We compared Cisco Wireless and Huawei Wireless based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
In summary, Cisco Wireless is praised for its robust network connectivity, seamless roaming capabilities, and excellent security measures, while Huawei Wireless stands out for its strong connectivity, efficient performance, and reliable signal strength. Cisco Wireless receives positive feedback on customer service and support, setup cost, and licensing, leading to a highly satisfactory return on investment. On the other hand, Huawei Wireless users appreciate its sleek design, user-friendly interface, and long battery life, along with efficient customer service and competitive pricing. Areas for improvement for Cisco Wireless include signal strength, security features, and user interface, while Huawei Wireless could benefit from enhancements in signal strength and device compatibility.
Features: Cisco Wireless is valued for robust network connectivity, seamless roaming, reliable performance, excellent security measures, and user-friendly management interfaces. Huawei Wireless is praised for its strong connectivity, efficient performance, user-friendly interface, and reliable signal strength.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for Cisco Wireless is reported to be manageable and user-friendly, while Huawei Wireless is acknowledged to have a straightforward and hassle-free setup cost. Additionally, users mention the flexibility and options provided by Cisco's licensing, while Huawei's licensing is easily obtained and offers usage flexibility., According to user feedback, the ROI from Cisco Wireless has been highly satisfactory, while Huawei Wireless has contributed positively to our return on investment.
Room for Improvement: Cisco Wireless may need improvements in signal strength, security features, user interface, reliability, and connection speed. On the other hand, Huawei Wireless could benefit from enhancements in signal strength, compatibility, user interface, and durability.
Deployment and customer support: The reviews for Cisco Wireless mention varying timeframes for deployment and setup, ranging from three months for deployment and an additional week for setup to a week for both deployment and setup. On the other hand, Huawei Wireless reviews also mention varying durations, with some users spending three months on deployment and an additional week on setup, while others spending a week each on both deployment and setup, suggesting that these terms may refer to the same period., Cisco Wireless products have received high praise for their customer service and support. Users have expressed satisfaction with prompt and helpful assistance, efficient and responsive support staff, and an overall positive experience. Similarly, Huawei Wireless products have also been highly praised for their customer service and support. Users appreciate the prompt and helpful resolution of issues, the expertise and knowledge of the support team, and the professional and efficient customer service experience.
The summary above is based on 66 interviews we conducted recently with Cisco Wireless and Huawei Wireless users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"In terms of reporting, in terms of all the user reports, it's very rich."
"The AI capabilities of Mist Wireless are superior to other OEMs."
"The solution is pretty generic and easy to use."
"Juniper Mist offers valuable features like comprehensive network insight, granular policy control, fast device setup, strong security, and efficient SSL traffic management."
"The solution is very secure."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of Juniper Mist is the Virtual Network Assistant, powered by artificial intelligence."
"With Mist, every Wednesday they roll out new features."
"It's a reliable solution."
"The speed and security are most valuable."
"It is a very stable solution."
"The tool's most valuable features are security, flexibility, user activity, and high bandwidth."
"The solution offers very good application visibility and control integration for other analysis software."
"The stability of the solution is good."
"It integrates with Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA)."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the Cisco CleanAir and Cisco RRM."
"It is based on 802.11ax, which is a new technology. There are several valuable things, such as its speed and mobility. There are options for self-organizing networking so that it can perform operations and maintain itself. Its three interfaces are very good and user friendly."
"The solution's roaming feature is very nice. When you move to another place it automatically changes the access point. It's one of the most valuable features."
"This solution is very simple and the interface is user-friendly."
"It provides high-speed network connections."
"I am impressed with the tool's seamless integration."
"Huawei Wireless has controllers inside the switches."
"Installation is easy."
"The best feature of Huawei Wireless is the quick and fast setup."
"Improvement is needed in the user-friendliness of Juniper Mist, particularly in enhancing the interaction with AI features."
"Juniper Wireless Access Points (AP Series) could improve if the MIST platform had a built-in master key. This would be an advantage."
"The product should include adaptive Wi-Fi to show a more accurate location."
"The solution is expensive."
"There is room for improvement in terms of support and installation."
"The price could be better."
"It would be helpful to have even stronger security features to help protect against interference from other nearby access points that aren't part of our network."
"Juniper Wireless AP can improve by continually improving its reporting and integration with other systems."
"Older versions used to be hard to deploy. The latest OS, however, has made things a lot easier. While deployment is much better, it could always be even easier."
"Cisco won't work with any other vendors. That is a significant problem with Cisco."
"The solution's pricing should be improved."
"Room for improvement wise, the wireless coverage of Cisco's equipment could be better for the price position. That is, I think that the radius for the coverage could be better to make it worth the price that we pay for it."
"It is not easy to use. It should be made easier to use. They can maybe migrate it to the cloud so that we can manage the WLCs together. I find the licensing part very hard to understand. Cisco is now moving towards smart licensing, so this issue will be addressed soon."
"There is a problem with the controller. When we have to restart the controller, it does not show the time. We have to manually configure the time when we restart it. I have read about this issue, to get some information, and all answers are about having to connect it with a time server, which is very difficult."
"There's a delay in equipment that comes to Columbia, to our country, and that lasts almost six months."
"The reporting of the product could be improved. When I needed to troubleshoot, I couldn't get sufficient information from the controller."
"The stability could be improved."
"Price is one of the major problems of the solution, and because of this, our company's customers want to migrate to some other product from Huawei."
"While I am fine with the current licensing price, I would appreciate it to be more cost-effective."
"There could be a console port for demonstration or configuration purposes."
