Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

We trust Cisco. It's a reliable solution. Reliability is most probably the most valuable feature for our organization.

The solution does exactly what we need it to do.

The initial setup is mostly straightforward.

The pricing of the solution could always be better. If they could work to make the costs more competitive, that would be ideal.

I've been using the solution for more than ten years at this point. It's been 12 to 13 years or so. It's been a long time.

The stability of the solution is quite good. It's reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches.

The scalability potential of the solution is very good. If a company needs to expand it, they can.

If I look just now at my area and the locations I'm responsible for, we have more than 2,000 users. However, we use the product globally, and if we look at it from that perspective, we have more than 20,000 users actively using it every day. Of course, with COVID, and people now working from home, it's likely less at the moment.

I'm pretty satisfied with the documentation as well as with the support. If we have any challenges or issues, Cisco is usually always able to help us. They are helpful, knowledgeable, and responsive to our needs.

In terms of the initial implementation, it is always dependant on what knowledge you have and the level of experience. The more you have, of course, the easier it is. For us, it's not difficult anymore. I'd describe the process as pretty straightforward and quite easy to set up on a new site.

The solution does come with a price tag. It's not the least expensive option on the market.

We are a customer and end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

We use a lot of Cisco products, including Cisco Catalyst Switches, Wireless WAN, and Cisco Nexus.

We use one of the latest access points, however, we are not up to date on the newest controller versions as our versions are still supported. We plan to replace them probably in the next one or two years. It's not the latest, let's say, controller version. However, from a software standpoint, we are still up to date.

I would recommend the solution to others. However, they have to be prepared to pay the price and have the budget for the product.

In general, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been extremely satisfied with its capabilities.

I've been designing wireless solutions and have been a solutions provider for over 20 years. I spec the solution based on the client's requirements and use whichever vendor device is affordable, and fits the purpose of the company's requirements.

We mainly use the WLC 5000 series. We use other Cisco products, mainly geared to smaller markets. I use Cisco and Dell devices, but mostly Cisco, as in the switching arena. I'm most familiar with cloud management and wireless Cisco solutions such as the WMM. I'm not familiar with the Cisco CSR or Cisco Cloud Services Router 1000V. 

In terms of WLAN solutions, it all comes down to the business requirements and commercials. I would tend to use Cisco at the higher end if the commercial can afford it, but it also depends if it's fit for purpose on the NRL hive. I also use Ubiquiti and I've also started to look at Campion as well. But it really depends on the requirements. External, Ubiquiti, internal Cisco, and Aerohive.

The granularity of standardization and technical controls would be the big one in terms of valuable features. You can control everything, every technology within the wireless arena. It contrasts with Meraki which is very much macro-driven so you don't have the visibility of the complete engine. From an engineering and consultant perspective, I want full control. The Cisco WLC solution supplies that in the form they have at the moment, but I know that they changed the UI a couple of weeks ago. I haven't seen it but as it exists at the moment I'm on 8.5 or 8.6 of the code up, but they're using the code that they use on the WLCs and not what would be the new version, which I believe is different.

With the WMM there are a few bits and pieces missing that some of the other vendors have. Cisco has a bad habit, although they'd probably see it as a good habit, of not applying extras. I want more managing features. Cisco would love you to go and buy Cisco Prime, which is very expensive, especially if you want to get reports active for the SME market. They generally don't add to existing products and are actually outpricing themselves. Cisco needs to realize that if they want to reach a global market, there are many markets within that. They need a price point that allies a smaller market and sometimes a specific country. I work in Northern Ireland and Ireland, which is very much SMB, and Cisco has priced themselves out of that market. From a management perspective, if I want to get good reports and good troubleshooting capabilities, I have to go and buy an additional product, Prime or another product that they facilitate. Aerohive products and the like have that under the hood and are a cheaper product. Cisco needs to be paralleling what the other vendors' devices are doing and giving what could be other markets the ability to use the product. For now, they've priced themselves out in some locations.

In terms of additional features, they need to look at the market and need to look at whether or not it includes more management features under the hood and more layers to functional troubleshooting which other vendor devices do, that would be a big improvement. But they need to be built into the product that you buy, and you shouldn't have to go and pay thousands of pounds for an additional management platform. There should be a level of management solution purchased through the standard WLAN, Cisco's WLAN solution. There isn't enough.

I would want people to be aware that Cisco Wireless WAN is a top-end product and solution. Their portfolio is superb. They have major experience and maturity and are very much in tune with their field. I work in warehousing facilities. Like most things, though, there are pros and cons. Cisco is the top end, commercially. It's going to be double the price, and I mean double the price, of everything else. Other products that I use, and I have cross-referenced the price point with many solutions for the requirements of our enterprise customers, are half the price.

They are a good product. Do they warrant the extra expense? I would have to say no, but they do have great maturity and their product portfolio is not just the access points but their other add-ons; their antennas, maturity and the information out there, which is invaluable. You pay for these from an engineering and consultative perspective. I need to research issues and other people's experiences. Cisco obviously has the world's best engineers, consultants who have that and very nicely post their experiences. That is invaluable. But unfortunately some markets, again I'm talking about Ireland here, sometimes can't afford that. And there are other products that can do the job just as well.

Commercially they are quite flawed but in terms of technology, you can't really beat Cisco, to be honest. Commercially I would rate them as a 2 but technically they would be an 8 or 9 out of ten. I'm not a fan of the Meraki product so I'm taking it out of the equation. I'm talking about Cisco WLCs, and what would be the solution. Technically it's an excellent product.

