Mist AI and Cloud Reviews

We are using this solution for its wireless capabilities. The solution is deployed across six different locations, and all of them are retail.

The solution is deployed on a private cloud.

With Wi-Fi 6, we are getting better coverage and better performance.

AI is the most valuable feature.

There could be more integration.

I have been using Mist for about two and a half years.

The product is stable.

It's scalable.

Technical support is very fast. It's very easy to open tickets and they respond quickly.

We were using Extreme Networks before. We found that it's much easier to manage with Mist.

Initial setup was a bit complex. There were different options and configurations to implement.

We have around 400 access points, so implementation took one month. We used a team of about 20 people. There was a technician for the mounting and another four engineers for the configuration.

Our implementation strategy was a migration from the old access point to the new one.

We used a reseller for the deployment.

The price is about the same compared to other vendors. There is an add-on license, but it's up to you if you want to buy it or not.

We also evaluated Aruba.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

It's just easy for troubleshooting. One of the reasons that we are changing is because troubleshooting in the other solution is a bit difficult, but Mist makes our lives a little easier.

We use the solution for hospital and personal segments.

Natural language patching is an important feature.

The solution has various licensing policies. It will be easy to use if it is an open single license.

I have been using Mist AI and Cloud as a partner for five years.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

The solution’s scalability is good. We cater the solution to enterprise businesses.

I rate the solution’s scalability a nine out of ten.

The customer service is good. We are happy for that.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward and takes two days to complete.

I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy.

The product has moderate pricing.

I recommend the solution.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Mist AI and Cloud is used for its connectivity, location-based tracking, filtering of connection, and user-tracking on the Wi-Fi end.

The performance side of the product is solid, so I am really happy about that. Multi PSK (Pre-shared Key) is a very good feature in the solution.

I haven't found any weaknesses during any deployment. Maybe in the future, I'm not sure. But for now, it's a pretty solid product, and we are really happy with it.

The solution doesn't provide mail notifications currently. In future releases of the solution, I would like the solution to provide email or mail notifications.

I have been familiar with Mist AI and Cloud for about a few months since our company was involved in a few deployment processes. Currently, my customers are using the solution. I am a distributor of the solution.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

If the requirements of the Access Points are not standard with the number of users, then you have to change it, but you can add another device and scale up the solution.

The number of users using the solution depends on the deployment. We recommend a maximum of fifty people for Access Points for a better experience. But you can also use one Access Point without any issues.

So far, we haven't had any reason to contact technical support since the implementation was pretty straightforward.

Previously, I used Ruckus and Aruba. Mist AI and Cloud is better when compared to its competitors. Deployment-wise, it's pretty straightforward since rather than just connecting it one by one, the solution's installation, setting up for a new IP address, we just connect it with the LAN network, and it's up and running.

It is hard to comment on whether Ruckus and Aruba have any advantages over Mist AI and Cloud, especially considering the fact that they are on-prem solutions.

The implementation process was really easy. Just by typing in a code for API, one can deploy it. Two people are needed for deployment.

Depending on the features, I think it's quite reasonably priced, especially considering the facilities of the product. The licensing costs depend on the products. I'm not quite certain what the enterprises pay for the product.

I am happy with the product.

I would tell those planning to use the solution to have an open internet connection and make sure that the connectivity to Mist Cloud is okay. Other than that, it's all good. I rate the overall product a ten out of ten.

I work in the government sector. 

The product feature set is extremely good and there was lots of visibility into different things that were not only network-related. 

I found the inter-functionality with other vendors a negative, and we weren't particularly happy with their sales model when it came to roll-out and implementation. 

I worked briefly with this product. 

The sales support team was real pushy in the beginning, and when we tried to implement and had some issues, they disappeared and then wanted their things returned.

Mist was messy for us and the product was more than we needed in our schools. It's not necessarily a bad solution but not well suited to our use case so I rate it six out of 10. 

For the time being, I am only using these access points on a demo.

The triangulation feature can be used to determine where a person is in relation to the access point. That's a cool feature.

The main problem is that the power consumption for the access point is always screaming that it needs more power. It's supposed to be POE and I set it up as the recommend POE supply, and it's still screaming that it needs more power. In comparison, I have no such problem with my Aruba system.

