No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Cisco Wireless WAN vs HPE Wireless WAN comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 4, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Wireless WAN
Ranking in Wireless WAN
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
HPE Wireless WAN
Ranking in Wireless WAN
5th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
5.8
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Wireless WAN category, the mindshare of Cisco Wireless WAN is 10.6%, up from 4.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of HPE Wireless WAN is 6.6%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Wireless WAN Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cisco Wireless WAN10.6%
HPE Wireless WAN6.6%
Other82.8%
Wireless WAN
 

Featured Reviews

BS
Network Security at Tech Mahindra Limited
Support teams have simplified deployment while the interface provides accessible configuration options
Based on my experience, I would generally recommend Cisco Wireless WAN to others. At present, our company is using Cisco WAN only. Based on that company, their budget and other factors will be involved in the decision. For metrics to evaluate the efficiency of Cisco Wireless WAN, I refer to the Cisco website or sometimes YouTube to get the details through videos. Overall, I am giving Cisco Wireless WAN an eight rating out of ten. Any Cisco product is most useful and is being majorly used in the network. I would like to see features in Cisco Wireless WAN that involve a GUI. Cisco also uses GUI mostly to configure or create any wireless SSIDs or any other things, which is fine now. I am providing this review with an overall rating of eight out of ten for Cisco Wireless WAN.
DineshDas - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager - Network Services at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Centralized features have simplified deployment and improved day-to-day network management
One of the best features of HPE Wireless WAN is Wi-Fi Direct, as it provides dual-band frequency and helps to connect Bluetooth with IoT devices. I am comfortable with this feature and find it beneficial for connectivity. I use centralized management features such as WLC. They have improved operational efficiency significantly. It is one of the best tools we have for centralized management because it is easy to manage, manually delete, and create sites. This makes it easy to implement policies across the network. I see measurable benefits from this centralized solution, which is quite easy to handle as people are comfortable managing the tool. Users do not need hardcore technical expertise to operate it on a day-to-day basis, making it quite comfortable.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"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 most valuable aspect of the solution is its fast transition."
"The most valuable feature of Cisco Wireless WAN is the ease of management."
"This is the most stable product in the market."
"The solution also allows us to increase the power when it's too low."
"It's a small feature, but Cisco allows me to see access points with blinking lights. This shows me which access point is which."
"The most valuable features are user and handling capacity, indoor and outdoor access points and antennas, and the inbuilt intrusion prevention system."
"The solution is stable and reliable and offers good performance."
"It's easy to use."
"We've found the scalability to be good."
"What's most valuable in HPE Wireless WAN is that it works fine for customers with existing HPE controllers."
"The reliability is good."
"I like their features, such as reliability and high availability, and their network is more highly available compared to Cisco and others because they have features like Mobility Master and Mobility Conductors, and their solution is more stable compared to Cisco and others."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is flexibility."
"The simplicity of the configuration process is very useful to us, the visibility of the management is great, the features are excellent, we find the security to be very good, setting up the solution initially is very easy, stability has been great so far, users can scale the solution if they need to, and technical support is helpful."
"The tool is easy to manage."
 

Cons

"The solution could lower its pricing to make it more affordable. Cisco is expensive in general."
"The initial setup and deployment should be easier."
"The worst thing about the Cisco controllers is that they only have two ports."
"The solution is pretty expensive. We'd like to see lower pricing in the future."
"If encryption could be added, that would be a feature I'd expect from the build."
"The cloud interoperability needs improvement."
"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."
"Documentation is an area that needs review. It should be more dynamic and it should be easier."
"Integration might be improved, particularly with a single sign-on for Active Directory."
"The sales sync should connect with and sync up with the customers."
"I would like for it to be faster. It should be a faster device."
"The HPE Wireless dashboard could be more user-friendly."
"The scalability and the support could be better."
"Technical support could be improved. They could respond a bit faster."
"HPE should improve performance and stability."
"HPE Wireless WAN could provide better access points and better pricing."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is not expensive."
"Cisco's licensing model includes some mandatory licenses, making it more expensive than other vendors like HP, Aruba, and Ruckus."
"It is a bit expensive compared to others."
"The license is not subscription-based."
"Cisco Wireless WAN is fairly expensive."
"There is a license that is needed for the use of this solution."
"The pricing is good."
"I don't know the exact cost as I'm only on the technical side, but I do know this solution is very expensive. With one being the most expensive and five being affordable, I would give Cisco a two out of five."
"We have been satisfied with the price."
"There is a license for this solution and the license is normally paid annually but this depends on the contract."
"The solution is quite expensive. You have to pay for every node and it can get expensive fast, it is approximately £3,000 per month."
"Customers pay for HPE Wireless WAN based on the contract. It's usually paid yearly. There's an additional cost, particularly for the hardware."
"The price of HPE Wireless WAN is high."
"I find the price to be reasonable."
"The license cost of the product falls under the category of a moderately priced tool."
"The price is perfect for me."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Wireless WAN solutions are best for your needs.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
20%
Construction Company
18%
Marketing Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
30%
Educational Organization
14%
Marketing Services Firm
9%
Construction Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business26
Midsize Enterprise16
Large Enterprise38
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise9
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco Wireless WAN?
I think the pricing of Cisco Wireless WAN must be reasonable at present.
What needs improvement with Cisco Wireless WAN?
Cisco Wireless WAN's interface could be simplified in the future. Simplification would make it more helpful to see how the user is connecting. We are able to see the connectivity details, and we al...
What is your primary use case for Cisco Wireless WAN?
We are still working with Cisco products, and I am supporting the Cisco devices. We are working with Cisco switches, routers, and we have guest Wi-Fi now. Regarding Cisco Wireless WAN, I am not tha...
What needs improvement with HPE Wireless WAN?
I am not in a position to fully address what can be improved for HPE Wireless WAN currently. However, there are some areas that need improvement, such as connectivity issues and additional features...
What is your primary use case for HPE Wireless WAN?
I am unable to specify the exact use case for why we or our clients use HPE Wireless WAN, as we are in the service industry and work based on client requirements. I am not involved in the purchase ...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Wireless WAN, HP Wireless WAN
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Aegean Motorway, Baylor Scott & White Health, Beachbody, Bellevue, Brunel University London, Bucks County Intermediate Unit , Chartwell School, Children's Hospital Colorado, Cisco Live Milan, City of Biel, City of Mississauga, Dundee Precious Metals, Electricity Authority of Cyprus, Erickson Living, Goldcorp, Great Ormond Street Hospital, Grupo Industrial Saltillo (GIS)
Bell Canada
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Wireless WAN vs. HPE Wireless WAN and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.