Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

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.

We are satisfied with the product.

The access points and controllers are good and do not give us any issues. In addition, the individual access points are good.

They recently launched the virtual wireless controller and a new CTI. Unfortunately, it is not scalable, and the performance is not good. Sometimes it hangs, and it has a slow response. We don't have a good experience and are uncomfortable with these elements.

The network management system is not great. It is incapable of handling a large number of access points. They are working on it but have not been able to fix it yet.

We have been using this solution for about six years. We are using different models like the Wi-fi 5 model.

The technical support is good because we have a contract with them. They respond whenever we have an issue.

The pricing is okay compared to other products like Aruba and Huawei. However, to be more competitive, Cisco could lower its price.

We have a big infrastructure of about 15,000 to 20,000. So if it works fine for us, it will suit small companies with small networks. We use the controller, and it is fine. I rate this solution a five out of ten, mainly because of the network issues.

We use Cisco Wireless WAN for the network in our office. The solution is deployed on-premises.

There are currently 20 people who use this solution in my organization. They're technical staff and salespeople. 

I use Cisco because of its reliability.

The price could be improved. It can be complicated to configure the solution.

In the next release, it could be more user-friendly.

I have used this solution for 10 years.

It's very stable. I would rate the stability as nine out of ten.

It's scalable. I would rate the scalability as eight out of ten.

We previously used Linksys. We switched to Cisco because of its sustainability and expandability.

Normal installation isn't complex. Installation takes a couple of hours.

One person is needed for maintenance.

Implementation was done in-house.

The total cost of the solution was about $6,000.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten. I wouldn't give it 10 out of 10 because the price is high and the solution can be complicated.

I would recommend it to those who are interested in using it. 

There's a lot of advice and information on the internet. Some of it may be incorrect, so you just have to try it and see.

Cisco Wireless WAN works well in an enterprise environment.

The most valuable features of Cisco Wireless WAN are the dashboards, security functionality, and Cisco DNA center. The way the solution has integrated within the fabric of the environment with automation is very good.

Cisco Wireless WAN could improve the wireless environment visibility. For example, the information regarding bandwidth use, conditions of the network, and application visibility.

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

The stability of Cisco Wireless WAN is good.

Cisco Wireless WAN is a scalable solution. You are able to purchase as many licenses as required.

I have worked with this solution in large environments. We have had clients with approximately 2,000 users.

The support from Cisco is good.

I have used Aruba Wireless.

The setup of Cisco Wireless WAN needs an expert. You need someone with experience to be able to work with Cisco Wireless solutions. It took approximately one to two weeks to implement the solution.

The implementation of Cisco Wireless WAN will need at least a field engineer to do the configuration of the appliance.

The license is not subscription-based.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN a ten out of ten.

We just basically use it for wireless throughout our office space.

We never had any issues with it. I can't really say that I had any issues or didn't like the product.

It just gives you the ability to use it around the office without being tied up to an actual physical connection.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. 

I've found the solution to be very reliable. 

The solution can scale. 

Technical support is helpful.

The pricing is pretty reasonable. 

I cannot recall any areas of improvement. 

A lot of the time, for users, it comes down to pricing. Many would like to see it be a bit less costly. 

I've had zero issues with the stability of the product. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. 

It is scalable.

Cisco offers very responsive technical support. They are helpful. 

The product's initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's one of the things that you set up, and you don't really touch after. You set it up, and basically, you don't worry about it.

We but the equipment. There is no monthly or annual licensing. 

The pricing is okay. They offer pretty competitive pricing. 

We're currently a Cisco shop, and we were thinking about possibly looking into different firewall vendors next year to get an opinion on the different technologies on their next-generation firewalls, just to see what made the most sense as far as comparing different vendors.

We looked at one point, at Fortinet. It is a good platform. I would definitely try to switch to Fortinet if I can. The whole platform pricing standpoint from Fortinet is good. It's a possibility that on our end, we might be switching over to them. Apples to apples, Cisco and Fortinet are very similar and both are quite good. 

I'm a customer and end-user. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. I've never had any issues with the product. 

Our primary use case for this solution is setting up a wireless source for our clients to connect to the VPNs and our data centers.

We have found the ability to easily increase power valuable. The solution also allows us to increase the power when it's too low.

The firewall integration is not great and should be improved.

