Ubiquiti Wireless Reviews

We're an educational institution and use this solution for our staff and classrooms. We are customers of Ubiquiti. 

This product is great because it's easy to set up and maintain. It's simple to configure and simple making changes to the configuration. Being cloud-based makes it all a lot easier. 

I'd like to be able to see error logs more easily and get a direct link to where the problem may be.

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. We recently added more access points and they integrated into the system very smoothly. We have over 1,200 users. We have a maintenance department of three network administrators who deal with Ubiquiti and any other tech matters. 

We have a local vendor who helped with the installation so we didn't need to go to Ubiquiti directly.

The initial setup is straightforward.

There is no license for this product, it's a one-off outright purchase. 

I enjoy using this product and rate it 10 out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution for a wireless connection for our hotel and resort.

The solution offers good management.

The maintenance of the product is very simple and straightforward.

It's very easy to deploy.

You can see everything on one dashboard. 

The product can scale well.

We have found the solution to be pretty cheap.

The product makes upgrades too often. They are always changing things. It can be hard to keep up.

We'd like them to improve aspects of device management. For us, for example, some of the access points are managed by a Ubiquiti controller, and others are managed by an AirMax controller.

We've used the solution for six or seven years. We've ended up staying with it for a long time. 

Some solutions are stable. Others are not. Maybe we don't use the right ones and we have to change them and put them in the right place. It's possible we are using non-appropriate devices.

The solution is scalable. It can expand well.

I've only used this solution. I've never used, for example, Cisco or Aruba.

The solution offers pretty good pricing. they aren't expensive. I'd rate the cost at a four out of five in terms of value for money.

I'd rate the solution a seven out of ten. We are mostly satisfied with the product.

Ubiquiti is deployed in the five-floor building that houses the integrated laboratory for my vocational school. This access point provides internet to every lab on campus, including the computer laboratory. 

I've been using Ubiquiti since 2015 or so.

One of the Ubiquiti access points broke down, and it can't be used. It's still down now, so overall Ubiquiti hasn't been a good experience for me.

We're extremely disappointed with Ubiquiti support. We need more local support. 

Negative

Installing Ubiquiti is easy.

I rate Ubiquiti Wireless five out of 10. I wouldn't recommend it. 

Our primary use case is for wireless networking but we've done more work on the industrial side. I've done work in medical, construction, and business corporates. There are quite a couple of corporate installations as well, but mostly in warehousing and that kind of thing.

Ubiquiti Wireless is extremely easy to set up. If you do all the proper working parameters for it, it's extremely easy to set up. It's got something called "adoption," so you connect all of your switches and your APs, give them power, and then you actually open the software. You log into the switch, open the software and adopt the APs. The switch adopts, the AP picks up what it is and what it's doing, gives you diagnostics on it, and it's a 10 or 15 minute process. You can turn around, connect all these switches up, switch the switch on and it tells you those switches are there and it adopts the switches.

With MikroTik for instance, you have a lot of setup protocols to do. If you're not a MikroTik engineer, a MikroTik solution is very difficult to set up. If you're not a NETGEAR engineer, or you're not somebody that knows NETGEAR, NETGEAR is very difficult to set up initially if you don't know the product. Whereas something like Ubiquiti, you literally just switch it on, you adopt the APs, and that's it. There's a couple of parameters you need set, so you obviously have to have a networking background to do it but just from a setup perspective, it's one of the easiest systems that I've ever set up.

Obviously Ubiquiti wants to work with Ubiquiti. So if you are setting up any other third party product or any other different product, it sometimes can be a bit difficult. With Ubiquiti, you need to set up because you can adopt the product and that's it, where if it's not a Ubiquiti product it can sometimes be a difficult setup. It also depends on your network knowledge but it can be a difficult set up sometimes.

For instance, not that you ever really do this, but if I've got somebody that comes to me and wants to go with UniFi as a switching solution but they have an existing Aruba wireless installation, you really need to know what you're doing to set up that kind of solution on Ubiquiti, on the switching. There's another setup protocol you can get by and it will definitely work. But there might be a different setup protocol these guys can actually look at to make that setup scenario a little bit easier.

I have been using Ubiquiti for four years. 

It is very stable. Out of all my Ubiquiti installations I have not had to go back to one of them for product failure. I've never had a Ubiquiti or UniFi switch fail on me. Ever. 

It is very scalable. On a scale of a point, it depends on who you talk to, if you're going to talk to a hardened IT manager that has to look at security and anything like that, they're going to look at a layer three switch provider. It depends if you're doing any kind of financial institution. It depends on what you build as your backbone. However, from a scalability point of view, I think they're extremely scalable.

