Meraki MS Switches Reviews

The use case is small to mid-sized offices, under 500 ports.

The upgrades to the portal made it easier to manage the switches. The flexibility of the configurations is great — there are multiple configuration styles relating to deployment. If you're going to do Layer 3 at the edge, you're going to do Layer 3 at the core. The flexibility of the devices is very good.

The most valuable feature about Meraki is the console. The second most valuable feature, to me, is the technical support and the infrastructure behind the console.

I think their feature set is far better than most

The biggest area that they fall short on is comparing the performance. I don't have the articles in front of me, but the performance of a Cisco Meraki Switch versus some of the other devices that are more expensive or are equally as expensive as Meraki, they're falling short on the performance, because you're paying so much more money and they're not performing better.

That is a big problem when you talk to clients who've researched this. If ease of use and flexibility is important, I usually forego the high-end performance for the money. The performance is not bad, but let's say I bought one of the other Cisco switches or Juniper switches — they perform better for the same amount or even less money. That's a big drawback.

They need to work on the performance. Maybe the chipset that they're using is not as good as Juniper, for example. But their goal is not performance, it's consistency. If you're about consistency and ease of use, Cisco is definitely better. If you're about performance, that's where they fall short.

Keep in mind, that's my opinion; someone may argue differently with me — that Meraki is not better. It's not slower or less performance-optimized, but it's something I come up against when I discuss it and offer it as a solution versus Juniper or some other devices.

I want to use Meraki because I want to be able to plug it in and set it up in 15 minutes. Then when I have to troubleshoot something, it's easy. When I have a problem with the network, I call them up and they help. They actually help. You call up some of these other vendors, they're like, "Huh? Oh, you got to do all this stuff." I'm like, "No, no, no. Let's look at the logs together. Then you tell me what you see. And then I'll fix, or I'll adjust, or we'll replace." I don't want to go through this whole story and song and dance as I did with HP. So it's a problem.

Cisco overcomes that, but performance is where they get hurt. When you talk to any of the other guys that do network architecture, they're like, "Well, we're not going to pick Cisco Meraki. We're going to pick the other Cisco switches, or we're going to pick Juniper, or we're going to pick something else, but we're not going to go with Meraki." I'm like, "Okay." But in a small to medium-sized business, you can't beat them. 

I have been using Meraki MS Switches for four to five years.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Meraki MS Switches a rating of nine. The only drawback is the cost — that's what kills them.

I am not paying for the equipment; someone else is paying for it. Someone has to be willing to pay the premium for that and they have to see the value. I'm not a salesman, but if I want to go with Cisco, I have to show the client that if they buy Cisco Meraki versus Ubiquiti, they're going to do better.

We are using these switches to provide internet access to our users. They connect the access points.

The dashboard and the interface, in general, are good features. We can work globally and anybody can log in from our web-based console to use it. Everything from switches to access points can be used from a single dashboard.

We had some dashboard licensing issues, maybe because their method of collecting data from the user needs to be more streamlined. It seems that they have collected information from the vendor, but perhaps there is not a proper SOP regarding this.

They collected some vague information that was registered and when it came to us, we found out that they didn't use our proper email address. As a result, licensing became an issue. It was only resolved after we contacted them and changed the details of the registration. Consequently, there was a long delay before we started using it.

When I registered the system in India, there was no problem. However, in the UAE, the vendors were not collecting and properly verifying the details. The need to streamline the licensing data collection process to fix this.

As a manufacturer, or OEM, they might be doing their part correctly, but the vendors might be losing the data. So, they need to be strict on their vendors to collect the information properly. Or, they need to at least contact the people, the end-users, and verify that it is correct. As it is now, they just depend on the vendors' data. Before they register it, they need to contact the customer directly with the data and verify it. Ideally, some kind of SOP should be there.

With no SOP in place, the question becomes one of what happens when Cisco takes the data from the vendor and registers the product, but doesn't verify it by contacting the customer. This can happen in cases where the vendor is in a hurry to sell the product. In fact, they might fill in bogus data and give it to Cisco. Then, once the customer gets the product and starts to configure it, they get the licensing issue like we did, which is the first step in the process. The fails only because the data given by the vendor is wrong, and it's not the fault of the customer.

