Ubiquiti WLAN Reviews

We typically use the product in process systems where wireless connectivity is essential, almost like IoT applications. Instead of cables, we prefer wireless solutions, and that's where Ubiquiti WLAN comes into play.

The platform is user-friendly compared to other products I've used, such as MikroTik.

The product could be improved with more extensive documentation or resources for network engineers.

I have been working with Ubiquiti WLAN for two and a half years.

I rarely experience problems caused by the equipment itself, and any issues I've faced are generally related to external factors like power outages.

I rate the product stability as a nine.

Approximately 50 of my customers in the agricultural sector are currently using Ubiquiti WLAN. 

I rate the scalability an eight. 

The documentation provided for Ubiquiti WLAN is sufficient. While network engineers might benefit from additional resources, the information available has been enough for my needs.

While MikroTik is highly capable, it is also more complex to configure. Ubiquiti stands out in terms of ease of use.

The initial setup process was relatively straightforward, with only minor challenges typically caused by user errors, such as password mismatches. There were no significant issues with the equipment itself.

Each deployment is unique, but setting up a point-to-point connection to control a pump based on a dam's water level was a smooth experience. In my applications, particularly in agriculture, I avoid using cables due to the risk of thunderstorm damage, so wireless deployment is preferred.

The time taken depends on the number of devices being set up. The first device might take a few hours, but subsequent devices can be set up in as little as 20 minutes and sometimes even in five minutes.

I rate the process a seven out of ten.

Ubiquiti WLAN supports operations in applications like agriculture and light industry where interconnectivity is required. It's typically used for local LAN applications rather than Internet-based operations, though it does rely on Internet infrastructure.

I rate it an eight out of ten. 

I'm using it for access and coverage for my devices.

For me, the ease of configuration is a valuable feature. 

In my opinion, Ubiquiti has made significant improvements, but there is still room for growth in certain areas. While I believe that Ubiquiti is an excellent brand and offers high-quality devices, I think they could enhance their products by integrating cloud access into each device. This would eliminate the need for separate devices, such as a cloud key, to ensure access through the cloud. 

For instance, individuals who cannot afford a UDM and want to control their devices from Nextiva are forced to buy additional devices from other brands that have this built-in option. I believe Ubiquiti can improve in this aspect and find a way to integrate cloud access into their devices.

For professional use, I used this solution about three or four months ago. But I use it every day in my house.

When the system or the app access point is properly provisioned and configured, it's very stable. However, if you have roaming activated without a mesh, it's not always stable. Specifically, I'm referring to roaming using WAPAP Elite or WAPAP Pro. In this type of configuration, it's about 85% stable.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

I have used other solutions that were mostly cheaper and less feature-rich. For example, they had limited capabilities for creating hotspots, LANs, Wi-Fi LANs, controlling bandwidth, and creating additional SSIDs. I used options like Keppel Link and Tandem, which are mostly consumer-grade brands. I'd look to brands like Cisco Wireless, Cisco Meraki, or Huawei if I needed more advanced solutions.

The initial setup is very easy. In my opinion, the interface for configuring security devices is simple to use. It didn't take me long to set it up, but it depends on the complexity of the deployment. For example, I configured it on my personal device, but the same deployment would be different for on-site setup. 

The pricing is very reasonable, so I'd rate it a two out of ten, where ten is expensive. There are no additional costs or fees that I've encountered.

The main differences between Ubiquiti WLAN and other WLAN solutions, in my opinion, are the quality of the product and the simplicity of the configurations and setups. Ubiquiti WLAN is of higher quality than many other options, and the initial setup is more user-friendly.

With the new feature that comes to us, everything is going wireless. We have brands like Cambium Networks and Huawei. With Ubiquiti WLAN, it's a benefit for all of us because everything is more stable, and there's a good relationship between the price and the quantity of products we have. It's a good option to choose a reliable device like WLAN. So, I think everyone will learn how to implement WLAN solutions with brands like VPN. It's very, very user-friendly.

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

The configuration is straightforward.

