Ruckus Wireless WAN Reviews

I use the solution in my company for all verticals, including education, commercial buildings, and residential ones.

The most valuable feature of the solution is RUCKUS Unleashed, as my company uses a lot of it.

The product does not offer a cloud version. I am waiting for the cloud version of the product to be introduced. The functionalities that the tool provides are quite standard when compared to what the market offers, especially when it comes to the offerings from some big brands. Compared to the other products in the market, Ruckus Wireless WAN has no additional features. The tool lacks good integration capabilities with some of the IoT devices, and the progress is quite a bit slow, making it an area where improvements are required.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for six years. My company has a partnership with Ruckus.

It is a stable solution. The coverage is good.

It is a very scalable solution.

I work with all types of customers, ranging from small to enterprise-sized businesses.

The solution's technical support is okay. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

I don't work too much with Aruba. I don't have a lot of Aruba installations.

I use Cisco, H3C which is a brand from China, and Huawei. My company is into Ruckus systems. We only propose the rest of the brands to others based on project requests. And that we we yeah. Our company is very familiar with Ruckus systems.

The product is easy to install. It has quite a standard installation process.

The time required to deploy the solution depends on the project size. If a project is big, I need to install a lot of things. The deployment time also depends on the skills of a person and how big a project is in the first place.

I have seen cost savings with the use of the tool, especially since the tool's AP coverage is quite okay. I have seen 10 to 20 percent cost savings.

Compared to big brands, the tool is quite competitively priced.

I am satisfied with the tool.

The tool is friendly to use.

As maintenance is required for the product, my company does purchase Ruckus WatchDog Support for only certain projects.

My company needs many people to maintain the tool.

I think the tool is going to RUCKUS AI, a cloud service, but we have not tried out its features. We are waiting for a project where we can try out the tool's AI features.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

One service provider offered a managed Wi-Fi solution using Ruckus Wireless. They used Ruckus to offer managed Wi-Fi solutions. The clients install Ruckus for their clients, like hotels and offices.

Ruckus is primarily an enterprise solution. It might be suitable for remote office scenarios, but it is not typically used for home offices. Its price point and capabilities make it less practical for home use.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is highly regarded for managing network performance. They have simplified the configuration and installation processes, making it straightforward. It works out of the box; you just configure it, and there's minimal need for minor adjustments. However, if you're managing a large venue with thousands of people, such as 2,000 attendees, you might need to do some additional tweaking to optimize the network.

It is 99% reliable.

Sometimes, you can't do everything you need on the GUI. Some configurations can only be done through the CLI. It would be nice if everything could be managed through the GUI. Another consideration is the price. Clients are very cautious with their budgets. A few are willing to pay for the best quality without compromising the WAN. While Ruckus Wireless offers excellent quality, the price point can be high. Special registration discounts are available, but the product can be expensive.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN as a system integrator for over ten years.

I have not had any issues with Ruckus Wireless WAN's ability as long as the provisioning is done correctly. For high-volume areas with many users, such as a board room or an auditorium with around five hundred people, it's essential to use an appropriate access point model. For instance, an R350 wouldn't be suitable for such high-density environments. It remains reliable as long as the access point deployed matches the expected number of users. 

The only issue would arise if an entry-level access point is placed in a high-density area, causing latency issues and network slowdown.

There's a newer model now. You can start with ten access points with five licenses. So it's flexible. You pay as you grow. The model is quite nice because they were bundling the licenses when they started out. Now, it's one license per access point to scale slowly. The SmartZone can support up to a thousand access points, which is more than adequate for most needs. 

Scalability is a significant advantage because you don't have to spend more money changing the controller. We've not had any issues with clients because it's easy to explain: if you have ten access points, you buy ten licenses. It's straightforward. If you need to add another five, add five more licenses as you grow. 

Support is very efficient. I have no issues. The only condition is that you have to have a paid support license.

Positive

Setting up Ruckus Wireless WAN involves pulling cables and mounting the access points according to the required number. However, configuring the system is straightforward, and it takes about five minutes to set up a basic Wi-Fi network. Integrating with systems like Active Directory or other servers might take longer.

