Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN Reviews

My main use for Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is mostly for wireless access points and I have been leveraging it with our Catalyst switches.

What I appreciate most about Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is the UI, the functionality, and the ease of management.

The features that have benefited my organization are mostly about client visibility. When I am troubleshooting wireless connections, I have access to detailed client statistics regarding disconnects, RF channel information, and other relevant data.

I believe Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN can be improved by implementing enhancements to the Cisco AI assistant. I think that would be helpful, as it would provide more automated details to offer better troubleshooting techniques.

I have been using Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN for about two years.

I assess the stability and reliability of Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN as solid and very stable.

Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN scales quite well with the growing needs of my organization, as it scales smoothly. I can add devices to my inventory and assign them to a new network, and it is for the most part automated and fairly quick.

I would rate customer service at 9 out of 10.

Prior to adopting Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, I was using Juniper Mist.

I have not seen ROI, as most of it is used to offer our guest wireless network as a free service to our membership because we are a bank. I have access points at each of our branches, so I provide free Wi-Fi for our customers.

My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing has been that it is fairly affordable.

In terms of specific challenges with hybrid environments, I face no issues.

I assess the operational efficiency of Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN in my IT environment as pretty efficient for the most part. I would rate it at approximately 80%. I have had some issues with the dashboard itself and as far as switch management goes, but that is not necessarily on the wireless side of things. The wireless side has been quite good.

Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN optimizes the experience in a hybrid or distributed enterprise setup.

My impression of the end-to-end visibility offered by Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is that it is quite good.

I function as an admin.

What stood out to make me choose Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is that I already leverage many products with Cisco. I have Catalyst switching, ACI infrastructure, and use them for my core and edge routers.

I would give this review an overall rating of 8 out of 10.

Configuring network policies remotely for Cisco Meraki Wireless is very useful for an organization that has many branches, as I can manage it centrally from the Meraki dashboard without having to drive to a location, even if it is 100 or more kilometers away. The centralized management of all Cisco Meraki products provides a significant advantage.

Cisco Meraki Wireless is very powerful and very easy to manage. The solution is also integrating Cisco Catalyst Wireless products into their portfolio, and they are managing the Catalyst switches as well.

The seamless roaming capabilities function well. I monitor network performance with Meraki's real-time analytics.

The most useful metrics to my team are the internet performance metrics, as there is a lot of information in the dashboard that I can access.

All auditing and event logs are centralized in the dashboard. When I need to apply to compliance requirements or other regulatory needs, I can have my auditing in one place, which is an advantage.

I use Cisco Meraki Wireless's Layer 7 application traffic shaping with the MX and the Meraki MX Firewalls.

I do not have a strong opinion about the value of enterprise-grade security in Cisco Meraki Wireless.

I do not have any improvements for Cisco Meraki Wireless at the moment, as the organizations and customers I use it with do not have any, and it will suffice for now. The solution supports Wi-Fi 6.

Cisco Meraki Wireless integrates mainly with other Cisco products and not with other solutions. It does not integrate with third-party solutions.

There are some problems with their technical support when it comes to the whole Meraki system.

Cisco Meraki Wireless has not particularly helped to improve user experience. The solution has not notably helped to optimize network traffic, but my organization does not put much effort into that aspect. I use it, but I do not go in depth with optimization. I would rate this solution an 8.

With Meraki, we do a lot of Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, but we haven't used the VMX, which is the virtual platform.

We typically deal with educational institutions and large enterprises with Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN.

I find enterprise-grade security in Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN very valuable, especially with the uptake of Bring Your Own Device usage cases.

The best features of Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN include the excellent reporting; the dashboard reporting aids us a lot in troubleshooting issues, and the platform is very robust.

Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is very stable, and the performance is there, as we normally do throughput tests that align with the manufacturer's specs.

We use Meraki's Layer 7 application traffic shaping.

Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN has helped optimize network traffic very effectively, as we do prioritization for streaming and web conferencing apps, resulting in a clear, visible improvement in performance.

The capability to configure network policies remotely is the most important aspect for our organization, as we are an MSP providing remote support for all our clients.

We monitor network performance with Meraki's real-time analytics.

We find client performance metrics most useful to know how the wireless clients are receiving service and the quality of service.