If instead, Cisco verified the details with the customer again, once they receive the data, it would be better. As I suggest this, it might seem like a slow process, but in today's world, it is not. They can contact the customer directly, using the provided email or mobile number. They can call them, verify the details, and it will be good for both Cisco and the customer.

We have been using Meraki MS Switches for approximately six months.

It is pretty stable so far, but we really only just started using it so I may have more comments in another year or so.

Scalability is something that we'll determine in the long term. At this time, we have between 30 and 50 users. It can scale up to 60.

I have not yet dealt with technical support.

Previously, we used MR access points and we liked the user interface. We wanted to extend that to our switches. At the time, the switches were web-managed but they were not under the same dashboard. Switching to Cisco and Meraki brought everything together, from switches to access points, into a single dashboard.

I was involved in the installation and found that it was straightforward. The deployment took between one and a half and two hours, although we still had the problem with the licensing. That was a long wait.

Our deployment team consisted of three people. There was one person on-site, another in India, and one in the UK.

We are just about to do some configuration with these switches.

This product is quite expensive. The vendor might be cashing in on the dashboard because it's attractive, and nobody else is providing such a sophisticated dashboard. It has the IP, switches, routers, security cameras, and everything else included in one place. So, while the product is expensive, the features they provide are unmatchable.

This is a product that I recommend for others.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

I use it in conjunction with Meraki Firewall and Meraki AP as a package. I am using the latest version of this solution.

We mainly replaced a number of Cisco ASA 5505 Firewalls that had PoE on them. The new Cisco ASA 5506 Firewall and Meraki MX Firewall don't have PoE, but we needed ports and PoE. Therefore, we combined the switches with the firewalls. The clients already had Meraki APs, so we just plugged in Meraki switches. 

The improvements are mainly from the help desk perspective. It has been very useful for the help desk. Previously, the whole setup was Cisco. It was Cisco ASA 5505, so there was no real GUI. We only had the command-line interface to go in and look at it. Now we can look at the entire location in one piece on the dashboard.

A lot of our customers are small to medium businesses, doctors, and lawyers. The Meraki dashboard allows our help desk to quickly view a customer's location.

It is easy to deploy, maintain, and update. It has been trouble-free so far.

I am still a Cisco command-line bigot, but the web interface makes it a lot easier for our help desk to interact with a client. When the clients call in and say that they aren't able to connect, it takes the help desk 10 minutes or less to look at everything in the enterprise or location. They can look at the firewall, switches, or access points in the dashboard. That's why I like the dashboard.

It would be good to include the command-line access someday.

I have been using this solution for a year and a half at the most.

It has been stable so far. I haven't had any problems. 

Its scalability is good. It is good for small and medium businesses and locations. They can scale up to good throughput. 

In terms of the number of users, all employees of a client are the users of this solution. All PCs are plugged into Meraki. All wireless devices are coming through them.

I had to call them a number of times. I always got great support from Meraki. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

We mainly used Cisco products, which could be managed only by using the command-line interface. We switched mainly because of the dashboard. 

If I am going to put something in the enterprise, I'll go with a full Cisco switch. If you buy the full Cisco switch, it comes with a lot of features. I won't put a Meraki switch on top of the rack of a whole enterprise or a whole bunch of blade servers kind of setup. Meraki is great for small and medium businesses and locations.

The initial setup is easy. I can send Meraki Firewall, Meraki AP, and Meraki Switch to a client and have them plug these in. They'll pop up in the dashboard as long as you've done a few things correctly. I can customize a switch in England from Upstate New York. This is what is great. You cannot do this with a full-blown Cisco switch. You have to configure it, put it in a box, put the tray, and roll with Meraki.

Its price is definitely competitive.

I would recommend this solution. It is easy to deploy. You can put it in a box or have it shipped to a client's remote location. Even if they don't know anything, you can talk to them and set it up easily.

I would rate Meraki MS Switches a nine out of ten. I am very happy with all Meraki products that I use. 

All of our endpoints are connected to our servers via the Meraki switches. Every user goes through them and it mirrors a cloud portal that allows you to administer it.

It hasn't really improved the way our organization functions. It's very similar to any other switch that I've used, although it is easier to manage than other switches.

The licensing model needs to be improved. The way they license their products, I'd rather just pay for a device by the device, and not have to pay annual subscription fees.

We have been using Meraki MS Switches for about two years.