I've spoken to guys that run very big corporate networks, like Ford company for instance. Ford uses Ubiquiti as their backbone, so they're happy with the security and they're happy with the fact that it's only a layer two switch. Where somebody like a standard bank would not look at Ubiquiti because it only goes up to layer two capability. They'll put a layer three backbone in but they might use Ubiquiti's APs on that layer two backbone. It comes down to a matter of opinion. I have had other guys say to me that layer two is more than enough because of the way they've set up their network. It's a very interesting question but to be short, it is very scalable.

Everybody starts up- in the beginning, only small companies adopt it and then people slowly but surely will adopt it in a department or whatever else. But my point of view is that I've seen big companies, like Ford motor company use Ubiquiti to a large extent. We are actually about to embark on a very big network setup that's going to go to multiple countries. And we're definitely going to be using Ubiquiti as my wireless connection of choice.

I'm very very happy to do it like that. We've done a lot of research on it and I've still got people that have to do the final go-ahead on it. But eventually, at the end of the day, the choice is ours.

We don't need to do a lot of maintenance. It depends on the nodes. The nice thing about it is that most networks nowadays including Ubiquiti, depending on how your network is set up, all your access points can literally be monitored from a single point. I can have a thousand access points running and I can monitor them from a single point as long as my network is connected and on how your infrastructure is built. I  have one network engineer monitor my wireless for multiple levels of my company. 

I don't need a lot of people. When it comes to installation and whatever, you need a normal fateful installation team, it's not any more difficult or any easier than most APs to install. It comes down to normal network rules in what you do. You don't need so many network engineers to control different aspects of the network. Nowadays you need somebody to look after security, you need somebody to look after networking, you need somebody to look after software, you need somebody to look after hardware. At the moment the thing that's the most intense is desktop support and desktop maintenance. That's the thing that's the most intense. And thanks to Coronavirus, I think the adoption of remote monitoring, remote support and everything like that has just exponentially grown. Many more people are doing remote support. I think the world is very much going to be moving a lot in that direction over then the next two or three months.

Their technical support is very organized, very well run, and very informative. I have had the Ubiquiti country manager and his support team follow up with me up to a month after I reported a fault to find out if my fault has been resolved. The Ubiquiti support was brilliant.

I've had instances where the setup has taken 10 to 15 minutes depending on how big the install is and depending on how complex it is but sometimes an adoption like that can maybe take half an hour.

My first point of advice is, don't get into it blindly. Although, it's easy to set up, don't get into it blindly. Do a little bit of research on the product before you first open the box because it is not like other products in the sense that it's very easy to set up, but you still have to have a bit of savvy around it. There's no other product in the world that I know of that does the whole adoption setup and control set up the way Ubiquiti does. Other products handle things differently, NETGEAR does it differently. A bit of advice is, go and look at how the adoption process on the switches work and how easy the switches are to set up and learn a couple of the tricks and that's about it.

I would rate Ubiquiti a nine out of ten. 

At home, I use it for myself. There are no captive portals or anything like that, only wireless access. Only wifi.

It functions properly and includes centralized management for access points and switches.

They have access points that are in the firewalls, and I believe the firewalls could be significantly better.

They use the USG firewall, which I believe is a poor device. VPNs for example, it is really bad, it is difficult to configure, and I don't like them at all.

I have been working with Ubiquiti Wireless for two or three years.

I am not working with the latest version. I try to update to the latest version once in a while.

Ubiquiti Wireless is very stable.

I have not yet experimented with the scalability of Ubiquiti Wireless. 

I am using it at home.

I have not contacted technical support.

I have worked with Cisco Routers.

For testing, and learning purposes, I have been using CentOS, which is now Almal Linux or Rocky Linux.

I have also worked with Sophos and Bitdefender.

I have used Mikro Tik.

It is quite easy to set up.

It most likely took me an hour. 

I watched some Youtube videos.

There is no licensing fee required.

I think the price is okay for the product, but the price could always be cheaper.

I work as a system engineer and research solutions at home. I switched to a different product after a few years.

Three years ago, I would have, but things have since shifted a bit. I prefer to have everything at home. Ubiquiti requires a cloud account now, which I don't like, therefore I wouldn't recommend it at this time.

I would rate Ubiquiti Wireless an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for big houses and sometimes in hotels.

This solution has helped my organization a little bit.

Having dual-band is important. Having compatibility with very old equipment on certain frequencies, for example on 2.4 and 5.8. On the 2.4 frequency, there are a lot of things in the house that uses it, sometimes old TVs cannot connect to the new technologies but they work fine with this solution.

I would like to see more cloud features that some of the other competitors such as Cisco Meraki have that are very useful.

In an upcoming release, I would like to see faster updates and advancements. 

Cisco product can show you all the traffic on the cloud, what kind of traffic, who is connected, and who disconnected. They have a lot of statistics, all the Mac addresses and IPs. You can see a lot of information. Additionally, It is very easy to find some specific equipment. For example, what port is connected and what others do not. If you also put some switches from Meraki, you also will have a lot more features, plenty of more. That is why it is expensive but it's the best definitely. This solution should take some of the beneficial features from those two solutions I mentioned and upgrade.