Unfortunately, their validity into other commercial markets is flawed. Majorly flawed. And they have too much competition, and Cisco being Cisco will just go "Well, that's fine, we didn't want to do that."  Then we would not use their products. So that's unfortunate. Maybe that's just a bit of pretension on their part.

I am a solutions architect primarily dealing with networking and security matters. I recommend Cisco Wireless WAN to customers, particularly larger businesses.

Wireless assurance has significantly improved network reliability. Additionally, certificate-based authentication has been critical for my customers' operations.

There needs to be an adjustment in subscription licenses and their pricing. Buying the hardware and then managing Cisco renewals incurs a CapEx and also a yearly OpEx expense, which causes a struggle.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for a long time, approximately ten years.

I'd rate the product nine out of ten for stability.

The solution is scalable and adapts well to scaling needs as businesses grow.

The technical support by Cisco is very good. We have no issues with it.

Positive

Cisco Wireless WAN can be competitive in terms of pricing but may also be a bit pricey at times. The main issue is the license renewals and subscriptions, which can be expensive.

There are many competitors like HP with Aruba and Juniper. Huawei or other Chinese companies provide options, and Fortinet also has access points.

I generally recommend Cisco Wireless WAN to other businesses except for small business owners due to the cost factor. They could consider other cost-effective products. It would be beneficial to see more AI integration in troubleshooting and network visibility.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use Cisco Wireless WAN to provide wireless WAN for our company.

I like that it's a very stable solution.

The price could be better.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for more than four years.

Cisco Wireless WAN is very stable.

I think we used the smallest controller hardware solution, which was more than enough for us. But it's not scalable. It's okay because we don't have more access points.

The initial setup is straightforward. The initial deployment takes me about a day. We have to first set up the controller because it's a controller-based solution and then add access points from them. This will be determined automatically. The configuration is based on the controller and will be pushed to the access points automatically after they have been recognized.

I implemented this solution. 

The price could be better, but it's been okay. You must pay license fees for each access point connected to the controller.

I prefer the solution offered by Fortinet better.

I would tell potential users that it's a good solution if they plan to use more Cisco products. This is because it can be integrated into the entire network design.

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

The solution is used for our network data centers.

The performance, stability, and support are the most valuable features.

The price has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for three years.

I give the stability a nine out of ten.

I give the scalability a nine out of ten.

The technical support is good.

The implementation was completed in-house.

The price is expensive.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

Cisco Wireless WAN is not an affordable option, therefore I suggest making sure that the solution meets all the organization's requirements before making a purchase.

It's for networking, specifically for network access to our Internet.

Around 50 people are using Cisco Wireless WAN in my company. They are mainly developers and the IT team.

One of the main advantages is the support Cisco offer. They provide good support, and it is easy to use.

There is room for improvement in terms of pricing.

I have been using this solution for six years. We are not using the latest version; therefore, we are exploring other potential solutions before upgrading.

I would rate stability a nine out of ten. It is quite stable.

I would rate Cisco's scalability an eight out of ten. It is a scalable product.

The initial setup is not complex, and installing the solution completely takes more than an hour.

A third-party expert, a service provider, did the deployment for Cisco Wireless WAN.

It is quite an expensive model.

I would definitely recommend using Cisco Wireless WAN.

Overall, I would rate Cisco a nine out of ten.

Cisco Wireless access points are highly stable with a wide coverage area. 

I have used Cisco Wireless WAN for seven years.

Cisco Wireless WAN is highly scalable. We have around 200 users. If we need more Wi-Fi coverage, we can purchase more equipment and add another access point. 

Cisco support is fast and helpful. 

It isn't complex if you have experience with Cisco equipment. You have to make room on the access point and ensure it is controlled. It might be difficult for a new user. The setup is large, and there are a lot of configuration options.  It takes about two days to configure all the access points. You need to set up the equipment, make the SSID, and configure the traffic settings for the access point.

Though Cisco Wireless is expensive, we don't need to purchase a lot of equipment. Two or three access points can cover an area of about 2,000 meters.

Cisco Wireless WAN is expensive. We have a three-year license.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN nine out of 10. I recommend it if you're looking for a stable wireless solution with a wide coverage area.

I primarily use Cisco Wireless WAN for meetings and to let mobile devices connect to WiFi.

Cisco Wireless WAN's best feature is the integration with other Cisco products.

Cisco Wireless WAN would be improved with the ability to monitor new usernames, product registrations, and flow traffic.

I've been working with Cisco Wireless WAN for roughly two years.

Cisco Wireless WAN is scalable.

Cisco Wireless WAN is fairly expensive.

I would give Cisco Wireless WAN a rating of six 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.

The most valuable features are user and handling capacity, indoor and outdoor access points and antennas, and the inbuilt intrusion prevention system.

The DNA space is a separate license cost, which should be included in the license.

I've been using Cisco Wireless WAN for three years.

Cisco Wireless WAN is quite stable.

This solution is scalable, but it's expensive to add licenses.

I'm satisfied with Cisco's technical support.

The ease of the setup depends on the size and design of the network. If a lot of connection points are required, then the wider controller will be needed, and branches will be connected with VPN, which makes it more complicated. 

Cisco's pricing is quite costly and should be cheaper for both licensing and hardware. A license for one access point costs around $500 for three years. There are also separate charges for smart networking and support.

I would rate Cisco Wireless WAN as nine out of ten.