Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.