Aruba Networks Wireless WAN Reviews

We are using wireless and some switch devices, such as VPN and ESP. We do have some devices using Aruba, including Aruba AirWave and switches. We are using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN ourselves; we are not just consultants or resellers. We were involved in the deployment of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN by deploying one of our small offices.

When assessing the performance of Aruba's built-in threat protection and encryption features, I ask what kind of protection are you referring to—the Wi-Fi? It is stable once set up, so you do not need to worry about it. However, our teams are used to Cisco. I see room for improvement for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN by supporting the campus office. We support our wireless campus network and branch office.

I think the layout is a bit complicated. There are so many different layers to set up, and it is very easy to miss out or make configuration mistakes because they are hierarchical. You need to be very careful about which one has been in use. Aruba ClearPass is also complicated as well.

If Aruba could combine all of their products together, it would be great to have a single pane of glass. Currently, the Aruba sensor does not work together with other products. There is no single pane of glass for location configuration, so you need to log into different websites to check the user experience.

I have been working with Aruba Networks Wireless WAN since 2019.

The technical support by HP for Aruba products is good. I would rate their support as a nine out of ten.

Positive

It was easy to deploy because the engineer helped us to set it up.

The pricing is not cheap. Compared to Cisco, it is a bit cheaper, but still not enough to switch over to Aruba. The benefits are not sufficient.

We do not use Aruba's zero-touch provisioning feature. We are only using the Wi-Fi access point and not 5G. I would recommend Aruba Networks Wireless WAN to others as it seems to be fine. I am a customer of Aruba. We buy our Aruba products from our support partner, not on the AWS marketplace. I gave this review a rating of seven out of ten.

We use Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for our employee and guest access, utilizing the captive portal.

When it comes to the features of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN, we find the Wi-Fi roaming to be one of the most useful aspects because they have 802.11k and R, which are new technologies from Aruba. We also appreciate the Wi-Fi 6 and the channels that Wi-Fi supports because it's our main network, and we didn't have much LAN more than Wi-Fi.

I have not faced any kind of challenges or difficulties with Aruba Networks Wireless WAN yet. However, for the monitoring and the retention of the data, unfortunately, I have to have another solution to get that information. If they have it in their Mobility Master or the controller itself, it will be perfect for at least seven days. That's the worst aspect in Aruba.

The most significant issue is that there is no monitoring in Mobility Master and the controller. If I want to go back to find some users' information or data usage, I have to have AirWave or Aruba Central. I don't have these solutions; if I don't have these solutions, I want to check it from the Mobility Master or the controller, and there is no way to find the information. If you catch live traffic, you'll see it. Otherwise, you will not see it, and that's not good.

To improve Aruba Networks Wireless WAN, I recommend adding a small report that we can get from the Mobility Master and the controller itself, instead of using a third system to collect the information.

I have been working with Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for about three years.

The system is very stable; I have no issues.

I have no issues with scalability regarding Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

Regarding technical support, I have never contacted Aruba for any kind of problems with support.

I find it easy to set up Aruba Networks Wireless WAN. I use it on-premises, and the deployment time varies; sometimes it takes some hours, minutes, or longer.

I have not tested or heard if Aruba Networks Wireless WAN has AI functionality for some operations yet.

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is more user-friendly.

The biggest value that I get from Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is stability, price, and the support.

For those who are planning or evaluating to use Aruba Networks Wireless WAN, it is awesome and great.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Aruba Networks Wireless WAN a nine.

I am using it for three purposes: first, for the wireless access of myself as the end-user, second, as a TechX user. I use ClearPass as a TechX Plus for the authentication of all the network devices. Third, I am using it for NAC. I have just started the projects of NAC, so I have ClearPass OnGuard as a NAC agent deployed on my end-user mission.

The solution with central management is what I like about Aruba Networks. I appreciate the ease of deployment and management through the centralized console. Product-wise, NAC is also good, as are NAC and TechX. All the features are good, and I have no complaints about Aruba; everything is working fine. My business operations also benefit, as I use it mainly for the wireless access points. It's quite a scalable solution.

I have not observed any downtime so far. I have assumed an uptime of 100% for the past five years. I only take a downtime window during the maintenance window when I upgrade the device. 

Traffic optimization is required in the future. I am planning to use a WAN optimizer between my data center and disaster recovery site because the data which goes from DC to DR is quite huge. 

Currently, I am using a plain router for this without any compression. I require some device which can optimize this traffic and give me seventy to seventy-five percent compression compared to the current traffic.

