Ubiquiti Wireless Reviews

We primarily use the solution for wireless office or home networks.

In general, I like the solution very much. The solution has simple management. It's easy to use.

The ability to walk between access points without losing the network is very useful.

Wireless options are pretty easy to buy in Ukraine.

Their hardware is very good.

The company is always innovating on the product. They are continuously working to make it better.

In Ukraine at least, it's a problem when it comes to buying the hardware. For example, I made a request for 20 switches a few months ago. The solution needs to have worldwide availability.

I want to get more experienced with switching hardware, however, I need more documentation in order to understand it.

I don't know why they don't sell it like hardware for data centers. For example, I have a Juniper switch which costs $3,000. There's a similar Juniper switch-like item with the same characteristics and it costs $7,700. Marketing shows that it's only for offices and other stuff. For home, for office, but not for the data center. I don't know why.

I've been using the solution for three or four years.

The solution is very stable. It's reliable. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't freeze or anything like that. It's good.

The scalability is quite good. If a company needs to expand out the solution they can do so easily.

We have a little less than 50 users on the solution.

We do plan to continue to use the product and may increase usage in the future.

We've found that their online resources are excellent. We've found every answer we needed online, therefore, we've never had to call them up directly.

We did use another solution before this product. It was cheap. However, it was a long time ago, and I can't recall the name of the solution. We switched due to the fact that we were looking to simplify the host management. This solution offered very simple management. That's why we're looking to switch from Juniper to Ubiquiti in our data center. We spend less time managing our hardware.  

However, at this point, we aren't able to buy the hardware we need in our country.

The initial setup is not complex. The implementation was very straightforward and simple.

In terms of deployment, a wireless setup takes about 15 minutes or so. It's pretty fast.

In terms of maintenance, you only need one admin person to handle it.

I handled the implementation myself. I didn't need the assistance of any integrators or consultants.

We're pretty big users. We have a 1,000 server center.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

We use a hardware deployment with UDM pro or Cloud Key.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations.

Overall, I'd rate the solution nine out of ten, simply due to a few problems we have obtaining the hardware.

We are a solution provider and Ubiquiti is one of the wireless products that we implement for our customers. We also implement wired products, such as switches and gateways.

We primarily used this product for building industrial networks in production and manufacturing companies, especially warehouses. This includes offices, as well.

The most valuable feature is the ease of setup.

The control system can be improved by making it easier. You should be able to install it on Linux, by default. It should be delivered with this option, rather than having to rely on something by a third-party.

I have been working with this product for close to ten years.

This is a stable solution.

Ubiquity Wireless is scalable.

There are only 22 people in my organization that use this product but within our installation base, there are thousands of users.

We have no objections and nothing to complain about with their technical support. Everything is fine.

We commonly use a couple of different products including those by Cisco and DrayTek. The choice of model depends on the size of the organization.

The initial setup is very easy. The length of time required depends on how large the installation is. Some deployments are as little as one day, whereas others can take a month to complete.

I was the architect of this solution and I used other companies to complete the installation and deployment. Our customers maintain this product themselves, as they have their own IT departments.

We may increase our installation base for Ubiquity Wireless. However, I want to have an extended portfolio with all of the other products also available.

Overall, this is a product that I recommend.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We use Ubiquiti and part of our network infrastructure.

The most valuable features are ease of deployment, ease of use, and the interface.

The interference suppression technology that they use is very good.

I would like a better explanation or better documentation on how to use the onboard spectrum analyzer.

We have been using Ubiquiti Wireless for more than eight years.

These are our primary wireless products and they are stable.

In terms of scalability, these wireless products are good. We have quite a few deployed services, and I would say more than 500 end-users.

This is a simple product and we haven't had the need or cause to seek support.

We use different models from Ubiquiti's suite of wireless products and we also use products by MikroTik. Ubiquiti was the first wireless solution that we used.

The implementation is straightforward but it primarily depends on the length of the microwave links that you want to deploy. If it's a long link, it's a bit more complex and takes more time. Overall, however, it is very straightforward in the implementation. 

We deployed ourselves and we have a team of seven people who handle the maintenance of the infrastructure.

This is a good product and one that I recommend highly. They just recently upgraded the platform and I am really happy with it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is for point to point communication. We also design our clients' platforms. We are internet providers. 

I like that it's cheaper and inexpensive. It's also easy to use and lightweight.

They should have more VLAN features and a designing tool like a link planer.

It has some dropbacks. It drops and we have to reboot it. 

I have been using Ubiquiti Wireless for around two years. 

It's mostly stable.

It is scalable. 

There is enough material on the internet if you need to resolve a problem. You don't have to contact their support. 

The initial setup is straightforward. The VLAN part is complex.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. I would like for it to have better intelligence features. It should reboot automatically when it's stuck.

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. 

