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

Cisco Wireless vs Ubiquiti Wireless comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
151
Ranking in other categories
Wireless LAN (4th)
Ubiquiti Wireless
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
74
Ranking in other categories
Wireless WAN (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Enterprise Networking solutions, they serve different purposes. Cisco Wireless is designed for Wireless LAN and holds a mindshare of 11.5%, down 15.2% compared to last year.
Ubiquiti Wireless, on the other hand, focuses on Wireless WAN, holds 40.9% mindshare, up 39.9% since last year.
Wireless LAN
Wireless WAN
 

Featured Reviews

GulfrazAhmad - PeerSpot reviewer
Integrates with ISE, and is secure, reliable, and easy to deploy
The main concern is the length and overlapping. We have to put on four to six access points on the same floor, and we face the issue of overlapping areas. If Cisco can extend the range of their indoor APs, we would need to install just one or two access points, and it would eliminate the problem of the overlapping area. They should provide built-in features for safe authentication. Right now, we integrate with ISE and FortiClient for this feature. We first check the NAC, and after the NAC and before the domain, a token password installed on their mobile or a physical token is required to join the network. If Cisco had built-in authentication, we would be able to eliminate one product from our network.
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

"Cisco is one of the leading vendors and is at the top of many lists. The access software is robust, and the performance of the devices is excellent."
"Cisco Wireless technology allows us to logically segregate networks, to segregate the traffic between multiple types of endpoint devices, connected to the network. For example, corporate laptops are connected to one network, corporate iPhones will go through a different network."
"The support is very good. Technical support is very helpful."
"It is an extremely stable and scalable solution. Its documentation and support are also very good."
"The solution is highly scalable."
"It can provide support for real-time applications, such as VoIP and Video Conferencing over wireless infrastructure."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it can be integrated into other solutions in a particular environment, including where there are wired and wireless connections."
"It helps with the visibility on our network."
"The solution's software controller is very nice and provides good advantages."
"It is very stable and the equipment lasts quite a long time."
"The setup is quite simple."
"Ubiquiti devices are centrally managed, and you can log into the access points via SSH. If the GUI isn't working for some reason, you can intervene via SSH."
"Setting it up wasn't so complicated. It is reliable. Security-wise, we didn't have much trouble, but that could be due to our environment. We haven't had so many attacks, at least up till now."
"In general, the setup process is straightforward."
"The solution has an easy configuration."
"The most valuable aspect of Ubiquiti is the ease of setup. It's easy to set up, secure, and use. It works on an adoption basis. I can pull the system up, design a network, and pull 20 different Ubiquiti units into it."
 

Cons

"The stability could improve, there are some issues. We were told the version of the software we are using on all of the controllers is best for Cisco IOS, but we might need to update our software, this might fix the stability issues we are experiencing."
"The product could improve the security system's alertness to detect and respond to intrusions more effectively."
"The solution should introduce natural language troubleshooting processes. It will identify possible problems or errors due to the symptoms."
"Installation is complex."
"Its licensing has been very frustrating. There is also the complexity of managing the product. These are probably the two reasons why we're looking at Aruba. The way they license this product is not simple. There are some good features in the latest version, but there are additional license costs as well, which is frustrating for us. It is not really a feature issue for us. It really comes down to cost and licensing. They should make it a bit simpler to manage. We find the overall solution a little bit more complex than we would like to deal with. Its troubleshooting is a bit difficult, and it does require a high skill set. Comparatively, Aruba seems quite simple. One of the benefits of the Aruba product is that it is cloud-managed. We don't have to manage the management platform itself, whereas Cisco is on-premise. Its user interface could also be better."
"The configuration interface could be easier. They should make roaming easier and should fix it so that when you cross a building you can keep the signal."
"The solution could be cheaper and have a better web interface."
"Cisco Wireless does not have a dashboard that would make it easier for people to manage the solution, such as Cisco Meraki where you are able to monitor the network through the dashboard and everything is visible making it easier."
"One area of improvement could be the inclusion of conditional forwarding."
"There isn't any technical support."
"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."
"Its stability could be better."
"We have an issue with Ubiquiti Wireless every three to five months for one of the access points."
"Maybe our Ruckus access points are easier to deploy. When I want to deploy a Ubiquiti access point with the centralized appliance, we can't do all the configuration in our lab and send it to the shop. Ruckus seems easier to deploy for the moment."
"The production is not very stable in our experience."
"After upgrades to the interface, some features disappear."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Cost is one of the reasons why we are switching to Aruba. Aruba is significantly lower than Cisco in price. We do the licensing on a three-year basis. Cisco makes licensing very difficult."
"I am not a fan of Cisco's software pricing model. Their management software is far too expensive."
"I feel the product's pricing is a good value."
"We are on an annual license. The license and the hardware are expensive."
"Cisco licensing is usually provided on a yearly basis rather than monthly. You can get a hardware SLA or hardware and software SLA for a period of years. Longer terms influence the level of support that you get when it comes to Cisco SLA."
"The solution is a little expensive compared to other brands."
"The license structure is confusing."
"Its licensing is hard to understand."
"The most valuable aspect of Ubiquiti is the price. Compared to competing solutions like Cisco Aironet, HP Aruba, ExtremeWireless, or Ruckus, Ubiquiti is the cheapest by far. It's not even close. That's their biggest selling point."
"The product is around $300 or $400 depending on the device. It's a one-time fee. There aren't ongoing licensing costs."
"The price has been fair for what I have been using it for. There is no license for this solution."
"Once you purchase the solution the license is included."
"The price is reasonable and there's only a one-time payment. We have had this for a long time and I haven't seen any additional fee after paying for the installation."
"Its price is reasonable for a basic device."
"I like the fact that it offers enterprise features at a cheap price. If you compare it with Cisco, it has most of the features that Cisco has been offering but at a lesser price. I am satisfied with its price."
"From a pricing point of view, Ubiquiti is excellent."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Wireless LAN solutions are best for your needs.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user212721 - PeerSpot reviewer
Mar 24, 2015
Cisco vs. Aruba Wireless Solutions
Cisco or Aruba Networks? If you are considering wireless access solutions, this is a common question that you are probably asking. You probably have sales people knocking at your door. How do you make sense of all the stories that you are presented with. If you have done any research, you are…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Educational Organization
6%
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

Which is better - Cisco Wireless or Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN?
Cisco Wireless is very robust, very rugged, and can handle indoor and outdoor coverage extremely well. We found it to be very reliable and to consistently run very efficiently. Cisco Wireless helpe...
Which is better - Ruckus Wireless or Cisco Wireless?
Ruckus Wireless offers users the benefit of being both easy to set up and get running as well as being very user friendly. This user-friendly quality also renders it easy to learn how to use and ma...
How does Cisco Wireless compare with Aruba Wireless?
On the most basic level, Cisco Wireless can offer a rather straightforward initial setup. In the span of about three hours, the basic framework can be set up. Step-by-step instructions are availabl...
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...
 

Also Known As

Cisco WLAN Controller
No data available
 

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 Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Ruckus, Cisco and others in Wireless LAN. Updated: March 2025.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.