I do not believe Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN needs improvement compared to competitors; no areas come to mind right now.

I am really thinking hard, but nothing comes to mind regarding continuous improvements in support, pricing, automation, or customization.

I have eight years of experience with Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, as I work for an MSP providing a managed wireless solution or service using Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN.

I would rate Cisco support a 10, as the response time and process via the dashboard are easy, and response times are always within the SLA.

Positive

The initial setup for Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is very straightforward.

I was part of the deployment, and my experience with deploying Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is that it is definitely a breeze, one of the reasons we chose the Meraki product as our offering.

The ease of deployment is indeed a key factor.

My experience with the pricing of Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is that it is competitive with other providers offering paid subscriptions.

I must mention that Ubiquiti does not do monthly subscriptions, while with Cisco, you must maintain an active subscription to access the portal.

I do not have recent experience with Check Point, but I do have it with Meraki.

Regarding Location Analytics, I do not use this BI tool.

We have not utilized Meraki's seamless roaming capabilities.

We did not purchase this through the AWS Marketplace; we bought it directly through a Cisco distributor.

I do use Meraki SD-WAN.

I wouldn't be able to provide a review for this product right now, but I can do so tomorrow at the same time.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN a 10.

The primary use case for Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is mostly for enterprise wireless, including guest Wi-Fi and enterprise Wi-Fi. I use it across various industries with a focus on retail.

Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN offers a single pane of glass management. It only comes with a controller on the cloud, and this differentiator simplifies network management. The controller not only manages wireless devices. It also manages security clients and switches, providing a single dashboard to manage multiple network infrastructures.

The most important improvement needed is to eliminate the limitation of uplinks. Supporting up to three uplinks would make Meraki more competitive, offering a better user experience than Cisco SD WAN due to platform differences.

I have used the solution for around five years.

Stability is not an issue for me because it comes with Cisco's proven manufacturer quality. Device failure or other hardware issues are minimal.

I find Meraki is not scalable enough since it straightforwardly maps its products to segmented specifications. For example, the router or security appliance only supports two uplinks, requiring hardware replacement to meet customer requirements.

I have had experience with technical support. It would be better if the SLA of technical support was less than four hours. 

Overall, the support is satisfactory after the initial report.

Positive

The setup phase was very easy and user-friendly for me, not only for initial setup but also for ongoing management. The setup is straightforward and efficient.

The pricing of Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is not competitive enough for the SMB market compared to other brands. Other brands deliver not only wireless functions but also SD-WAN functions. It would be more competitive if Meraki would consider reducing the price or extending SD-WAN features to wireless devices.

Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is a great choice for those looking for simple network infrastructure with an integrated controller and management platform. It offers excellent stability and quality of core devices. 

The overall rating for Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is eight out of ten.

My main use cases for Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN are firewall, switching, wireless, environmental probes, and CCTV cameras.

The most useful features for Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN are the cloud-managed interface and the plug-and-play system.

With the Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN system, it can be shipped as new to any location, connected to the network, and the rest will come up automatically from the cloud interface. For instance, with other manufacturers, equipment would need to be shipped to our IT infrastructure department in Luxembourg for programming and configuration before being shipped to another office, which is not necessary with Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN.

I don't see anything that Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN should improve at this time. I'm not the one doing most of the work on the system. There may be room for improvement later because Cisco is implementing Meraki in more of the Cisco systems instead of just having a Meraki environment or brand of devices. Obviously, Meraki is becoming embedded in the Cisco world, so there might be more improvements at that point.

I have been working with Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN for about five years.

Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is pretty stable during the time I have worked with it, but sometimes there are updates that cause issues and then we need to roll back.

Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is quite scalable for my environment, rating approximately eight out of ten.

Setting up Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is easy, rating approximately nine out of ten.

I have not had any experience using Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN for AI-driven projects. I was unaware of any AI features in Meraki, though they might be present in logging or log analysis.

I don't have specific recommendations for those planning to use Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN as it is easy to configure.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN an eight.

Neutral

We use the solution for the office infrastructure to migrate from LAN to Wireless LAN. We also use it for IoT.

