Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

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.

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.

The manageability and control are excellent. 

It is stable.

The solution scales well. 

We didn't have any issues setting it up.

Technical support was helpful. 

It needs to increase its strength in capacity. We'd like to cover more areas for WiFi accessibility.

We've been using the solution for more than ten years. It's been a long time. 

The stability has been good. there are no bugs or glitches and we haven't had issues with it crashing or freezing. It's reliable. 

The solution can scale if a company needs it to expand. 

We do want to expand usage. We're looking into 2025 already and are looking for what will meet our future requirements. 

Technical support has been good. We are satisfied with the level of support we receive. 

Positive

We've always used Cisco. We've used Cisco for a long time. However, we are looking for something that offers more features and more options. If that's Cisco, great, if that's something else, we are open to it. 

We also used Aruba and Ubiquiti in the past.

It's an easy initial setup. The process is straightforward. 

We have not witnessed any ROI.

We are a Cisco partner. 

This is a good product and we've had no issues with it. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

The most valuable features are CleanAir, Rogue Detection, and the auto-calculation of RF.

There are a number of areas for improvement in Cisco Wireless WAN, including sensitive applications which face issues on wireless stuff and difficulty troubleshooting. In the next release, Cisco should include more troubleshooting features, especially for sensitive applications like Teams and other voice and video applications. There should be easy ways to analyze the wireless network to find where the problem is. 

I've been using this solution for eight years.

Wireless networks are never stable because they're always impacted by multiple reasons.

Cisco Wireless WAN is scalable.

Cisco's technical support is good - you get instant support, and most of the engineers are good and highly skilled (though not all, so some cases can take longer).

The initial setup is simple for enterprise users, but it's very complex for DYOD and guest networks.

Cisco's pricing is reasonable.

Cisco Wireless WAN is most suitable for enterprise companies. Before choosing this solution, remember that there are other good solutions, including Aruba and Ruckus, so you should explore which solution is best for your organization. I would give Cisco Wireless WAN a rating of eight out of ten.

The most valuable feature of Cisco Wireless WAN is the ease of management.

We have had some problems connecting to the internet with Cisco Wireless WAN, but it is not the equipment or configuration. Additionally, the integration with access control security could improve.

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

The support is useful and has helped us resolve issues we have had.

The setup of Cisco Wireless WAN is easy using the web interface.

I have a team that does the implementation and configuration of the solution.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN a nine out of ten.

We're a higher ed campus. So, we have Cisco Wireless prevalent throughout all of our buildings for students, faculty, and staff to access the network.

We are using its latest version.

Reliability and visibility in the product are most valuable. We are able to see client performance, signal strength for clients, and things like that.

The cost and support should be improved, and there should be support for the 6E standard.

I have about 25 years of experience. 

Its stability is good.

Its scalability is good.

It's hit and miss with tech support. If you get a good engineer, things go well. Oftentimes, you'll get a new engineer or a first-line engineer who is not so good.

It was straightforward.

The cost of licensing should be improved.

My advice would be to negotiate the price as much as you can. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for wireless access. It allows, for example, mobile users, to connect.

The solution has been very stable so far and the performance overall is quite good.

We have found that the product scales well.

The solution is easy to implement.

The solution could lower its pricing to make it more affordable. Cisco is expensive in general.

We've been using the solution for three years at this point. We've used the product for a while. 

The solution is stable. It offers very good performance. The reliability is excellent in that it doesn't crash or freeze and there are no bugs or glitches to deal with. 

The solution is scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

We have around 1,000 users on the solution currently.

We've never had the need to contact technical support from Cisco. It's been issue-free. therefore, I can't speak to helpful or responsive they would be.

I did not switch from a different solution. We've always used Cisco.

We had no issues setting up the solution. the implementation is easy and pretty straightforward. I wouldn't describe it as complex or difficult. Configuring and installation were issue-free. It doesn't take too much time.

You only need two technical people to set up and manage the product. It's not maintenance-intensive. 

The installation was pretty fast. We didn't need any help from integrators or consultants.

This is a rather expensive product.

We pay a yearly fee for the license and support services. 

We are using the latest version of the solution at this time. 

I would rate the solution a ten out of ten.

We are a hotel. We primarily use the solution for wireless access for the hotel and for accommodations. 

The stability is okay.

The product can scale well.