I have used the solution for five years now.

I have not observed any downtime. I have assumed an uptime of 100% for the past five years. I only take a downtime window during the maintenance window when I upgrade the device. Apart from this, the operational downtime is negligible.

It's a scalable solution. I am expanding the wireless devices across my branches. It's not like the traditional technology where proper planning was required. I can scale it as I want, which is a good aspect of this product. As for scalability, my rating would be nine out of ten.

They are very helpful, and I receive the support as and when I require it. My rating is nine out of ten.

Positive

I was using Cisco. The configuration of my device is quite simple compared to Cisco. Cisco offers good wireless services, but the ease of management, scalability, and operational benefits with Aruba are quite good. 

That's why when I started using Aruba, I did the deployment in phases. In the first phase, I covered the critical branches, where thirty percent of my infrastructure was on Aruba and 70% was on Cisco. The feedback I received from these 30% of branches was quite good, leading me to switch to Aruba.

It's easy to deploy. I have 150 branches across India. I configure the devices centrally and dispatch them to the location. For one access point, it takes approximately 20 to 25 minutes. Based on that, I assign IP, and if there is a requirement to upgrade the version, I do it. Otherwise, it's 15 to 20 minutes maximum per access point.

I have one partner for this. There are around four people who deploy this, and for managing the operations, I have six to seven people on the team.

I did get a cost saving. I calculated an ROI of around seven to eight percent in the last quarter. I am still expanding it, so I'll receive more.

I am not paying anything more apart from the licensing. The only thing I am paying for is the implementation cost.

It's scalable and quite user-friendly and easy to manage for the network administrator. I do recommend this product to my colleagues, who are in different companies. I have one tech group where we post feature sets of Aruba and have discussions on it. 

I rate the overall solution ten out of ten.

Positive

I configure access points or wireless networks and install Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

The product needs to improve with the area revolving around its ability to pinpoint the locations of devices. The product offers a feature that pinpoints where the devices are to help users find them easily if they want to know where a laptop or tablet is, but it is a feature that needs improvements due to some shortcomings. The product helps detect which building a particular device is kept in, but it does not provide information on the floor or room in which the device is stored.

I have been using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for four to five years. My company has a partnership with Aruba Networks. My company also operates as a reseller.

The longest product that has been deployed has stayed intact for almost ten years, and the main company plans to go for a renewal process. I have not lost any access points in the ten years I have used the product. The solution deployed four years ago has been working fine since its deployment.

The product is very scalable. When it comes to some schools, they start with the solution's proof of concept in certain sections. My company aims to improve the throughputs in the schools where the product is installed. If the rest of the School wants the product, it is easy to set up the solution.

My company uses Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for schools and warehouses but not in the retail sector.

The product offers reliability and uptime twenty-four hours and seven days a week. My company gets notified if the reliability offered by the product goes down. My company also gets notified if we are getting hacked.

With the access points from Aruba Networks, my company opts for the hot swap method. If my company faces any issues with Aruba Central, we call the support team to get answers to our queries. My company has faced no problems with the product's support team.

I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

I have experience with Extreme Networks. My company also has experience with solutions offering access points, like Cisco and Meraki.

I rate the product's initial setup phase an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is a difficult process, and ten is an easy process.

The product's deployment phase is taken care of by five people, consisting of system engineers, installers, and consultants, out of the seventeen people from my team.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The pricing of the product is pretty good. Aruba Networks and Extreme Networks offer good prices. Cisco operates in its own world. Meraki offers products at high prices. In comparison to the other products in the market, Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is available at a good price.

Cisco and Meraki are harder to set up, offer controllers that are hard to understand, are not GUI-based and are more CLI-based tools compared to Aruba Networks Wireless WAN. Extreme Networks started to offer controllers about a year ago.

The product has facilitated connectivity in remote locations in a great manner since our company needs to install the solution, set it up, and configure it, after which we use Aruba Central to monitor areas like wireless input/output and throughputs.

Speaking about the IoT applications deployed using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN, I would say that the product is majorly used in schools for Google Pixel Tablets and TVs.

My company uses WPA3 for network security.

The GUI offered by the product is good.

There is no need to do any maintenance on the product in my company, but we can opt for hot swap methods if something goes down in the solution, allowing us to pull it out from our system so that we can send it for repairs.

I recommend the product to use since it is a solution that is easy to use.

I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

In terms of performance, I don't have any issue with Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

My company wants to use Aruba's SASE solution since we want to move everything into the cloud, and we believe that ArubaOS 10 could also be a part of the process. In general, it is about the roadmap the company wants to follow and not what I want personally.