The initial set up is easy. All solutions at this point, at a basic level, are very similar in terms of features and items of that nature.

The pricing is very competitive and the feature sets are very good. It compares well against more expensive options.

The support needs improvement. The official support is kind of complex. It's not that straightforward compared to Cisco and Aruba. Their support is probably so much better. That's one of the reasons I'm looking for an alternative solution.

You may find a lack of features compared to Cisco, or other options. For example, on Cisco or Aruba you've been able to find the Wi-Fi 6 access point for a long time now. If you have set up a new solution, you probably will look for something with Wi-Fi 6 coverage. Ubiquiti at that point didn't have it. Now they have it. I checked their website and they do have Wi-Fi 6 support. However, it's clear that they are behind on some pretty standard aspects.

If you're talking about enterprise-level coverage, you likely have many locations. Ubiquiti can handle this, however, it's a bit complicated. To compare another solution, Meraki cloud has a cloud controller. Ubiquiti has a cloud controller, however, it requires some other stuff and probably an appliance that you need to have in order to have this centralized solution control. Cisco is more straightforward and easier to manage at this point. 

If you were to compare solutions in general, Cisco is a step forward. Again, there are no big differences. It's just these minor details. However, overall, it makes a difference, depending on your requirements.

When I started to compare other solutions it was due to the fact that I do have technical issues with this product. There seems to be interference between the channels of the solutions. What I was told is that Ubiquiti can set up the channels automatically in order to avoid interference between channels, especially on 2.4 large coverage. That's fine, however, I heard that Cisco, for example, does have the option to do it automatically for APs. If there's a conflict between channels, and interferences become a big issue on your network, they will automatically adjust. That feature is not available on Ubiquiti. That is probably one of the reasons why I do have some technical issues regarding the overall experience.

The solution has okay stability.

I've had issues with technical support.

When it came to dealing with interference, they weren't upfront about the issues caused by too many APs being set up. I didn't really get a timely response from Ubiquiti. It took too long to get into contact with them. Their worldwide support just isn't as good as, for example, Cisco.  

I'm in South America. That means, if I have an issue, I can call Cisco and have expert help in 24 hours or less. Ubiquiti doesn't have that kind of turnaround. They can't help you solve things very quickly. 

The initial setup is not complex. It's pretty straightforward and very similar to any solution of this nature. A company shouldn't have issues implementing it.

The relationship between the cost versus performance is probably the reason this is the best solution from a pricing perspective. It's pretty cheap and has the best features if you were to compare it to others. 

We haven't switched yet, however, we are looking for new options.

I have issues with interference and I'm looking for products that offer solutions to help me avoid this. I've looked at Cisco, and they seem to be able to adjust automatically if interference is detected. 

I've also looked at Aruba, and I've found that comparing the three, Cisco and Aruba are much more mature solutions.

We are a customer and an end-user. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

I've run an internal audit about the company's Wi-Fi solution properties, all the main metrics about the solution. I was told that there was interference between the channels due to the fact that we have many floors and the floors are where the conflict comes in. Even though the channels were set up automatically by the solution, there were too many APs on the same floor, and that caused the interference to become an issue. It was not caused by the specific solution, however, the fact that their solution was not capable of fixing that automatically or doing something to let me know that that problem was being caused by too many APs density was not the best response.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. We've had problems with interference, however, that issue aside, the value you get in terms of features and pricing is quite good. It's not the most mature solution, however, it does offer a pretty good set of features overall.

The solution is for a mining site, and the solution's good for a small group of people, but when the numbers increase, you get some access points going offline, even though they aren't. When the numbers are smaller, managing and controlling is very easy.

The room for improvement is in the controller levels. We have the Cloud Key, but it goes offline most of the time, and we have to unplug and plug it back in again before it comes online. Using the web controller was much better than using the Cloud Key. However, maybe by now, they've made changes, but that was one of our challenges and why we decided to move away from Ubiquiti.

We've used Ubiquiti WLAN for about six to seven years.

