Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cisco Wireless WAN vs Ubiquiti Wireless comparison

 

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
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
73
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Ubiquiti Wireless
Ranking in Wireless WAN
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
74
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Wireless WAN category, the mindshare of Cisco Wireless WAN is 2.8%, down from 3.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ubiquiti Wireless is 40.9%, up from 39.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Wireless WAN
 

Featured Reviews

LalanChowdhury - PeerSpot reviewer
Enhances network reliability, offers device longevity and offers open authentication
The device longevity is a factor. enhances network reliability. Specifically, the handoff feature for WAN, when a customer moves from one access point to another in a building or office, is much easier and more reliable if it's controller-based. So, in those cases, we recommend the traditional controller-based solution. Cisco is adding AI features; they've already started in SD-WAN. But in Bangladesh, people are still new to AI. Cisco is including AI capabilities in their devices, so people are gradually adopting them. If they need AI-driven devices for industrial purposes, they can use them. So, Cisco is forward-thinking with these features. Even though they're not being used extensively now, they may be used in the future for things like RFID or automation. That's why Cisco's solution is logical and adaptable.
Sachin Vinay - PeerSpot reviewer
Simple to set up and good outdoor accessibility but does not penetrate rooms well indoors
Ubiquiti requires more improvement in wireless penetration. It has significantly less penetration in indoor devices. When it comes to indoor devices, Ubiquiti Wireless does not have penetration power, so when we deploy it in closed rooms, it fails to connect. This is one drawback that has to improve. When indoor access points failed to penetrate into rooms, we had to deploy single access points in each room, which seemed to be really costly. Still, when compared to Fortinet, it has an outdoor access point model also. The outdoor access point is relatively stable in comparison. The solution needs to offer more scalability. It does not have traffic shaping or traffic policies in its wireless requirements. We have to completely depend on an additional firewall for traffic shaping and policies.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Mobile anchoring and graphic user interface are helpful features."
"The Cisco solution is good, the new GUI looks good and we are seeing more telemetry from it."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's most valuable feature is it is robust."
"I am impressed with the tool's packet tracing so that connection with the devices is always consistent."
"The performance of the solution is valuable."
"The product can scale well."
"The most valuable features are user and handling capacity, indoor and outdoor access points and antennas, and the inbuilt intrusion prevention system."
"The solution also allows us to increase the power when it's too low."
"The solution offers us good situational awareness by providing information on user activity, signal strength, and all the data that you need to manage the system and understand issues."
"It is very stable and the equipment lasts quite a long time."
"One of the nice features is the backup version control."
"I like the price, quality, and consistency of manufacturing."
"The setup is easy and user friendly."
"Ubiquiti Wireless is easy to use, it's stable and flexible, and the performance is great. It is scalable as well."
"Having dual-band is important. Having compatibility with very old equipment on certain frequencies, for example on 2.4 and 5.8."
"I have found the most valuable features to be how user-friendly it is and how simple it is to do the configurations."
 

Cons

"The price could be better."
"Include more managing features within the product, rather than having to purchase them as extras."
"There needs to be an adjustment in subscription licenses and their pricing."
"The support of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"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."
"The main issue associated with the product revolves around the licensing part and some support-related problems."
"The price of Cisco Wireless WAN could improve, it is expensive."
"It can be complex to set up."
"The documentation and support provided by the solution areas of concern where improvements are required."
"I would like to see this solution have any kind of captive portal on the tool or user accounting tool. This would be quite useful for companies."
"The solution should offer simpler management for guests. That would be helpful in the hospitality industry, for example."
"My company has to wait for a response from the product's support team. From an improvement perspective, the product's support team should be quicker to respond."
"Ubiquiti is also slow to adopt new technologies. We are transitioning to Wi-Fi 6, and there aren't many products. They have mostly Wi-Fi 5 products, but there are only two Wi-Fi 6 products. It's okay for places we have already equipped, but it's a bit hard for new places."
"This might not be the best solution for a very large organization."
"The cost is on the higher side and could be lower."
"They should make more advanced features for the power users. I am a technician and I am functional, but I do need some features that I find only in Microsoft."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the product price a six on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price."
"On the low end, the solution costs probably around $1200 to $1300 for five years. It's an expensive product."
"It is very expensive."
"It was a one time fee and there are no costs in addition to this."
"There is a license that is needed for the use of this solution."
"The product is highly-priced."
"The solution is not expensive."
"We pay the licensing fees on a yearly basis."
"Right now the product is less expensive and of higher quality than other solutions."
"The product is a very good price."
"I think the price is okay for the product, but the price could always be cheaper."
"Ubiquiti Wireless is a cheaply priced product."
"The price has been fair for what I have been using it for. There is no license for this solution."
"Ubiquiti Wireless is affordable."
"For €100, you have Wi-Fi and you don't have to worry about a license."
"We don't have any licensing costs in our use-case. It's low cost, perhaps not the leading edge in the industry, but for the type of industry we work in, the cost suits us perfectly. It's aggressive on price so we can make a margin deploying it, and we can make money managing it for our clients."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Wireless WAN solutions are best for your needs.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Real Estate/Law Firm
10%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cisco Wireless WAN?
Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco Wireless WAN?
The price point is the main challenge as it seems complicated and unclear. We pay a premium for features we do not use.
What needs improvement with Cisco Wireless WAN?
The graphical user interface is okay, however, the CLI type is not very user-friendly. The GUI is okay, yet it needs more strength in the CLI mode as well. Sometimes, issues are not fully addressed...
Is Ubiquiti Wireless better than Ruckus Wireless WAN?
Ubiquiti Wireless is extremely easy to set up and is an excellent option for small businesses, offering enterprise features for a one-time fee and no ongoing licensing fees. Ubiquiti Wireless is ve...
Which is better - Cambium or Ubiquiti Wireless?
For me, Ubiquiti was easy to install, configure, set up, and maintain, while also providing solid coverage and better handoffs between APs. This is especially relevant if you are using Apple produc...
Which is better - Ubiquiti Wireless or Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN?
Ubiquiti Wireless offers a wide range of WLAN products. We tested their devices before ultimately choosing Cisco Meraki. Ubiquiti devices have good outdoor performance and the connection is very st...
 

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)
NASCAR Grand-AM, Maritime Parc, Outdoor Music Festival, British Armed Forces, Arcadia School District, Moscow - Enforta
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Wireless WAN vs. Ubiquiti Wireless and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.