Mounting the access points requires technicians capable of climbing ladders and handling cables. One trained engineer is sufficient for the actual device configuration. 

The price could be reduced a bit. The SKUs or part numbers come with a one-year support option and a five-year support option. Depending on the budget, the client can choose the one-year option. With one year of full support, clients receive immediate assistance if anything breaks. They can renew this support every year.

IBM has a wide range of equipment. They don't only deal with Wi-Fi but also offer switches and point-to-point, point-to-multipoint solutions. However, Cisco stops at switches and offers only controllers and Wi-Fi access points.

I have handled four RMAs where something was faulty, which added about twenty bucks. I have had clients who insisted that there was no need to change the equipment I installed five years ago because it is still working. This demonstrates the reliability of Ruckus Wireless WAN.

Ruckus offers a free controller version, which sets it apart. The price point is low. For example, if you compare a Wi-Fi 6 access point to Aruba's equivalent, the price would be lower.

The most important lesson is conducting a proper WAN site survey and correctly designing the network. When these steps are done correctly, the chances of having issues are minimal. If any issues do arise, they are usually minor teething problems.

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

We use Ruckus Wireless WAN to control our guest users. We brought our traffic on a network. We also integrate Cisco Integrated Network Access Controller with our Ruckus Wireless controller. We use this integration for two purposes: security tagging and to bring users into a group according to the health of their system. If it’s a guest, they should not have access to our critical infrastructure assets. If a user is an admin, they will be placed on the WAN that is relevant to the management WAN of the devices.

Scalability is a valuable feature. For example, if you have a person from the HR department on the tenth floor and another person on the first floor, they should have access to the same VM or network. The Ruckus Wireless controller allows you to control this regardless of where the APs are physically located. You can control it from a central point, which makes it easier to manage.

Huawei is a competitor of Ruckus Wireless WAN solutions. They offer IoT-enabled solutions, and their access points are very robust for outdoor use and can manage up to 500 users. However, their products’ bandwidth and frequency range are not as good as some locally available products, and the cost is also higher.

The GUI interface of Ruckus Wireless WAN could be more usable, especially the drag-and-drop feature. When switching a WAN, users should not have to go into the configuration and manually change the WAN. Instead, there should be a drag-and-drop feature like most other vendors offer. This would make the process easier to understand and complete.

Additionally, Ruckus Wireless WAN should consider adding a special provision for APs. This would be helpful for marketing campaigns, but it is not mandatory.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for two years.

The product is stable.

Almost 1,500 endpoints, including IoT devices, and one administrator are working with this solution.

Ruckus Wireless WAN has local support, and the local staff and office are very active. They respond to calls promptly, and Ruckus Support is also very good, with a quick response time for emails and tickets.

Cisco is more focused on its branches. Huawei has more customers in telecom operating sectors, such as optical fiber and other devices. Ruckus is the only brand we can test on, with a focus on the app and controls.

You can quickly get help online from the Ruckus Wireless WAN community. You can even watch videos on YouTube on how to install and upgrade your servers. There was a complete series of installation videos, and I could install it myself. It was very easy and convenient.

If you're planning to install Ruckus Wireless WAN and need to research something you can't find anywhere else, the Ruckus community is robust. Simply Google a Ruckus-related question, and you'll likely have an answer within two to three minutes. Other devices, even Cisco’s unified devices, are still relatively new. While Cisco has a strong community, if you're looking for a solution to a problem without contacting support, you may not be able to find much help online.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Many of my company's clients use Ruckus Wireless WAN.

The most valuable features of the solution stem from what my company's clients look at, which includes the solution's bandwidth, data speed, and coverage.

The pricing of Ruckus Wireless WAN is an area of concern. Ruckus Wireless WAN should slash its current price to match the prices offered by its competitors. Ruckus Wireless WAN should offer a competitive price to its potential users.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for four years. My company has a partnership with Ruckus.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine to nine and a half out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight and a half out of ten.

My company handles 5,000 users of Ruckus Wireless WAN.

My company caters to the needs of enterprise-sized businesses who wish to use Ruckus Wireless WAN.

I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup of Ruckus Wireless WAN is very easy. I rate the initial setup of Ruckus Wireless WAN an eight out of ten.

