than 10 years.

The current product, 2800, we have been using in excess of two years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. Meetings can be scaled with ease.

We do have plans to increase the usage of Cisco Wireless WAN. 20 is the upper limit for the number of access points that we plan to purchase for deployment in our company. 

Customer and technical support are very good. 

In the past we used D-Link Access Point and it was not very good. However, it is very good when we convert this new technology in respect of the Cisco 2800 Series. With the 2800 model there have been no issues save for the one involving compliance testing of the Cambium product for the POC. After two or three months it ceased to work properly. It is not a good product. We tested the Cambium product, as well.

The CLI command complicated things a bit and required of us to move and convert and to undertake certain CLI commands. 

We deployed with the assistance of a consultant. Our experience with them was very good. 

The local vendors helped us to deploy all our infrastructure and it is good that they did so. They are very friendly and their personnel is very knowledgeable.

The pricing is good. It is neither on the high nor low side. I consider it to be moderate. While other vendors provide the same, I find this model to be reasonably priced.

The solution is good and very easy to deploy, manage and configure. We have encountered no issues in this regard. 

We now plan to convert the 802.11ac to 802.11.ax. We intend to purchase a new access point to meet the technology challenges. We are now planning to move all access points to a new access point involving 802.11.ax technology.

The number of users making use of the solution depends on the employee count. I would say that perhaps 200 users are connected daily with the access point that we have. For the moment we have a very small area. In every department we have in excess of 100 to 150 users connected to one access point. This works fine. But, depending on the user size and the type of Wireless Card the user may possess, certain users experience some difficulties due to the Wireless Card's age and its lack of compatibility. As such, it is the user size which would account for certain issues, not the product size.

My advice to others is that the product and its performance are very good and scalable. Cisco is very good and the product is nice to deploy and to work with. One can use it with freedom from any latency. Overall, the product is very good and established and the company has been working for some time to make improvements to it. This and the reputation involved are why I use the product. 

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN as a ten out of ten. 

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 use the product as access points in our organization. 

I am impressed with the tool's packet tracing so that connection with the devices is always consistent. 

The tool's speed and IP address acquisition from the domain controller should be improved. 

I have been using the product for ten years. 

The tool is stable and I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

The product is scalable because we can create a mesh network using multiple devices. I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

I have contacted the tech support and have got the support that I needed. 

Positive

The product's setup is straightforward. It is just plug-and-play. The tool's deployment took ten minutes to complete. You would need one staff to manage the tool's deployment and maintenance. 

There is no technical staff required for the product's deployment. 

The product offers good ROI. 

The solution is not expensive. 

We deployed the solution to update our internal WiFi to a modern, flexible, and secure environment.

Coverage and throughput have both improved significantly over our previous solution.  Also, having advanced QoS capabilities has improved our VoIP performance over WiFi.  

The solution offers very good performance, for all devices.  

Another bonus is that it's really tightly integrated with Apple devices, and makes sure that no one phone or no one WiFi device can hog all of the wireless spectrum. The spectrum-sharing algorithms are proven in independent testing to be the best. Also, roaming is quick and excellent. The security capabilities are incredible, and it offers excellent secure access for guests as well.

The only thing I would like to see is better high availability if you're using the embedded wireless controller (the EWC).

The solution is extremely stable and reliable. I've experienced no recent bugs or glitches.

The solution can scale hugely if you are not using the embedded wireless controller, which is what I am using now. 

The support is the best in the world. It's a big reason why I go with Cisco. The real differentiator for me always is the quality and speed of support. Every manufacturer's products are going to have a bug or performance issues sometime. It's how they respond that makes them different and better. 

Positive

I have had previous experience with Meraki, Ruckus, various prosumer products as well as Aruba. My favorite is Cisco, and my second favorite is Cisco Meraki. The reasons are too many to list here.  

The ease of the initial setup depends on experience always. If you're an experienced WiFi person, it is easy very easy to configure. I'd rate the ease of installation nine out of ten. 

We implemented it in-house.

For enterprise-class WiFi, with best-in-the-world TAC support, the pricing is okay. I'd rate it seven out of ten. There are less expensive solutions, sure. But in this case, my experience over decades (since the very first WiFi APs were released, in fact), is that no one beats Cisco WiFi (for very long, at least), in either the capabilities, performance or support categories.  

This is super flexible, meets our needs, is ultra secure, and offers excellent support. I'd rate it nine out of ten. I'm very happy with the product.