"Huawei Wireless has a small technical problem. When you use a power injector, it needs to be specially configured for the switch to which it is connected. It tries to take power not from the power injector but from the switch. The funny thing when you look at it is that you have three switches or maybe four or five that are theoretically capable. However, the port on these switches is disabled. When you connect the access point to a power injector, the access point checks for features from the switch, but on this port, the switch doesn't do power. So, the access point changes these features to energy save mode and cuts off some features, especially WiFi 6. It took me two weeks to find out what's going on and how to mitigate this sort of problem. It is very easy to fix. You need to disable LLDP on the port on which you connect the access point to the power injector. Power injectors aren't quite commonly used, but I have 54 access points, and I have used about 27 power injectors. So, about half of the access points were working at reduced speed, not full speed, for two weeks."
"Huawei Wireless can improve the signal, sometimes it becomes weak."
"The manageability could be improved."
"There was one time I had a problem with their centralized licensing. I called the Indian call center, but the response was not that good. One guy attended this call and he told me, "Definitely, I am forwarding your call to the next level. I'll let you know." After that, it took between 10 to 15 hours before I got a call back. By then, we had already resolved the issue. Therefore, they could improve the local support; there should be at very good Tier 1 and 2 support in India. They should be both proactive and reactive."
More Juniper Mist Wireless Access Points Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Wireless is ranked 2nd in Wireless LAN with 147 reviews while Huawei Wireless is ranked 9th in Wireless LAN with 33 reviews. Cisco Wireless is rated 8.2, while Huawei Wireless is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Wireless writes "Allows us to deploy a wide range of wireless products with stable WiFi". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Huawei Wireless writes "Customizable and has many unique features, such as encryption, spatial streams, and smart antennas". Cisco Wireless is most compared with Aruba Wireless, Ruckus Wireless, Ubiquiti WLAN, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN and Omada Access Points, whereas Huawei Wireless is most compared with D-Link Wireless, Aruba Wireless, Ubiquiti WLAN, Ruckus Wireless and Fortinet FortiWLM. See our Cisco Wireless vs. Huawei Wireless report.
See our list of best Wireless LAN vendors.
We monitor all Wireless LAN reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
All are good selections, and this question is difficult to answer without knowing your throughput requirements, as each vendor has multiple models within there series.
Personally I recommend looking at Arista Networks’ cognitive Wifi, where controllers are a thing of the past.
Ruckus virtual smart zone will be your best bet allowing up to 300k connected devices and 30k access points. furthermore, Ruckus has time and again proven best in speed, throughput in high density environments by independent studies. I have over a decade of working with this product and none of the other competitors can beat the layer 1 connectivity of Ruckus WiFi
Hi,
Every one of the mentioned solutions is good but you need to check the needs which are security since the firms you are working with need protection and tracking of data. For this reason, I recommend:
- if you have FortiGate installed then go for Fortinet Wireless since they can be integrated with the Fortigate without buying a controller and they work perfectly together and you will get the advantage of applying rules to the client himself whether mobile or computer, easily managed & monitored, more visibility over your network and incident notifications.
If the above doesn't apply then you can go with the best one that fits your budget and security needs which for me doesn't fall on the mentioned solution but to go with ARUBA Instant Access Wireless Solution and the reasons are as such:
- Cisco is too much expensive and you got to pay smart support with some complexity in configuration and you need to buy a controller
- Ruckus is good but when you want to have the security you need to buy a controller with licenses and it won't give you the security needed since it is just a wireless solution
- Huawei is not a stable company since it had many ups and downs and they can reach with you to have all the solutions nearly free so that you install their brand.
Whereas Aruba you don't need a controller in the Instant access points and you will get the minimum security with radius integration and what is important a lifetime warranty on the access points.
In addition, if the number of access points increased and you want more detailed management and more advanced configurations, you can buy a controller either on-premises or on-cloud with Aruba.
The above information is based on my experience with all the solutions and their POC.
If you need any more details and consultancy, kindly feel free to contact me.
Regards.
Hi Imad,
Thanks for your input. Do you have any POC data for Cisco and Aruba?
Thanks in advance
Boa tarde
As soluções cada solução que você indicou tem pormenores que podem impactar tanto no funcionamento quanto em caso de disaster recovery.
Fortinet: Possui bons access points, aliado às funcionalidades de segurança do próprio UTM, porém será mais um serviço para o appliance gerenciar, e dependendo do que está rodando nele, corre-se o risco de degradar a performance da funcionalidade principal "segurança", por que tambem está gerenciando uma rede wireless, além do fato se houver alguma pane no appliance Fortinet, tanto os itens de segurança quanto a rede wireless irão ficar indisponível. Dê a Cézar o que é de Cézar, deixe a fortinet focada em segurança, que é o que ela faz de melhor.
Ruckus: Excelentes Access points, confiáveis e com alta performance, possui no mínimo 4 opções de gerência, sendo, controlerless Unleashed, appliance virtual, appliance hardware e cloud, ambas as opções não trará prejuizo à performance da rede wireless, porque não há tunelamento de dados para elas, além de possuir várias funções de segurança inerentes à rede wireless. licenças são perpétuas.
Cisco: Excelente access points, porém solução muito cara para aquisição e renovação.
Huawei: Pelo que conheço, tem bons access points, e controladoras virtuais e appliance físico, mas conheço poucas redes com esta solução.
É lógico que uma tem um recurso extra a mais do que a outra, mas considero mera perfumaria, pois o básico para uma rede wireless segura todas atendem.
Eu já atendi a mais de 40 universidades federais no Brasil, todas com Ruckus, e não há reclamação da solução.
Como recomendação pessoal, vá de Ruckus.
Hi,
It is all dependent on the size of the controllers in question. Though I would suggest getting a cloud base technology so you are limited by any controller and have much better redundancy. Take a look at Arista Cognitive Wireless