The solution is deployed on the cloud and on-premises, depending on the preferences of our company's customers. Right now, most of the people prefer the solution to be deployed on the cloud.

The solution's deployment takes around 15 minutes.

I rate the product's price a seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. Ruckus Wireless WAN price is quite high, but if you want a very good product, then it will be pricey.

Ruckus Wireless WAN has every feature that my company's clients need. Lately, Ruckus Wireless WAN has made itself available on the cloud while also offering Ruckus One to cover everything related to the expectations of the solution's users. My company will only have to look into the solution if any of our customers come up with any new requirements related to Ruckus Wireless WAN.

I would tell those who plan to use the solution that it is a good product that is easy to maintain while also offering reliability.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

In my company, we sell the tool to individual houses or small customers.

Ruckus Unleashed App has areas with certain shortcomings where improvements are required.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for six years.

It is a very scalable solution. For larger implementations, you can use the product with the Ruckus Unleashed App. You only have to change the controller, which must be changed from a small environment to a large environment. If you have to change the controller, it is not cheap. The tool is pretty complicated in terms of exactly if you want to expand and you need to change the controllers. You have to change the main equipment, the controller, and it is not cheap. You have to program everything from the start.

I don't use the solution's technical support. The customer service from Ruckus is good. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

The product's initial setup phase is easy.

The product's installation phase is a fast process and can be done in a couple of hours, especially for small to medium installations.

I have seen a good return on investment from the use of the product. I have seen the product's ROI for end users but not personally since I am a reseller.

The product is available at a very good price, but it is not cheap compared to tools like Unifi. I believe it is a very good product for the price that it is offered to users.

In my office, the product is used on a daily basis for our daily operations and network management. I also use it in my house.

In general, the product is nice and comes at a good price.

In terms of the benefits, I can say that the product is very reliable.

There are no challenges with the product's integration capabilities.

The maintenance of the product is easy. I can say that it doesn't require much maintenance.

The product's security features have had the biggest impact on the network performance of food by the solution.

I highly recommend Ruckus to my customers.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

It is widely used in Multi-Dwelling Units.

One of its notable advantages lies in the superior performance of its antennas and radios. The platform appears to be more straightforward to configure compared to Aruba, offering greater user-friendliness, especially in terms of the graphical user interface. This makes it particularly accessible for non-technical individuals who simply want administrators to oversee and manage the Ruckus controller engineering aspects.

I believe there is room for improvement in the price structure. In terms of features, I believe there is a need for further development, particularly in enterprise security. The control aspect in Ruckus seems less detailed compared to Aruba. It also needs improvement in NAC integration.

I have been working with it for thirteen years.

I am content with the stability of the on-premise setup and haven't encountered any issues with it. However, the upgrade process becomes challenging whenever it is initiated. The private cloud tends to be a bit sluggish during updates, contributing to longer update times.

Scaling for a large organization with Ruckus can be somewhat complex. The challenge lies in the fact that scaling is limited up to a certain level, and beyond that, upgrading to the next hardware tier becomes necessary. While virtual machines offer more flexibility, dealing with scaling on a physical controller can be a somewhat troublesome process. I would rate it eight out of ten.

The technical support is generally responsive, particularly for initial troubleshooting handled by the first-line support team. However, when it comes to issues requiring escalation to level two, the troubleshooting and response time tend to be prolonged.

For the majority of my customers in the hospitality sector, I would continue to choose Ruckus. However, for those engaged in enterprise operations, I can confidently recommend both Ruckus and Aruba. Aruba, especially, makes more sense in an enterprise context due to its comprehensive features and control capabilities.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We have experience using both solutions—both the cloud deployment and the on-premises controller. Ruckus's private cloud is exceptionally well-executed, particularly for basic needs in MDUs and hospitality settings. However, for enterprise applications, it may necessitate additional equipment, especially for data plans. Yet, once integrated with data plans, it performs effectively.

The cost is quite high, and over the past year, there has been a substantial increase, nearly reaching around seventy percent. I would rate it one out of ten.