I rate the stability an eight out of ten. The reason why it's not ten is the difference between using the Cloud Key and the web to control the access points. Cloud Keys are not reliable. They keep on going offline. We unplug it and then plug it in again. It'll be fine if they can either fix that or forget about Cloud Keys completely and put everything, all the security, into the web-based controller. We're having the same issue with the Cloud Keys in two locations.

The solution is scalable. I like Ubiquiti. I still have my outdoor point-to-points all as Ubiquiti access points. Since we deployed the solution on a mining site, we don't normally increase numbers that often. We need their support and services because the work is happening in the pits and the plant. We have around 500 users.

The initial setup was very straightforward. It didn't take that much time to implement. Once we plug it into the network, we go into the controller, and it shows up. We give it a name, we apply, and that's it. It starts working. As long as it shows up on the controller that this is the new AP, it doesn't take more than two minutes to change the name and apply whatever.

The solution doesn't require maintenance. We just block ten new APs and one or two switches, we go on to the controller, and they all show up, and that's it. We just change the names and apply. Do the work and just finish it. We just add it to a network at the site, and we're good. It's fairly straightforward.

We implemented the solution in-house.

I have seen an ROI. The solution is good for a small number of connections. I still use Ubiquiti here because Fortinet doesn't have the point-to-point wireless APs that Ubiquiti has. In our long-range areas where we want an external network, too, we use Ubiquiti point-to-point devices. We still use Ubiquiti, but not on the normal internal wireless access points and stuff, but on the external point-to-point to extend the network to another location.

For Ubiquiti, we're not spending anything. The software to control it is free. The license is when we buy the Cloud Key. But it's not reliable. We ended up using the free web software controller.

I rate Ubiquiti WLAN a ten out of ten. When it comes to the solution, I've always recommended that if they have a smaller group and want to use a solution with peace of mind, they should go with Ubiquiti. It's easy to set up, and we didn't need any support. But as we scale up and the numbers increase, just think about migrating to another tool for security reasons and robustness.

Ubiquiti WLAN has good performance. 

The solution needs to improve robustness, security, and stability. 

I have been working with the solution for 20 years. 

Ubiquiti WLAN's setup is not difficult. 

The tool's price is good and falls somewhere in the middle. 

I would rate Ubiquiti WLAN a seven out of ten. 

We are a solution provider and the Ubiquiti WLAN is one of the networking products that we implement for our customers. We have worked with different versions including the AC Pro HD, the HD, and the XD.

I have set up and manage multiple sites. There are 45 access points deployed all over a billion square feet.

The most beneficial thing about Ubiquiti is that it is simple to deploy. I found that the access points were easy to identify on the network and they came over easily, which was an upside.

The downside is the interface changes, where they are constantly doing firmware updates. I often felt like I was being pushed into updates, in spite of it already working. In my mind, it also raises a red flag because you have to wonder why they keep changing the firmware. You can decide to ignore the update, but then if you move the access point then it will update automatically anyway. This is a little bit of control that you give up. So, while it is easy to deploy, all of these things that happen in the background make me uncomfortable.

I have been working with Ubiquiti in general for several years, but specifically with WLAN for the past two to three years.

The Ubiquiti WLAN is very stable, although if I don't update it, I feel a lot better.

The technical support is not good. We did get help, but I didn't have a good feeling about it.  By comparison, it isn't the level of support that you would get from Cisco or Aruba.

I would say that they have improved from when I started with them a few years ago and that they are getting better. In fact, it's a lot better, and also, the need for calling technical support has been reduced as well. By comparison, we call Fortinet for technical support more often. With Fortinet, we often joke that you wait on hold for so long that you've fixed the problem before you even speak with somebody about the issue.

Another comparison is with Meraki; with them, you get them on the phone quickly and they fix the problem. That's it. 

I have experience with products from several vendors. Some examples are EnGenius, Fortinet, Cisco, Juniper, Aruba, and Cisco Meraki.  There are differences between them and some of my colleagues are upset with the security levels that are offered by some of the other vendors.