I have been using the Mist Access Points for approximately nine months.

Since I upgraded the firmware, it has been a stable product. However, I have a lot of the features turned off because of the power problems with it.

I also use Aruba wireless, and I am happier with that product. For example, I do not have the problem with power consumption that I am having with Mist.

The price of this product is approximately the same as competing products in the market. 

Overall, I am not too happy with Mist Access Points.

I would rate this solution a three out of ten.

The cost is the most valuable aspect of this solution. 

The user experience should be improved. It's not user-friendly. 

The stability and scalability are good. We have around 500 users. We aren't sure if we are going to increase usage. 

We haven't needed to contact technical support. 

The best solution is Meraki. 

The initial setup is complicated. We did the setup ourselves. 

I would rate it a six out of ten. Not a ten because I don't really like this solution. It doesn't have a good user interface. 

I would recommend Meraki over this solution. 

Our customer's primary use case is internet connectivity. 

If you compare wired versus wireless, it's convenient. You don't need to have one place for connectivity. You can move around and it's easier. Sometimes it's a hassle to work with wires, which is why wireless is so convenient.

The solution offers good availability.

The connection is very fast.

From a network administrator's point of view, visibility and management are good.

There seems to be different versions of standards used in the wireless access points. In the future, it would be helpful if the solution could come up with some kind of universal standard for all devices and all access points.

The wireless radio power needs adjustment. Different countries have different power ratings in decibel levels. While one country may have certain levels, another country will have different ones. All countries should have one standard of controlling power levels and frequencies. That way, it will be easier for us to plan with different brands. 

We don't specifically use the solution; we're integrators and we sell it to clients.

The solution is scalable as long as the network is planned properly. If the planning is done correctly, the signal won't drop in and out.

The level of scalability a user will get from Mist depends on the way they plan everything. If a company doesn't plan its wireless network properly, then it will have issues. The capacity and the distance for which an access point can serve depends on the network planning. 

If it is planned properly then it'll run smoothly. If not, it's possible that a company will have issues that will be very difficult to trace. For example, sometimes they will have the connectivity they expect, and sometimes they will not. All of a sudden the connections may drop. Moving from one location to another, the connection may disappear. Therefore, it's really important to plan.

While there may be members of my team that have contacted technical support in the past, I personally have not, so I can't speak to how reliable they are. I just don't know.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. When it comes to installation, usually, if you're familiar with the product, it doesn't matter which brand or which model you are handling. The installation and connection are typically more or less standard across different brands. 

Most of the time you do need some technical background to handle implementation. You need to have some way of accessing the control interface of the access point in order to enable it.

We're a partner.

We work with different deployment options depending on the customer. If the company is isolated to one or two access points in a place, we probably will use the cloud. If it is a big organization, where internal traffic is heavy, we might use on-premise controllers. Sometimes, maybe a hybrid is necessary. It depends on the customer.

I would advise other companies to plan the solution's implementation properly and do some background study because there are certain access points banned from certain countries. They need to know which product you can use. Then they need to have an idea about the limitations because there are capacity limitations and distance limitations for any access point. After that, it's important to plan inside the building (in terms of layout). How the access points are arranged will depend on where the walls are as well as the ceiling height. Every company needs to do some background study and plan properly with suitable technical consultation. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten mostly because there are certain limitations in wireless. There are certain cases where you need to go wired. If there's a very high bandwidth requirement, there are distance limitations, if there is a server requirement, or if there are any deep securities required, you can't use wireless.

Our primary use case depends on the situation. Sometimes we deploy it on a service level and we have data centers that we provide this kind of service to. But mostly we do it through partners, system integrators or resellers.

The kinds of businesses using the solution would be hotels, large conference venues, banquet halls, and things like that. We also work with a school. It's all about management. 

The most valuable feature would be the center life management, by which I mean being able to control the access points by groups. 

The configuration could be improved. 

We've been using the product for a couple of years. 

It's a stable product, we don't have any major issues with it. 

I wouldn't say that the initial setup was straightforward, but it wasn't overly complex either. The difficulties related to configuration. The setup experience was somewhere in the middle, average. Deployment really depends on the size of the installation. 

Setup cost was quite expensive, it's a concern. 

I would rate this product a six out of 10.