Sometimes, the configuration part of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN can be complex, and if you fail to understand the product at once, you may not even know about some features that you can apply to your network, and they may go unused. The guidance part of the solution is not clear.

I believe that Aruba has released a new OS called ArubaOS 10. The guidance part of the product regarding what makes it different from others and what its benefits are for users are areas that are not really clear.

I have been using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for three years. My company has a partnership with Aruba.

It is a stable solution.

There are no issues with the performance or the connection offered by the product. Sometimes, when in our company, we want to trade it with the new access points and use Aruba's RMA process, we have seen the process could be completed in just a day, but there have been occasions where it could take, like, three or four days, meaning there are inconsistencies like that in Aruba's RMA process.

Considering no issues, I believe the product's stability is a nine out of ten.

I don't really have an issue regarding the product's scalability. I rate the product's scalability a seven or eight out of ten.

Around 400 to 500 people in my company use the solution.

Sometimes, the management of the escalation process by the solution's technical support team is too slow. With the highest level of engineering of the product, sometimes, the purpose of the solution is not really relevant to our networks, making it a solution that we can apply to our network at the end of the day. Sometimes, there is some issue that doesn't really get resolved by the technical team, and my company just tolerates it.

I rate the technical support a six out of ten.

Neutral

My company has past experience with Cisco. My company switched from Cisco to Aruba because, at times, if you try to upgrade it using Wi-Fi 6, you would realize that Cisco doesn't support Wi-Fi 6.

The initial setup of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN can be done quickly, and everything functions smoothly.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The product's deployment phase was completed in about three to four weeks.

I rate the product's price an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is the lowest ,and ten is the highest.

Cisco, Huawei, and Ruckus were the solutions my company considered during the evaluation phase, but we chose Aruba since it was more cost-friendly than the others.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

The solution is being used as a SaaS IDL for connection. 

The security feature and the signal are good as they is dependent on our needs. 

The internet signal and the connection can be better. Previously, the solution had to be restarted if more than two users were using it at the same time. 

I have been using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for four years. 

It is a stable solution. 

It is a scalable solution. Presently, there are hundreds of users using the solution.

The initial setup is easy. The deployment takes a couple of hours. Only a single person is required for the deployment. 

The solution was installed by a third-party vendor. 

The pricing is cheaper in comparison to similar products. 

If the reset issue is resolved then it is a good solution. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. 

We use the product as a VPN device for connecting remote offices.

The product has brought significant benefits to our organization. In the event of a controller appliance failure or downtime, the system seamlessly transitions control to any access point acting as a backup controller.

The platform’s most valuable feature is stability.

We do not have direct access to Aruba’s Mesh portal. We have to establish the connection through VMware for the same. They could improve this particular area.

We have been using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for ten years.

The platform is easy to scale. The scalability process involves adding licenses, particularly for Xfinity. We can extend the connection to the last point without any errors.

We have used Cisco before.

The product installation is not complicated. It takes around two hours to complete the process, including configuring critical security features and upgrading appliances for backup purposes.

The most impactful feature for enhancing network reliability in Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is its exceptional throughput capability, reaching up to 1.3 gigabits per second.

It has an easy-to-understand interface compared to other products. It offers many features for seamless configuration and backup processes.

I rate it a nine out of ten.

We provide this solution for small and medium-sized businesses.

The product gives good stability and concurrency.

The product sometimes hangs during rush hour. For example, if concurrency is 500, it might hang once every 100 times. Similarly, the product is not stackable each time. There's no special box for clustering, while other vendors have that. Clustering can virtually utilize all the switches as one switch, giving customers more scalability.

Finally, it would be better for customers if Aruba provided more license options, like 5-year licenses, for example, and at a lower price. Customers don't like to pay from time to time for service for the product.

I've been providing this product for three years.

Aruba's stability is very good. I rate it a nine out of ten.

I rate Aruba's scalability an eight out of ten.

The warranty is important for us and the replacement time is good.

Because of its GUI, the setup is straightforward. When deploying the product, we must choose the models and do some small design work. For example, if the customer needs 50 to 100 users on the network, I would tell them what Aruba can do. I would also tell them next year what changes might be there, so I give them a few extra products to see if one might be better and recommend one.

Around three to five staff members are enough to maintain the solution. I remotely maintain the product for many of my customers.

The product's price is within range since it has a lower price. It's good for small businesses. Some of our products come with a three-year license.