Meraki is far better than any other wireless solution. It is pretty easy to use. I can control any number of sites globally with a lean IT team. The product provides visibility into what the users are accessing. I can see where they are connected, what kind of traffic they are running, and why they face issues. The product has mesh, MIMO, and BLE. I can use the location tracker, too. I can also integrate Air Marshal to reduce interference.

Before the site is ready, I can configure the virtual environment. When the site is ready, I need to sync it up with the cloud. All the configurations will be live within three minutes. I can go live within a day. I can do the third day’s job directly on the first day. I don't have any bottlenecks when I need to upgrade my wireless controllers.

If I had an on-premise product that went down due to a power outage or natural calamities, restoring it would be very hectic. I would have to pay for a virtual license and add a server. If I put it on the cloud, I need to pay a huge amount for the egress cost, whether it is AWS or Azure. If it is in the Meraki cloud, I do not need to pay anything, and everything is under control. Even if the cloud goes down, it will not affect my productivity. The solution’s performance is much better than that of the other OEMs.

The solution can handle only medium and small businesses. We face a bottleneck on the gateway while using the solution for large enterprises. The solution must be able to expand to larger enterprises. Currently, the MX device can support only up to 10,000 users. It would be good if it can go beyond 1 lakh users. Catalyst 9300 is coming on the Meraki Dashboard. The vendor must also bring in the 9400 and 9600 Catalyst series. It will be very helpful. We will not have any choke on the gateway.

There is no active-active concept. It will be very helpful if the solution provides active-active. Now, we are doing an active-passive setup, which is a warm spare. If it is an active-active setup, the gateway bottleneck issue can be resolved. I would be able to segment the Wireless LAN IPs. It will help support 20,000 devices at a go. Meraki does not have a single dashboard. I need to port an on-premise controller. There is a bottleneck while scaling the product. I need to consider a lot of things.

I have been using the solution for five years.

The tool is very stable. We face failure issues only due to power outages. Apart from that, there is no failure. We have installed a lot of sites.

For my use cases, I am planning to use 500 APs. Our clients are planning to increase the number of users to 15,000. So, I would need more than 2000 APs. I can scale without any issues by just purchasing the license. If it were on-premise, I would have had to upgrade the hardware and purchase the license.

We have 24/7 support from Meraki. We get responses within four hours. The support is good.

Positive

The initial setup is not complex. We have a login, and we have to enter the serial number. If it needs configuration, we can do it and keep it aside. Once the device arrives, we can connect and sync it up with the cloud. Within three minutes, it will go live. Then, we can test it for a day and close it. We can reduce everything.

It is very easy to maintain the tool. That is why we use it. I am recommending the solution to clients. I can manage 100 sites with one person. I can set alerts, and all the alerts will come automatically. I can do a cable test on the Meraki dashboard to understand if the cable is connected to the switch or not. It is very easy to maintain a large infrastructure. I can easily manage 10,000 users with one or two people.

The customers can see an ROI in three to five years.

The tool is reasonably priced.

We are partners. My recommendation depends on the use cases. If an organization has a lean IT team and a medium-sized infrastructure in multiple locations globally, I would recommend Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN to them. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

Cisco uses DNS for registration and similar functions, just like other manufacturers. The three-day UC protocol chipset from Cisco doesn't offer much differentiation. In contrast, other solutions provide more detailed graphical interfaces and attractive features in Policy Manager. For example, combining Aruba with ClearPass offers better positioning due to NAC and other functionalities. 

The multi-tenant solution needs improvement, especially in terms of speed. While it works, the graphics and call management could be better; sometimes, significant enhancements are needed.

When it comes to cloud solutions, Cisco has an edge over Aruba. Cisco’s LAN solutions benefit from open APIs, whereas Aruba’s offerings are more closed off. Cisco allows for more concurrent sessions and better bandwidth efficiency. 

They need to develop a cybersecurity solution beyond virtual machines and concurrent sessions. The pricing model should reflect a more comprehensive approach. It’s important to consider different factors and not rely on traditional metrics. 

I have been using Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN for five years.

Cisco provides 24/7 support, similar to Aruba. However, support is not up to par if you're referring to Stream. While you might encounter junior-level support at times, the overall service is reliable and aimed at addressing issues effectively.

