Ruckus Wireless WAN Reviews

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.

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.

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.

I have experience with Ruckus in a university campus networking environment. They utilized Ruckus for their campus networking needs.

It's quite impressive, and there are several aspects I like about it. Ruckus offers robust products with excellent speed. In our setup, we use the Ruckus controller model 144, which operates on a five-by-five basis. One of the standout features is the ease of installation and commissioning, making the whole process very straightforward.

When it comes to Ruckus, I must say they have their own solution, and their software meets the market standards. However, in comparison to Cambium, I find Cambium to be more robust in terms of performance. There isn't a significant difference between the two brands, Ruckus and Cambium. While there's always room for improvement, I don't believe any major changes are necessary in the market.

Proper product development, value, pricing, and division of these elements should be the focus. A well-integrated support system and a limited lifetime warranty, as opposed to fixed durations like five, three, four, or seven years, should also be in place. Clear communication between the product and its pricing is crucial.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for the last two years.

Stability is excellent for the products; they offer strong stability and I would rate it a nine out of ten.

It is scalable and I would rate it a seven out of ten.

Ruckus provides its support system, and customers should use it alongside their products. The support is satisfactory. 

Positive

It depends on the individual who is implementing it. If you have an experienced controller handler, it might take around eight hours to configure fifty to one hundred eighty units. You typically need at least one person for commissioning and configuring with a controller. For the standalone product, two people are sufficient to ensure power and connectivity, making it a three-person team for a smooth setup.

There are some constraints with the commercial leaders who are leading in India. It depends because, in some cases, Ruckus doesn't offer a price benefit to customers using their product. Customers have already purchased the product, and they're using it, but sometimes the pricing varies. It can be sold at one price at one time and then at a higher price at another time. This inconsistency can lead to confusion. There should be a price parity, and it should be consistent. This is something Ruckus lacks, especially in the Indian market. It's a global product, but in India, this control over pricing is not as strong.

Sometimes they sell it for Rs.20,000, and other times, they sell it for Rs.30,000. Then, suddenly, they ask for Rs.70,000. There should be a tiered pricing structure based on the quantity. We understand that if you buy more, the price should be lower, and if you buy less, it may be higher.

I would recommend users to better understand their market and customer sentiments. It's a competitive market with other companies like Acronis offering products with advanced technology, such as six and sixty-five-band capabilities. Ruckus should focus on product development by aligning with market needs. Currently, Ruckus seems to lack a full understanding of the market, and their product development reflects this. On a scale from one to ten, if I were to rate Ruckus, I would give it a six 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 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.

I have not found any issues with the solution so far. Whenever I encounter an issue, I chat with support and open a ticket. I have found the communication, hardware, and time to be fine. I have not found any issue in communicating and getting a service. However, the pricing of the solution is very high. I have found Aruba to be cheaper compared to Ruckus. I believe that there should be a reasonable difference in price in the market.

I have not used the location services feature. I don’t know how to monitor it. Cisco has a working Aruba where the latter also has a server. I have not used the monitoring tools either.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for more than ten years. We are resellers of the solution.

The tool offers stable, reliable, and consistent connectivity over WiFi.

The solution is scalable.

Technical support was helpful. I had sought technical support over one report three to four months back. They were fine. I would rate the technical support between eight to nine.

The initial setup is very easy and you can customize it as per the customer’s LAN and WAN requirements. The installation is different from client to client. It depends on the physical condition to install or finish the project.

I have a couple of people who do the physical deployment while I handle the configuration and server settings.

We do a survey where we ask customers about the kind of WiFi service that they are going to use like voice service, data service, etc. After the survey, we generate a heatmap using my account in the zone planner. I forward the report to the presales team after which they forward the quotation to the customer. If the customer approves the quotation, we go ahead with the installation.

The point where we get stuck is when the customer asks for multiple quotations. When we provide multiple quotations, there is a high chance of customization.

I am not satisfied with the pricing of the solution.

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. We are the resellers of the solution and we work with it on an infrastructure level. I have experience in the installation of the solution. I have installed ZoneDirector 1200, SmartZone 100, Wi-Fi 5, Wi-Fi 6, and a couple of access panels. You can trust and rely on the consistency and reliability of Ruckus Wireless WAN on the WiFi. I had instances where customers had asked me to replace the competitor products with Ruckus.

I have been working with WiFi for more than 17 years. I am not able to convince customers because of the pricing of the solution. Otherwise, we could have sold lots of this tool to the customers. We provide maintenance to our customers. There is also no specific maintenance required for this solution since I have installed a couple of solutions for customers and they are working fine. There is no maintenance required to upgrade until the customer complains that ‘We do not upgrade anything and all the soft software is available on this.'

Ruckus has multiple radios. Therefore, it supports high speed for users and clients. Other vendors have fluctuations in speed. The main thing about Ruckus is that you can trust it and rely on its speed. I am simply satisfied with it.

We use Ruckus Wireless WAN for business purposes, particularly in health institutions such as nursing homes and hospitals. Our users are mainly nurses who use their mobile devices, including long-term residents who need private and safe wireless access.

What I like best about Ruckus Wireless WAN is easy administration. After installation, you'll benefit from how easy it is to administer the product.

I also like that the product can cover the whole area with just a few endpoints.

What needs improvement in Ruckus Wireless WAN is the initial setup. It could be easier.

Availability is also another area for improvement in the product.

Another huge disadvantage of Ruckus Wireless WAN is the cost you must continuously pay for the licenses.

I've been working with Ruckus Wireless WAN for three years now.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is very stable and has no problems with stability.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is a scalable solution.

I have no direct contact with the Ruckus Wireless WAN technical support team. A different person directly contacts the support team, but I have not heard any bad feedback. Ruckus support isn't the best in response time, but it's okay, technical support-wise.

We purchase Ruckus Wireless WAN whenever we have a high percentage of usage, where many people have access points, for example. For countries with lower densities where the wireless WAN is primarily used for business purposes, we use cheaper solutions than Ruckus Wireless WAN.

The initial setup for Ruckus Wireless WAN was challenging.

Compared with Cisco Wireless WAN, the pricing for Ruckus Wireless WAN is two out of five. Ruckus Wireless WAN is twice the price of Cisco Wireless WAN.

My company is currently using Ruckus Wireless WAN.

I'm responsible for several countries, with the leading country focused on Ruckus Wireless WAN. In contrast, a decision has yet to be made in other countries, so other countries use different equipment. For some countries, my company is still deciding which vendors to work with, in this case, WiFi access points.

The management console for the WiFi access points is on-premise, and Ruckus Wireless WAN is deployed on-premises.

As my company has ninety facilities, its users of Ruckus Wireless WAN reach approximately three thousand to four thousand.

I would rate Ruckus Wireless WAN as eight out of ten because the functionality is excellent. The stability is great. You also get high reliability from the product. I can't rate it a ten, though, because of its price and you need to pay continuously.

I recommend the product to others for specific use cases. A disadvantage is that Ruckus Wireless WAN isn't always available. You can reserve it, but you can't buy it instantly, particularly in higher volumes. For a new nursing home, my company needs to buy forty to sixty at once, but that can't be done.

My company has no partnership with Ruckus.