For example, if you want to compare Juniper to Cisco, Cisco settings are not as secure. The group settings are much higher in terms of encryption on the Juniper than on the Meraki. And, if you want better security, which is group 14, you can't do that unless you call them up and they actually set it for you. So that's on the Meraki side, or Cisco.

In terms of support or how things actually happen under the hood, some people liked Meraki the best. I am leaning towards liking Meraki more, but there are some drawbacks. As far as the support is concerned, or the overall experience with the solution, Ubiquiti is simple and easy and inexpensive. You go to Meraki or you go to Aruba or you go to the others, it's a lot more money.

For many years, I use the EnGenius products for Wi-Fi. Pretty much all the access points we were selling to our clients were the EnGenius brand. Then we went to Ubiquiti and I was happy because it was much easier, I can manage it in one place, it's better, and I don't have to update things as much if I choose not to. With EnGenius, I never changed anything. I set it once, and I forgot it, and there's something to be said for that. You just set it and forget it and leave it. But the EnGenius, if you have to do troubleshooting then it is quite a problem because the management is terrible.

We implement and deploy network solutions for our customers. This includes setting up the physical access points, then configuring them by adding them to access groups, making sure that the channels don't conflict with other devices, and so forth.

The deployment and models depend on the density of the access points in the space.

This product is more cost-effective than some others on the market.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Ubiquiti is to first make sure that you have a good plan first. Make sure that you have done your homework in terms of the space where it will be installed. The best is if you're replacing the existing solution, you should still review the placement. The reason is that nine times out of ten, you'll use fewer Ubiquiti devices than you would if you were using Aruba, or Meraki, or some other brand.

You don't need to buy as many, even though with the budget you have you can buy twice as many access points for the same money you would spend on Meraki, but it's overkill. You don't need that many. So, be conservative about the number of access points that are put out there. This is to say that you have to do a really good survey.

Look for metal plating, look for the line of sight access, so that you put the access points where they can actually see each other. Make sure that the access points are not too close to each other, but not too far away. That's the whole thing. I go with 50 or 75 feet away, in tight spaces.

Overall, I feel that this is a good product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I use Ubiquiti WLAN because it's cheap and performs well. The range is its best feature for improving network performance.

Big networks with more than 80 access points are a problem. The network controller stops sometimes, and I think it's because of the high number of access points.

I have been working with the product for seven years. 

The stability is mixed - it works fine in my environment, but some colleagues need to restart access points nightly.

The tool's scalability is very good; I'd rate it nine out of ten. My company has 1200 users. I use the access points daily but only use the network controller when I need to change things.

I have only once contacted support via mail. 

The tool's deployment is straightforward and can be completed in a few days. 

I did the deployment in-house. 

The solution is cheap. I rate its pricing as three out of ten. 

I rate the overall solution a six out of ten. It improved productivity by reducing errors and supporting our expansion to 1,200 laptops. I recommend it for small environments due to its good coverage, stability, and easy management. Overall, I'd rate Ubiquiti WLAN as eight out of ten.

On-premises

We use the solution to send CCTV camera images via a wireless network to make a surveillance system in remote areas.

The most valuable feature of Ubiquiti WLAN is its stability.

The solution should support a larger bandwidth or distance between the access points and the main stations.

I have been using Ubiquiti WLAN for 15 years.

Sometimes, we notice the devices get disconnected from the network for a few seconds or minutes and then come back again. This is unacceptable in the CCTV field because the client needs to see the cameras twenty-four hours a day without any drop in the video. Sometimes, a few minutes could disappear because the signal travels through the air, which annoys the client.

I rate the solution’s stability for outdoor environments a six out of ten.

Our clients for Ubiquiti WLAN are mostly small and medium businesses.

The solution’s initial setup is very easy.

The solution's deployment time depends on the type of project and its goal. The implementation may take one or two months. However, configuring the devices didn't take much time and was done in a matter of hours.

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

The solution allows us to enter some projects where the network is difficult to implement. We could easily implement a CCTV project without needing a wireless network, so it supports us in doing this in some project areas. I would recommend the tool to other users.

Overall, I rate Ubiquiti WLAN a seven out of ten.

On-premises