I would recommend it mostly for enterprises and medium to large-scale organizations. However, for small businesses, I wouldn't recommend it primarily due to the relatively high price point. Smaller companies may not utilize all the available features, meaning they would end up paying for functionalities that go unused. It's a highly effective product, and while there is room for improvement in certain aspects, particularly for my primary customer base in hospitality, it performs exceptionally well. I would give it a rating of seven out of ten.

We install the technology and network for our customers and then we manage the network, like a managed service. Our preferred combination is Ruckus Wireless together with Ruckus Switches. We can combine it with other switches, and we do. It works with Extreme Switches, for example. Still, the preferred combination is Ruckus Switches and Ruckus Access Points because we have one window for support, and we can manage both the switches and the wireless system through the same management system.

With Ruckus we have been able to deploy and manager Wireless installations very efficiently.

The strongest point for Ruckus has always been the radio hardware. They have specific hardware to handle the wireless connections, so on the hardware level, the connectivity works very well. 

Over the years, they have added more and more features to the SmartZone system. At the beginning it was fairly basic, but nowadays we can pretty much do everything that we can do with Extreme or other vendors.

They did improve the reporting feature already, but it's still a separate system. We used to have to install another virtual appliance because we use the on-premise management system with the virtual machine. Now the reporting feature is integrated into the cloud analytics platform, but you still have to buy an extra license for it. It's getting much better, it's pretty good now actually, but it still has to be bought separately. 

If you choose the Cloud Management system instead of the on-prem VM, Analytics are included, but it doesn't have all the features that the virtual machine has. 

Ruckus should also improve its integrated guest management because, right now, the guest portal feature is quite weak.

I have been using this solution for eight years now.

I consider this solution to be stable. The wireless hardware is very, very good. We do have some issues every now and then. Most of the time it needs some fine-tuning, which we have to do with any wireless solution. Sometimes we need tech support and more in-depth tuning, but that's quite rare and happens more in complex scenarios.

The scalability is very good. We can easily add more access points, and if we are hitting the capacity limit of a virtual appliance, we can add another one and operate in a cluster, which can grow quite large.

About two years ago we had a few issues that we had to escalate, but that was more on the switches side. We had some issues with switches and hardware failures, and it took a while to get to the proper support level and get proper answers. In general, however, if we contact support for anything about the wireless solution, we mostly get knowledgeable answers.

I would rate the technical support as a four out of five. It's pretty good, but a little improvement can be done. 

Positive

I wouldn't say that the setup is complex. It might not be as nice optically as the nice GUI that Extreme has, but they did some good improvements with the last update. For example, we can do the provisioning routes through the GUI platform now. 

It's partially because we know what we are doing and we have templates set, but I would say that overall it is pretty easy to set up. I would give the setup process a five out of five.

The solution is very competitively priced. We've always been able to get better pricing for our customers on Ruckus compared to Aerohive from Extreme Networks. We also work with Cisco Meraki, and the pricing is similar, especially the running costs, but the support costs are a bit lower. I think it's interesting that analytics portfolio reporting is included with Extreme, but we have to pay extra for it with Ruckus.

I would say the pricing has always been good, but there is one thing I need to mention. Earlier this year, Ruckus announced that anything that had not been delivered by the middle of May, even if it was ordered last year, would have the prices raised backwards.

We had huge switch deliveries, still outstanding, where Ruckus had told us at the end of last year, "Order now so you can secure the price and we can deliver in six months." They didn't deliver in six months, but they raised the price. That was not very popular. We had to go back to customers and say, "Sorry, this is the situation." We were able to solve it all, but it wasn't very popular. I think it was a major mistake by them because when everyone else was raising prices last year, they didn't, so they gambled on the wrong side and thought they could stand out, but then realized they couldn't.

If we're talking about the pricing itself and not the politics around it, I would rate the price as a four out of five. 

We also offer Extreme to our customers.

There is a feature that Extreme calls a Private Pre-Shared Key, and Ruckus calls it a Dynamic Pre-Shared Key, which is an individual Pre-shared Key for each user. They both have this feature and it had been always a very strong point for Aerohive, now Extreme, but with recent deployments, we've seen that it's now better with Ruckus. If we need to assign different WLANs for each key, it's a nightmare with Extreme, but it's much easier with Ruckus.