Valuable features include the fact that the solution is very easy to manage. The Unify platform is very good and the Edge platform is very stable. It's a well priced solution and as far as I'm concerned, it's enterprise class. Training was easy and reasonable, and it's all very good.

There's one feature that they're missing that's critical, and that is automatic channel assignment. RF channel assignment, which their current controller is not doing. Cisco has this but Ubiquiti doesn't. The only time the channel is reassigned is during reboot of the access point. But there's no dynamic channel management and power management of the Ubiquiti gear.

I've been using this solution for four years. 

The solution is stable.

It's a very scalable solution. 

Ubiquiti technical support is very good. 

I'm not sure about licensing but you don't have to pay for ongoing maintenance which is great.

I would highly recommend this product. Just do the training and it's great. 

I would rate this product a nine out of 10. 

We are a solution provider and this is one of the wireless solutions that we set up for my clients.

Normally, we do office wireless solutions. I've done one or two home wireless solutions for people that can afford Ubiquity products. Mostly, we've implemented Ubiquity in warehouses. I've also installed it in a medical scenario and in a restaurant solution.

One of the nice features is the backup version control.

The Cloud Key is used for the adoption process, which provides a single login control solution for your switching. Nobody can just get onto your switches, or onto your wireless units. This is a nice solution from a security perspective.

When it comes to setting it up, this is one of the fastest solutions out there. It has an adoption set up, where you set up your switches, connect your APs to see the switches, and from there it detects your system. It actually tells you what it detects from the network and then you adopt that. Whether it is another switch or another Ubiquity product, it will adopt it. Obviously, it only works with other Ubiquity products.

When it comes to accessing the system, when you don't have a Cloud Key then it can sometimes be frustrating and irritating. On a cloud system, it is easy to recover passwords, but without the cloud solution, it can get tricky sometimes. They don't force you to buy the cloud key, but it can be frustrating to use without it.

Ubiquity is not recognized for providing layered network solutions.

Better third-party integration would be helpful because often, Ubiquity is a product that customers choose after they already have something else from another vendor like HPE.

This solution is very stable. Ubiquity is probably one of the most solid wireless solutions out there. I have set up their long-range, LR, where we've been two or three in a building or several buildings. I can't fault their stability at all.

This is a very scalable solution. You can put in a bigger switch or change other components. No matter what you want to do, it's very scalable.

Ubiquity does not recognize somebody who supplies legacy switching. It declares mostly layer two. It is scalable to that level, but I think in most cases, if somebody is looking for a layered solution then they're going to go to a dedicated layer specialist like Alcatel-Lucent, Cisco, or HPE.

We have approximately one hundred and fifty to two hundred end-users for this solution between different companies.

The technical support for this solution is very good. Even contacting support from South Africa, it only took me an hour to resolve my issue. I had one of Ubiquity's technical support people online. I had follow-up emails from them afterward because they wanted to make one hundred percent sure that my system was running.

In terms of waiting, the times were not longer than I had averaged with places like Microsoft or NETGEAR. In fact, Microsoft support could be hours later. This solution has actually been quicker than most of the other products.

Since I started my company, I have been using Ubiquity.

This solution is easy to install, but it's a premium product so not everybody knows how to install it, compared to the entry-level ones. If you set up a NETGEAR or a TP-Link or one of these, they are very similar. The adoption process with Ubiquity becomes too difficult if you don't know the setup scenario and without using Cloud solutions.

Generally, the initial setup is straightforward if you're connecting Ubiquity to Ubiquity and you've used components that are all theirs. If you don't understand the product and you try to say, for instance, put Ubiquity in with some legacy APs, then it's difficult.

Most laymen can set up a Ubiquity-only system from scratch.

Ubiquity is by no means the most expensive wireless solution out there. In South Africa, for some Cisco access points, it will cost you 10,000 Rand ($690 USD), whereas with Ubiquity that same access point will cost you less than 3,000 Rand ($210 USD). Cisco will also have monthly or yearly licensing fees on their products.

This solution is definitely cheaper than Cisco and less expensive than HPE in a lot of instances. They are more expensive in most cases than what NETGEAR is, but not by far. Aruba is also more expensive than Ubiquity.

There are no licensing fees that I know of. I have never had to pay a monthly fee or anything like that with a Ubiquity product.

You have to keep your switches up to date in order to support all of your wireless components. Normally, all of the firmware is the latest version.

When it comes to home solutions, people tend to shy away from Ubiquity. They look at products like TP-Link or Tenda, which are entry-level products. These products are good, but they are aimed at the home market. They're aimed at being straightforward plug-and-play, without any real security worries. Ubiquity is more premium, which is why it is more corporate or for more experienced customers.

While this product is good for small businesses, I would say that you can integrate it into an enterprise solution as well. It's a solid enough product that it will work in an enterprise environment without a problem.

This is definitely a very good product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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.