This product is very stable.

This is a scalable solution and everybody in the organization uses these switches. This includes the president and CEO, the business development underwriters, and everybody else. In total, there are about 75 users.

I have not used their technical support.

Prior to Meraki, I used HP switches. I changed because they were too old and it was time to replace them. They were at the end of the normal lifecycle and Meraki had some great reviews, so I figured that I'd try them out.

The initial setup is straightforward.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to do your research to make sure that it's exactly what you need. These are powerful switches and they can do a lot. They probably do more than most people might need so just make sure that it's the right switch for you.

To me, this is a product that meets all of the needs that anyone could possibly have for a networking device. I mentioned the issue with the licensing, although all of the manufacturers are now going with that licensing model. I think that I have that problem with anybody, at this point.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

The general use case is just as a unified platform for APs and switches. In our particular case, we brought on a client that had firewalls, access points, and had a need for switches to all run on one platform.

Where they are in the market and the market segment with their cloud management is an impressive aspect of the solution that originally lead ut to the solution. The maturity with their cloud management is really great.

The technical support is quite good.

The initial setup is straightforward.

In terms of the switches, generally, we have some stability problems. There are general stability issues with them. It's been inconsistent for a couple of years. It's not really based on any firmware. 

Switches that are in production and running will stop responding. And so we have to reboot the switches.

We've been using the solution for six years at this point.

The stability of the solution isn't ideal. We've had a lot of problems with the switches. They are unstable and unreliable. We need to reboot them often.

I haven't seen any issues with scalability. Our environment is relatively small, about 20-25 offices, and therefore we haven't tried to expand the solution.

The support of the solution has always been very good. They're very knowledgable and responsive. We're satisfied with their level of attention.

The initial setup is not complex. It's straightforward.

We are a Cisco partner. Our previous solutions were all Cisco-based, however, we were just using the traditional Cisco 2900 Series Switches. We still have a lot of those in production.

As far as switches go, it's a good product. As long as it makes a good fit for the customer, the only advice is to not let the maturity of the product dictate the need to implement.

There are a lot of solutions out there now that are a little bit cheaper, and that might meet a company's desired price point. Many other products also provide the same level of functionality. Don't just buy it because of the name.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten overall.

When it comes to troubleshooting, in the past we had to take the console and do configuration changes, and we had to be on location or have a VPN connection to access it. But with Meraki, there is the advantage that you have dashboard access via the internet and you can work on it from anywhere. With Meraki switches, there is virtual stacking. Let's say you have two branches where two different switches are located. I can take a few ports from switch 1 and few ports from switch 2 and I can do a virtual stack between these ports. And there is a port schedule, as well. For example, some customers want to do make budget choices to save power or something. There is a port schedule option to give power for access points through these PoE ports on a schedule you choose, like during office hours. Morning 9:00 to evening 6:30, and it will work only Monday to Friday. I can schedule so these ports will be running those times only. In an annual scenario, this can mean more savings for the customer.

You can select multiple ports at a time in a checkbox, and you can do a port configuration. If uplinks are required, you can configure that, too. There are a couple of tools available in the Tools section where you can do ARP, Ping, LED status, etc. If any network goes down or is getting any warnings, you'll get an immediate amber symbol. We'll get alerts and an immediate email even if one link goes down or anything is wrong. We require some additional integrated tools for when a switch is down, like WhatsUp Gold, or SolarWinds. So on the back-end, we need to integrate our email servers into the process. We need more tools for that. But in the dashboard, it all comes together and gives greater visibility, including the UX pack if you want - everything will be there.

The features part is good. Everything in terms of access and everything else.

In terms of what could be improved, there's API. For example, we recently implemented Microsoft Azure. We have it integrated now into the dashboard for authentication. Dashboard authentication includes local users which we are creating in the dashboard itself. We integrated Azure with our local active directory. As the administrator in IT, I can log into the dashboard with my AD credentials only, so we used Xero and SAML with the Microsoft Azure. It's working fine. Similarly in the camera. Generally, the camera is in the cloud. In the camera, every field requires you to enter some information. If you have a cloud archive, it will be directed towards your Meraki cloud based on whatever storage license you have, 90 days or 30 days. But we worked on a different approach. We developed some more internal applications with other partners. We are pitching data from the Meraki camera, and we are putting into our internal storage with the Python script in the back-end.