We have a big company deployment right now where we have lots of locations and every location connects with the same wireless name, but everyone has their own key and they get their own VLAN network. With Ruckus, we have more flexibility, it's easier to do, and we can use external Pre-Shared Key third-party vendor services, which we can't do with Extreme. With Extreme, the GUI might be a bit nicer, but there's not a big difference anymore. The integrated Guest Management, however, is much better with Extreme. 

I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. 

I use the solution in my company since the product was already in place before I started working in my current organization.

To be honest, all I have done with the tool is to check access points and ensure they are running. The tool is also used to issue guest WiFi passwords.

The license model offered by the product is an area of concern where improvements are required.

To be honest, as far as I am aware, and from my research, the issue is pretty much only with the tool's cost. Some of the configurations in the tool are a bit awkward. With the access points, when I try to apply the configurations now, it doesn't take the firmware.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for a year and seven months. I use the solution in my company as an end user.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten. It takes a minute to find out why it is not responding when going to an access point.

The scalability of Ruckus Wireless WAN benefits your operations since it is pretty good. The issue I have with the tool is associated with the fact that we have a limited number of licenses. In my company, we are considering scaling up a little bit, but the cost of licensing may prohibit it. Also, the controller we have at the moment has reached the end-of-life phase. My company may have to look at changing all the access points and going to a different provider or upgrading the controller, after which it may not be possible to use some of the current access points, and it may cause us to change those for some working-based ones.

Around 50 people use the tool. I really can't say a number with any level of accuracy.

The actual wireless or configurations going into the solution need to be looked upon. Going into the solution to check it is something that is done very frequently.

I tend to use a third-party provider for technical support for the solution. Based on other people's opinions, the technical support is excellent, and I rate it a ten out of ten. I have no personal experience with the tool's support team.

Positive

I have some experience with Cisco, but not as a real user. I switched from Cisco to Ruckus after I switched over to my current organization from another company.

I was not involved in the product's initial setup phase. It was installed prior to my joining.

I have not investigated pricing because it was present in the company when I started. My company is using the rules and plans from the product's document so that we can try to make some decisions and find out some details.

I have not had an opportunity to investigate how Ruckus Wireless WAN can handle network density and high-traffic scenarios.

I have not looked at AI features in Ruckus Wireless WAN.

From my limited experience, I would recommend Ruckus Wireless WAN to others, but I won't be able to say why I would do that.

I rate the tool a seven or eight out of ten.

We use Ruckus Wireless WAN for connectivity.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is an easy-to-use solution.

The solution's AI offering and pricing could be improved.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for three years.

I rate Ruckus Wireless WAN ten out of ten for stability.

Around 400 users are using the solution in our organization on a daily basis.

I rate Ruckus Wireless WAN ten out of ten for scalability.

The solution's initial setup is easy. I rate Ruckus Wireless WAN ten out of ten for the ease of its initial setup.

We implemented the solution through a third-party integrator. Two people are required to deploy the solution. The solution's deployment took a few hours.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a six out of ten.

The solution is maintained by one person in our organization.

Overall, I rate Ruckus Wireless WAN ten out of ten.

We use the product to provide WiFi connectivity to hotels and large buildings.

The product’s unleashed feature works as an access point and WiFi controller. We don’t require an extra set of hardware or any licensing with it.

Ruckus Wireless WAN’s most valuable feature is unleashed.

There could be more power supply for the radio features. This particular area of the product needs improvement. They should add a reset factory feature without resetting IP addresses as well.

We have been Ruckus Wireless WAN for at least eight years. At present, we use the latest version.

I rate the product’s stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the product’s scalability a ten out of ten.

I have used HP before. We switched to Ruckus Wireless WAN, especially for its advanced radio features. I have also used less expensive products. We encountered a lot of field failures using them. For our business model, if we have failures in the field, it is a very expensive product.

The initial setup process is very simple.

The product generates a return on investment for us. We have been using it for eight years and it is still working. 

The product has competitive pricing, but always a little low price is better.

We haven’t contacted the technical support team, as we don’t have failures in the field. It is a solid product. I advise others to do a site survey and a well-thought-out design.

I rate Ruckus Wireless WAN a ten out of ten.