We usually need some sessions for HPE products. When designing it for the customer, I could guarantee their system would not be down 99% of the time. I could also give them some advantages about why I use HP instead of Cisco, Fortinet, or Juniper, and some comparisons to clarify that. But if I give the customer some time for testing, it gives them confidence that I can test and ensure that this product is good.

I rate the product an eight out of ten since the product is from HPE, and they've used telecom before, so it is competitive. Anyone can use the solution without any problems. Likewise, the price and the service are very good.

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is used for wireless network conductivity.

The most valuable feature of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is that it is easy to configure. Additionally, with the same configuration with Cisco and Ruckus, we can receive  55 to 60 percent more out of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

If you're unwilling to purchase or spend money on a controller, you can opt for a virtual console base solution that offers up to 120 access points. This approach is highly cost-effective, as you won't have to raise your budget, and it's easy to set up.

When it comes to configuring rules for file security tests, any issues that arise can be referred to as "glitches". Despite the extensive configurations required, the process itself is not overly complicated.

I have been using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for approximately three years.

When I open a support ticket with Aruba, it goes to their team in Bangalore, India. While I cannot say they are the worst, I am not perfectly happy with their support. Recently, I closed a ticket with them that took over seven days to resolve a simple issue of adding a MAC address to the control. This slow support process can be a problem, especially if the customer has a live network. However, I have noticed that their CCAs are now more professional than they were three years ago. Sometimes, Aruba avoids alerting by opening tickets after their official time, which goes to the European team. Similarly, we do the same for Cisco to reach their European team for faster and more knowledgeable support. Currently, Aruba's support is not as scalable as Cisco or Roper, although Roper's team is also in Bangalore. 

As an on-site engineer, I sometimes open support tickets when I suspect a configuration mistake, but it can be confusing when the supporting engineer has less knowledge than me. It is also challenging to escalate the ticket in front of the customer I am installing for, so we have to maneuver a little to reach another engineer. Overall, Aruba's support is not as frustrating as before, although sometimes I feel the need to change the engineer.

I have used many other network solutions, such as Cisco and Ruckus.

Ruckus stands out in its ability to provide connectivity to users through its access points even when the controller is unavailable or cannot be reached. In contrast, if the controller goes down with Aruba or Cisco, the entire infrastructure will be affected, unless you switch to Mobility-based or virtual-based software.

One disadvantage of Aruba is their access point bracket, which is not standardized across all their devices, such as Cisco's brackets. This makes it difficult to identify and mount access points in different locations, as they may require different types of brackets based on the mounting method and physical location. Additionally, Aruba's console cable is not standardized across all models, unlike Cisco's console cable which can be used for switches, access points, and RJ4 devices. Furthermore, Aruba's console cable is not included in the box, which can make it challenging to access and control an access point through the serial port without having to find and purchase the specific cable required. In contrast, Cisco has a standardized console cable that can be used for all their devices.

The initial setup of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is simple.

To deploy Aruba Networks Wireless WAN, we use various tools for server setup and generating heat maps, typically employing models 505 and 515. The 505 model is cost-effective yet powerful, supporting fixed Wi-Fi and over 100 concurrent users as well as handling 100 voice clients. Once we generate the heat maps and present the external version, we include customer pricing and other details for approval. Upon approval, we proceed with the deployment.

I create heat maps, which are becoming increasingly in demand these days. I use multiple models of devices from Cisco, Ruckus, and Aruba depending on the physical location. For example, if it's a warehouse with high ceilings, I use the Aruba 515, while for office areas, I use the 505. For outdoor locations, I use the 565 or 575. However, I haven't utilized Nest connectivity with any Cisco, Aruba, or Ruckus routers yet.

The price of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is less expensive than Ruckus and Cisco.

The maintenance of the solution is not difficult, I have been doing it for a long time.

Aruba's controller is an integrated system, whereas Cisco has separate devices and services that are not too integrated. Ruckus also has separate devices and services. When customers buy Cisco or Ruckus devices, they are buying all the devices together to get the best service. However, after the sale, nobody calls for support or assistance.

In the case of Aruba, if the controller goes down, the access points can be converted to a version of the software that allows them to work with a virtual controller. However, there are physical issues with Aruba, such as confusion with the access point bracket and console cable. Even if there are multiple console types, it would be fine as long as they are provided in the box.

I prefer Ruckus solutions, but it is expensive for customers.

I rate Aruba Networks Wireless WAN a seven out of ten.