Another thing is CMX. There is a location tracking for the employees who are inside, and with Meraki there is a Bluetooth option with a separate radio. They have a separate Bluetooth radio, Air Marshal radio, 2.4 and 5 GHz, for all the different radios, but it's all ELM mode in the old access points. It serves the clients as well as monitors the rogue access points. But in Meraki, we have a separate radio for it to monitor all the Bluetooth clients who are coming and who are identified from the dashboard. We will send it through the API to the location-scanning API to a third-party application and it gives you greater visibility. We can customize our own application of the dashboard. For example if you have a retail shop, you can put your store map on there and you can track the clients, like how many clients have visited. We can customize it. We worked on that customization pack.

In terms of troubleshooting, if we get more tools there is an issue. Our pack has some internal access, right? In traditional solutions we can go to the CLI and we can see whatever you want to change and you can play around with it. But in Meraki, if they got additional tools maybe it would help. In terms of MS I see some complications. There are some voice-related services that some customers are expecting, so they want to put an MS firewall in Azure or AWS, and they want to ship the traffic from that firewall. For example, I am at different branches, so the initial firewall will make the decision. They are looking at that kind of scenario. I hear from some of the customers with MS, that there are some voice-related, SIP services. So it's a limitation. If you have a voice service with AmEx, I saw something that SIP ALG will not support AmEx. So that's one limitation here.

I have been working with Meraki Switches for the past year. I have actually worked with all Meraki products, not only a particular one, as it is a complete stack. I've worked with them for a couple of POC's that we did for the customers. They were implemented mostly in firewalls and access points. A feature we recently implemented for one location was Mindtree.

In terms of stability, it is stable.

You can scale it up. You can take any traditional scenario that you have a license for and scale up. I'm working with 200 or so people, so I just bought a few access points and a few switches. If you compare Meraki with the traditional, every switch or every firewall and every access point, every WLCL switch in the traditional way requires some licenses. If that device has a MAC throughput capability, I need to go for another device. If there is a WLCL pack, it requires another device I need to purchase. But with Meraki, there is nothing like that, the license will cover the hardware, RMA, and the licensing plan.

Recently, it converted from the quote elimination to party-wise licenses. If you have a device license, you simply add the licenses and you can play around with it. There are more restrictions, like if you see access points with MR, ENT it will come with an MV, so it's not about the model. For example, today I have an MR42, tomorrow I'll buy some MR53 or MR87. It is independent of the model and you can add whenever you have the API licenses. Similarly, if you have a camera license, you can add. If you have MDM or MV, you can add. It's unlimited. It is scalable, and it gives you flexibility and security. Every device will establish a tunnel with official encryption towards the Meraki cloud and all the devices will be securely connected and it will take less than 1 kbps in terms of configuring data. 

We have worked on the homes of CEO's and directors and up to to hospitals, retail and manufacturing establishments. Everything is supported and scalable.

They give 24/7 support, so whenever you have an issue, you can write or call directly if you feel that it is higher-priority. You can simply call the toll-free number and they'll immediately come to the call and help. In terms of any troubleshooting, they will do it from their end. Because we have some limited access in terms of troubleshooting, if you want to do some changes like firmware-related bugs or something, they will fix it from their end on the back-end.

The initial setup is very simple. I ordered the devices and immediately the software is loaded and you'll receive a dashboard key so you can start the configuration. Once the device is running you can simply play around with it.

It only takes minutes to set up for basic configuration. If you're looking for integrations you may need to do some registration or back-end coding or something. Apart from that, if it's a dashboard it is a configuration template. If you have multiple branches, you can create one template for other branches.

I recommend Meraki MS Switches. If the user wants more flexibility in terms of configuration and manageability, I would definitely recommend implementing it.

On a scale of one to ten I would rate Meraki MS Switches a nine.

When I'm advising customers on solutions I have to know what they need. If they are happy using a cloud management platform and they are looking at running more than a single line of business, then having the web portal with Meraki is a simple solution. It provides a single-pane-of-glass in terms of management. It is easy to switch between the wireless, the security, and controlling the switching if they own all of those different technologies provided by Meraki. With other vendor brands, you might find that the operating cost would potentially increase due to them having to manage different platforms.