Positive

It's about the applications and the ability to control radio settings and monitor signal quality. The radio performance may not be the strongest when working with Cisco Meraki in telephony and complex IP environments. In my experience, Ruckus is the best in radio signaling, followed by Aruba and Cisco.

Aruba and Cisco offer similar levels of encryption protection. Regarding cybersecurity, Aruba tends to outperform Cisco, particularly in NAC solutions. Aruba provides a more effective policy management solution than Cisco, making its policy manager superior.

The initial setup can be complex because it involves a CA provided by Aruba and integrated with Aruba ClearPass. With this CA, you can generate certificates, which are then downloaded to devices and users. This approach differs from others in its setup and management processes.

Cisco had a significant share of the market, but it's lost some of it. It initially led in LAN, but now it faces strong competition. Fortinet has become a major competitor in Spain, particularly in terms of pricing, making it attractive across various industries.

Cisco is a bit pricey and has lost ground in LAN applications and policy management. When combining Cisco with Forescout and Aruba, Forescout is superior to Aruba and Cisco in terms of NAC, control, and office environments. However, Aruba performs better than Cisco in control and office settings. Cisco's use of RADIUS can be quite complex to maintain and install.

If customers have strong radio performance and robust network access control, Cisco is a strong choice for connectivity and straightforward deployment. However, if a customer wants a comprehensive solution that includes security, scalability, and a user-friendly interface, they should consider competitors who offer a more global solution.

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

The product's most beneficial feature impacting network security is the ability to provide centralized security management. It is simple to use compared to other technologies.

Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN's management tools need enhancement.

We have been using Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN since 2018.

I rate the product's stability as seven out of ten. It needs improvement in terms of configuration.

Regarding scalability, our organization primarily focuses on private network solutions for customers. Approximately seventeen percent of medium enterprises have opted for Meraki over other solutions like Fortinet or Huawei. While I have a different number of customers using Meraki within our team, we estimate around 100 customers, with their networks graded on SD-WAN technologies.

The technical support services are good.

Neutral

We have a team of 13 engineers who maintain and monitor network performance.

Cisco products are generally recognized for their performance and quality, which may justify the higher price point compared to other options on the market. However, customers have some concerns regarding pressure to upgrade certain services, such as video surveillance, based on Cisco LAN infrastructure. Now, Cisco has shifted its strategy to be more open to integrating other technologies and brand devices.

Deploying Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is relatively easy for our colleagues in the delivery department. They face challenges in planning, learning critical issues, and finding solutions during deployment. However, our team has gained valuable experience handling such deployments over the past three to four years. Currently, I am not directly involved in the configuration, design, or delivery analysis. However, maintenance may present more challenges for us.

Our primary proposal for network solutions typically involves Cisco Meraki because our team has a long-standing familiarity and confidence in Cisco technologies. However, we also work with Fortinet, depending on the specific requirements of our customers. We offer both options to ensure we meet the diverse needs of our clients.

I rate it an eight out of ten.

The main company is a hotel resort with around 120 rooms. They have approximately 90 devices deployed throughout the complex, and they haven't had any issues with the streamlined version or established information.

Cisco offers a service where they provide internet access to clients. This allows for greater mobility and speed, and it's one of the features most people like.

The cost of the devices and the solution itself could be more competitive.

There is room for improvement in pricing. We manage the price for Ruckus and haven't received any quotes from Meraki yet. We requested Meraki quotes directly from the distributor to compare the solutions' prices.

We have been using it for six years. 

We rarely encounter any issues. The solutions have been very stable.

The scalability is actually fine. I thought it might not be as scalable as other brands, but it's been working well for us.

My experience with customer service and support was nice.

Neutral

We have several clients with different brands, including Cisco, Fortinet, Aruba, and Ruckus. We work on a project that requires a wireless connection. My colleague suggested Cisco, but my work brokers proposed Aruba. That's why I need to compare Cisco Meraki to Aruba.

The first time was difficult because it was new to me, but subsequent installations have been very easy.

The time taken for the process depends on the size of the deployment. For example, if it's a small office with three access points, it could take two to three hours.

We initially required assistance from a third party, but I got certified by Cisco and learned how to do it myself through online resources.

The licensing costs depend on the environment. In comparison to other brands, it is expensive. 

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.