We have been using this solution for three years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is scalable. There are approximately 70 people using it in our organization. 

We do not have experience with customer service and support because we have not had issues.

The initial setup was straightforward, and deployment took five hours.

We implemented the solution in-house, and approximately three people are required for implementation.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. I recommend the solution to new users.

We primarily use the solution for wireless connectivity for corporate. 

The solution has improved the customer experience, which has helped improve the organization. Customers can access the corporate network with ease and get the resources they need even if they are moving around the office. They easily connect to the WiFi without issue.

The SSID feature is quite good. 

It runs well, without issue.

Users can easily move around the office and stay connected. 

The solution is stable. It offers good performance. 

We can scale the product.

Cisco has a very good reputation and offers pretty good pricing. 

We would like to see additional data and security. We'd like to see them maintain integration between SD-WAN and Cisco ISE and for them to improve the security factor for the customer.

It can be complex to set up. 

They need to build a more comprehensive solution around the WLAN controller. 

I've been using the solution for more than ten years. 

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

It's easily scalable. That's not a problem at all. 

Technical support is okay. They can solve issues, however, the response time can be long. 

Neutral

The initial setup is complex. You need to have a high skill set when dealing with Cisco. It's not meant to be done by non-technical users. 

The product does not require a lot of maintenance. It's very minimal.

While I can't remember the exact pricing, it's not overly expensive. 

We are a partner with Cisco for networking and security.

I'm working with the latest version of the solution. 

Cisco maintains a good relationship with its customers. They have a very good reputation on the market.

I'd recommend the solution to others. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We needed a controller-based wireless solution for a medium-sized office environment that can support six to 10 APs. We have around 35 users in our office.

We have been using Cisco Wireless for four years.

Cisco Wireless is a stable product.

Cisco Wireless is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward, and you need to spend around six to 10 weeks to set up one controller. We have two managers and around six to 10 technical guys for maintenance.

We could deploy it without outside help because we have technical expertise.

We feel that Cisco is quite expensive, so we're looking for a reasonable alternative. We are considering Aruba and some other brands that are less expensive. Cisco works fine, but the issue is the annual licensing and support costs. 

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN eight out of 10. If budget weren't an issue, I would highly recommend Cisco.

We primarily use this product to provide general wireless network access.

The most valuable features are coverage and reliability.

The initial setup and deployment should be easier.

The technical support needs to be improved.

I have been working with Cisco Wireless WAN for between five and six years.

This is a fairly stable wireless solution.

This product is scalable, although we have no plans to increase our usage at the moment. We currently have 300 users.

I would rate the technical support a two out of five. It is an area that should be improved, in all aspects.

Neutral

I have used other similar products in the past, including HPE Wireless WAN and Ubiquity Wireless, but this Cisco product is one that the client already had in place.

The initial setup is complex, and I can't recall how long it took to deploy.

We installed it in-house. We have a team of three or four engineers that are responsible for maintenance.

We pay the licensing fees on a yearly basis.

In summary, this is not a product that I recommend.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

Cisco Wireless WAN is mainly used in campus networks, hotels, and other enterprise customers to provide wireless internet connectivity.

Cisco Wireless WAN's best features are simple management, the cloud base, dashboards, and reliability.

Cisco Wireless WAN could be improved by introducing a low-power wireless access point that could be installed in an outside environment. I would also like them to add an option without any licensing controller so that the customer could just purchase access points, then plug and play. In the future, Cisco Wireless WAN should include cloud control, centralized management, and branch connectivity.

I've been using Cisco Wireless WAN for around ten years.

Cisco Wireless WAN is perfectly stable. Some of our customers have been using it for eight to ten years without having to change the hardware as it continues to work perfectly.

There are some limitations with scaling the on-premises version - if you want to scale, you need to change the hardware and purchase a new wireless controller at an additional cost.

Cisco's technical support is very responsive, fast, and knowledgeable, with experienced and knowledgeable engineers.

Positive

The initial setup is very easy because so many engineers know the product, and Cisco makes a lot of technical documentation available via its online portal. I would rate the setup process as five out of five.

Cisco's licensing model includes some mandatory licenses, making it more expensive than other vendors like HP, Aruba, and Ruckus.

I would rate Cisco Wireless WAN ten out of ten.