The most valuable feature for us are the APIs. Development there has been very exciting and now we can actually drill down to client levels. What that means is that when I look at the portal I can drill down to the users that are logged on to the network and see what they are using the network for. It is very valuable to us and the client to have that ease of use and the capability of providing high-level service and service quality on the switches. It is a nice and easy way of leveraging utility and resources by pushing out policies from a single location to wherever my Meraki devices may be.

If I was an IT manager and I had sites globally, Meraki would be a perfect fit. I could reach the devices that are overseas without me or anyone else having to touch them. It is very much like zero-touch deployment, which is fantastic. An obvious bonus is that this capability is still backed by Meraki R&D with talented teams to support it. When changes and new features come out, I don't have to worry about doing software upgrades on devices because it's all done in the cloud. They just load it up and on you go. Of course, many other things are happening with Meraki and other developments that they are working on with Cisco. The whole story will come out in the resolution of what they choose to do on the security side of things and what capabilities you can gain by using Cisco and Meraki together.

A complaint that I might have about the services is the compliance risk response. If I or our clients put too many devices on a network, threatening emails get triggered by Meraki saying that we are out of compliance. It can put unnecessary fear into the customer of the product that their services will be curtailed or that they will have to pay escalated fees. The customer in turn then pushes the problem on to the reseller — us — which can create an awkward situation. We are seen as a less-trusted advisor because what we provided was poorly planned. I think there is a major problem with warning clients in that way. I've started hearing customers wishing that they had not gotten into a subscription just because of that policy. It is all well good having a subscription policy but making customers edgy is making some consider switching away from Meraki. Losing customers due to the means of enforcement of the subscription service is pretty ill-advised.

I think one of the things that Meraki started to develop and then held back on is unified communications. Meraki started beating the drum about using Meraki for VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) and then they suddenly stopped it. It would be nice to actually see that coming to the market, especially in the EMEA (Europe, the Middle East, and Africa). With Cisco's acquisitions such as Broadsoft, Meraki could potentially invest in that technology, so they would be able to provide a voice platform backed by Cisco. It could be an excellent situation and fulfill their promises at the same time.

There's been a couple of challenges with the stability of the solution. For example, a year ago some of the software products that were going into the switches were not functioning as expected. You cannot really fault the product for that exactly. They are nine out of ten in terms of stability. You turn them on, they work, they get along with other components, and they keep working.

Meraki is scalable but it's only seen as a stackable switch solution. The one thing is the mid-market where obviously Meraki has traditionally had most of their focus on. So, when you buy switches and you want to scale, you have to have them in switch stacks. What Meraki hasn't done — and missed a bit of an opportunity in my opinion — is they've not really developed a low form factor switching solution in the form of a chassis switch. I think that could open up a massive opportunity for Meraki in terms of being seen as more of an enterprise solution.

As far as our own scaling we have seen their numbers grow in terms of selling their solutions whereas we've seen other lines of business that decline. So, I'd say that we've definitely seen exponential growth in sales of Meraki as a solution. More and more customers whom I talk to get to the point of serious consideration and go through the finer processes of discovering what Meraki is all about. People who choose it seem to like it so much that they stick to it. I think the only time I've really seen a compelling reason for not going with Meraki is that the security with regards to firewalls is still Meraki solutions. They really don't quite compete with Cisco and their ASA (Adaptive Security Appliance) technology.

In any case, we do continue to have plans to scale our usage of this solution for us and our customers.

I have not been in contact with Meraki support directly. I do know that there are lots of different ways to actually reach out to support people. Meraki now sells different levels of supports so that you can choose a level that will fit your needs. Obviously, as partners, I've got all the contact details. There is also the Make a Wish feature within the portal that we can use to ask for a special request. They seem to be switched on in terms of what they do and how they do it. All the technicians seem young and very knowledgeable in terms of their areas of expertise.

The installation is straightforward. There are some simple rules of a sort that you have to use. And, of course, Meraki does make it easy. If the opportunity that an end-user is working on is large enough, then there may be a reason to look into training courses that Meraki offers. They offer these in order to help customers in terms of adopting, managing, and expanding their use of the technology. 

A lot of configuration can be done on the cloud before actually having the switches go live. When the switches go live and the license has been activated, then you actually push the configurations on to the switches. From that point of view, I think it is just a great mentality that Meraki has got now around using the portal.