Technical support can be helpful.

Overall, the concept of the solution is great.

The initial setup is somewhat complex. 

I need to look deeper into the DNA of the solution before making any suggestions for the solution. I need to do more research.

Sometimes you do not get a good person helping you with technical support.

We did have issues with the product that made us concerned about the overall stability.

For us, we have some power issues, and we returned many items due to power issues. There may be some models that have some problems with the power. I'm not sure about this, however, when we used some, Cisco responded clearly and they replaced them. However, this experience made us concerned about the overall stability potential.

The scalability is okay. A company can expand it if they need to.

We have over 700 people using the solution currently. They cover all types of roles and at different levels.

We likely will increase usage in the future. I already issued a purchase order to make an incremental increase to the current wireless resolution. That will be something like 5% or 7%.

In many cases, technical support is excellent. In some cases, however, they are not confident enough. They are following a checklist more than problem-solving in some cases. They repeat the same solution many times without results. The tickets are open for a long time. That said, in many cases, they are excellent.

We found the initial setup to be a bit complex. It was not simple or straightforward. I'd rate my experience with the process, at a four out of five.

We deployed the solution over the course of two years.  

We both had a vendor assist us and had our in-house team handle some elements of the installation. We did not have a good experience with the third-party service provider.

The cost was a mix between the license, manpower, and hardware. It was different from layer to layer. The hard costs are only 45% of the actual costs.

I use two different versions of the solution. 

Would rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We use Cisco Wireless WAN for our internal and guests users. We have recently migrated to the newest version of the solution.

The Cisco solution is good, the new GUI looks good and we are seeing more telemetry from it.

The new platform of Cisco Wireless WAN I did not like, there weren't many features available. The online platform has more options.

We found ourselves needing to integrate Cisco Wireless WAN with another Cisco product, called Cisco DNA, to try and receive more assurance on the data. It's another piece of hardware that you're putting onto your network. It could have been a cloud solution. Before Cisco, we used to have Cisco Prime which used to give us more in-depth analytics, such as heat maps of someone complaining about wireless access in a specific area. You could drill down into that, but you don't receive that information from the Cisco controller. We will receive the information if we implemented the DNAC solution, but it is another solution that we're implementing from Cisco. A competitor could probably do it in a better way reducing the need for multiple solutions.

Overall Cisco Wireless WAN could improve by giving more granular reporting and alerts back on issues and not having to integrate other tools onto the same platform. However, the platform is new, the interface is continually developing. Hopefully, they can improve quickly.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for approximately 10 years.

I found the new version of Cisco Wireless WAN initially seemed to be quite buggy. However, the stability is good overall.

This model of Cisco Wireless WAN has good scalability. You can have ten of thousands of people using it.

We have approximately 4,000 users of this solution globally. The solution is used hourly.

The technical support from Cisco Wireless WAN is good. However, they were better before.

As people were transitioning to this Cisco Wireless WAN hardware, there wasn't as much available information online about different issues people might come across.

When determining if the implementation is going to be difficult it would depend on the topology of the sites. We're a global company, and on some of the sites where it was a standalone controller, it was straightforward to implement. However, on a different site when we were using the physical appliance, as a virtual wireless anchor that was in our own cloud, integrating that wasn't seamless.

We had help from the vendor when we were doing the implementation.

We have one person that does the maintenance and patching of the solution.

The price of Cisco Wireless WAN could improve upon pricing, it is expensive. We purchased the hardware through a vendor that Cisco used and we received approximately 75 percent off.

We are on a three-year license with Cisco Wireless WAN.

We evaluated the Cisco Meraki solution before we made the decision to choose the on-premise solution. One reason we choose the on-premise solution is we were already using one. When choosing which one is better, it is difficult because I did not use Cisco Meraki extensively to determine which one is best.

Since we have recently migrated to the new version of the Cisco Wireless WAN platform the interface has changed and I'm still getting used to it.

I would recommend Cisco Wireless WAN. However, that's because my exposure is to Cisco Wireless. I'm probably a little bit biased. Overall, it's a fairly good solution.

Whether this solution is suitable or not for a company depends on their deployment, if they were a Greenfield-sized company or a Brownfield-sized company I would have different tips. It does fully depend on the scenario. My key advice is with a wireless solution is for them to do a wireless survey first before purchasing.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN an eight out of ten.