I have used the solution in the past 12 months.

When we upgrade the access points to the newest version, it does not work all the time, when this occurs we need to roll back the firmware.

The solution is scalable. The eight-person IT department is using the solution as well as everybody else because they use wifi, approximately 32 employees.

The customer support is satisfactory. Sometimes the support would rather the customer use the technical chats or forums that they have. They do not always take the call.

I rate Ubiquiti Wireless customers support an eight out of ten.

We have used previously Cisco, IronNet, and Ruckus. I have found Ruckus to be the best.

Sometimes when you are trying to set up the access points it comes with old firmware which makes it have problems when setting it up on the controller. It can be very difficult. However, if the firmware is not too old it will work fine. 

If you do not have a big budget, you can use Ubiquiti, it is cost-effective.

Those wanting to purchase solutions try and balance between the price and features, with this solution it is very cheap in comparison with Cisco and Ruckus. For example, if you are looking for houses best suited, the high-end houses are a good fit. For companies, they might have a larger budget to invest in more expensive equipment. Ubiquiti for houses is more than enough.

I rate Ubiquiti Wireless a seven out of ten.

We mostly use Ubiquiti Wireless for small business wireless solutions.

I like the price, quality, and consistency of manufacturing.

Tech support is mostly remote and could be better. 

When you need to get into certain different levels of configuration, you'll need to understand the network a little better. It can get a little complicated with their higher-end gear.

I have been using Ubiquiti for about five years.

Ubiquiti Wireless is stable. I'm unaware of any issues at this point.

Ubiquiti Wireless is very easy to scale.

Tech support is alright. They do get back to you within a certain timeframe, but their tech support is not via phones. It's mostly remote. I prefer phone support, but it depends on where they're based. Whether or not there's a language barrier, whether they're fully up to speed with the actual product itself. 

Numerous vendors decided to shift their support to a third-party company, within the country or out of the country. But they don't train them properly, and then you run into problems.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Ubiquiti technical support an eight.

We used a number of different applications, specifically Cisco, in the prior years. We switched because of the cost and quality.

It depends. You can have a standard access point, which is very simple to install. It requires minimal configuration, depending on the typology of the customer. Or you could get into some of their higher-end gear, which could take two to three days to configure correctly.

Ubiquiti Wireless is affordable.

I would advise potential users of Ubiquiti Wireless to first purchase a couple of pieces and try them. They'll be happy.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Ubiquiti Wireless a nine.

We want to have full control over the product so we use it on-premises. Our main customer base is in the city of Leyden for free outdoor wifi usage. We have about 100 access points around the city. We do interlinks and point links, as well as in harbors, campsites, and anywhere there is demand locally. We do service other cities, but Leyden is the main city. We do testing and development with routing data over wireless networks.  

I think two major things are the most valuable for our operations. The quality is very important, and we have seen that this system has been reliable for the last 10 years. That is an important factor. Managing the number of towers and access points has always been a challenge and made this type of business quite expensive in this location.

The main thing for us is the prices and meeting and beating the price of competitors. So the most important feature is the value itself. Technology-wise, everyone can offer the same thing. Our standard is to have the best service and offer it all for less.

Looking at future usage as in self-steering cars and drones should be part of Ubiquiti. For now, it's too early. But this can be an important function to add. SSID (Service Set Identifier) is also something that is important looking into the future. I'm not sure if those are all of the things that can be improved because everything changes constantly in technology. It could be one of the most advanced products in the industry if it incorporated these things. There are issues with government usage and other security issues. These have to be addressed for the future.

The product itself is very stable. We don't have problems because of Ubiquiti. The problems come from peripheral issues.

The most current version that we are using has scalable storage. The scalability depends on the equipment. They do switches now which helps balance the load. We are not using all the options at this point, but we are capable of using multiple access points. 

So the product is scalable within certain limits. Some of those are what we place on our understanding of the product and the security.

We have engaged with technical support. The service we use is actually my colleague. They're good at dealing with technical things that we don't already have experience with.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. I'm not exactly sure that what I see is always something everyone is capable enough to do. We have a technical team to develop our own solutions within the technology and access points to make it more stable and functional. But for people without these resources, it could be harder to use.

We are doing implementations by ourselves for us and for our customers. We sell to end-users. So we're not dealers but we are acting as dealers at the same time. Essentially we are both like partners and resellers.

Competitors are asking high prices for their services in my opinion and they do not compete well with Ubiquity. The current price range of Ubiquiti is a good but if it becomes more expensive, there will be more competitors to compare with. It is currently purchased by customers on a yearly base.

We are primarily concerned with outdoor use. There is another provider we are using for services to deal with privacy regulations in Europe. That is still a question to investigate for using Ubiquiti to comply with European regulations. We are currently using our own hardware for management.

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, Ubiquiti Wireless is an eight. There are some things that can be improved.