Of course, as partners, we do our own implementations. Our clients often need assistance from our side or from integrators for the deployments. A lot of the time our position with clients is more advisory. The customers know what they know. What they don't know and understand is what they haven't seen before. Some customers like to just dive in and try and work it out for themselves. I've seen clients on the other end of the spectrum where they need help in terms of redoing IP addressing schemes. What they need is some assistance with regards to making sure that it is all configured correctly and doing testing as they are doing the migration from one type of switch to another type of switch. The depth of our involvement all depends on the customer's skills. But even being trained as a Cisco CCNA (Cisco Certified Network Associate) doesn't necessarily mean you are going to be able to get straight to doing a Meraki installation.

As a reseller, evaluating options is somewhat built into the business structure. I deal with Meraki, Aruba, and Cisco around enterprise networking, security, voice, and wireless.

My experience with Meraki goes back to the MS-1 series. That's when I first took the original Meraki training course and got the CMNA (Certified Meraki Networking Associate) certification. We got to play on the newest series of switches around at that time. Those have already gone past their lifecycle. We participate in ongoing training now and continue to get a look at the latest versions of the Meraki switches and get to know early on what is happening in terms of new development. The product is now becoming more of a hybrid with Cisco and other vendor products rather than just purely focusing on Meraki as a stand-alone solution.

If I have any advice for people considering the product, it is to jump on board and don't look back. If you're after a platform that is completely cloud compatible, a solution that will allow you to manage it from anywhere you need to be, then it's definitely a step in the right direction going forward. Meraki seems to cover most things. It takes away the need for CLI (Command-line Interface) which is obviously an aging technology that people were using a decade ago. Now it is a web-based interface and it is available on many different devices. You can now take management anywhere you go. How you push it out affects what you can do with it. Visibility and control are fantastic from Meraki.

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Meraki switches as an eight out of ten. How good it serves a purpose depends on the use case. For different use cases and different scenarios, I'd give it a different rating. For example, if it is deployed for a data center, then I would rate Meraki very low because the product is not designed to be a data center switch. If I'm using it for total visibility in terms of applications and controls and what is happening on a network, then I rate it very high. For that, I'd give it as much as a 10. Its rating is all about the use case.

We use the solution for switching only because it was already in place at an organization we took over who sold Meraki. We continue to use the Meraki solution as switches on that network.

Personally, I don't like the product because I don't like the idea of losing all functionality if your license for the cloud is not current and paid or if the cloud cannot be accessed. I wouldn't recommend these switches for most organizations because the cloud-based deployment is restrictive and comes with problems. The only reason I can see choosing this product is if your organization is totally non-IT, on-premises and you are comfortable leaving IT services in the hands of somebody else.

Realistically, the pricing should be improved to match the services and features provided. This also should be enhanced so that you are able to use the product when there is no cloud connectivity.

Because of dependence on the cloud, my strongest advice to people considering this solution is to make sure you have a reliable internet connection.

As far as future improvements to the product, it is not a concern for us as we are not doing additional installations at this point and would probably hope, instead, to phase out the use of the product.

I have not experienced any bugs while using the product, but in trawling the internet for more information and doing some research, it seems that there can be a lot of problems with this solution. We have not experienced any of these problems ourselves.

The product is scalable and can work if you're a small to medium-sized business. I wouldn't want to use Meraki in an enterprise network. At the moment we have about six clients sites where the Meraki device is used for storage. That is a total of about 40 or so end-users. 

I have not had the reason to use customer services or technical support.

We are currently using Meraki at some sites but we are also using NETGEAR. NETGEAR is our preferred switch kit. We normally would prefer not to use Meraki at all. We were forced to use it because a customer we took over already had the Meraki switches.

The initial setup can be straightforward if you don't make it too complicated by trying to do a lot of customization. The entire setup took us about four hours.

We did not use a vendor team for the implementation, we did it ourselves.

With the solution that we currently have, I think it costs about 1,200 pounds a year. They bill on a yearly basis. There are no licensing costs in addition to the standard yearly licensing fees, but of course, you have to buy the kit. It is the nature of this type of product to require that type of initial capital expenditure.

It is very important that people considering this solution have or can implement a very reliable internet connection. The product needs this to access the cloud.

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as a six. It is just too limited to be rated any higher.