AirCheck G3 Reviews

I work in the wireless team in the HQ, we don't visit the sites. We mainly provide remote support, design and validation. We bought the G2 to understand how the new functionality work (we already had the previous generation Aircheck) and to train our implementation and support teams to troubleshoot with it whenever there is an issue.

Right after buying  the tester, we created a guide for our internal use, and then I distributed the guide to our support engineers. Now, they have their own G2 testers and, whenever in the field, they follow my guide and  troubleshoot the issue while I can see the test report in Link-Live cloud portal and evaluate the results remotely. We currently have four devices. Each device is assigned to a support team, and each support team has five or six people.

Generally, the most common issue we encounter is an access point going down, meaning no coverage. Some of our sites have also specialised IoT devices that are very sensitive to interference on 5GHz channels so, being able to see the interferers on the G2 is a massive help.

With a laptop, you need to install different software packages and not all such software gives you the same information as the G2; you need more than one software solution to match the same capabilities. With the Aircheck, you go and you have everything in one device.

For example you need a packet capture software (and dedicated hardware if you don't have a Macbook) and something for signal strength. With the G2, you have a lot of tools in one package. Not to mention that you can connect the G2 to a wired port and conduct a basic cable test. We were using at least two or three other tools to identify issues before we had the G2. While having one tool instead of many hasn't really affected our cost of troubleshooting, because many other tools are free, the time and the complexity have been greatly reduced for sure.

You don't need to be an expert to use the tool. A person who is not an expert in WiFi might not know the meaning of signal strength and what is a good value or a bad value. With AutoTest you have a very simplified view. This is fantastic because, while the support guys might not be able to resolve the issue, they can at least point more senior people in the right direction. And that saves a lot of time.

It's very good that everything is saved in the cloud. You have historical data and you can and say, "Okay, well on that day we had this issue and today it's this other issue." You can identify a trend.

And it has reduced troubleshooting time by 50 percent.  I can definitely see an advantage with it.

I use it sometimes when I want to quickly see the MAC address of a wireless client. With the AirCheck, it is really a 30-second job. If I had to do it with a laptop, it would take at least five minutes. You can pinpoint a particular client and see which access point it is connected to. You can do a packet capture. You can do a lot of stuff. Everything is linked and that's very good. If I had to do it the old-fashioned way, I would need software to find the MAC address, then log in into the controller, see which access point it is connected to, then do a packet capture with different software. It would be a much longer process. The AirCheck has definitely made me more productive.

I like everything in the G2. Compared to the old AirCheck it is a massive step forward. I like the cloud functionality. That's very useful because somebody can go onsite, someone who is not really skilled, and I can see the test results from the office. This is my favorite function. 

I also like the remote session and the ability to log in to the device remotely. You can log in to the tester with your computer and can see the screen and operate the tester remotely. This is a very cool function, but it's very advanced. And I think you need to be connected with a cable to do that. But it is still a very good function because you can give the tester to level-one support guys and, even if they are not wireless experts, in the worst case, you can operate the tester remotely from the office.

I also like the packet capture functionality. It's very good. While you are onsite and troubleshooting the signal, you can identify a particular client and start a packet capture. And you can download the packet capture from the cloud; that's a new development. Before, you had to download it manually. Now it's on the cloud as well.

The solution’s one-button AutoTest feature to identify common problems is good. 

With the solution’s one-button AutoTest feature, not all the information is particularly useful. It could be improved with a bit of artificial intelligence saying, "Okay, the G2 sees this problem, maybe this could be the issue," and it would give some suggestions. Right now, when you do the AutoTest you get a bunch of data, but you still have to do some analysis. If you look at some wireless vendors, when there is a problem they give you serious correlation possibilities. For instance, if there is a low signal, it might be due to this or that. You have an idea of where to start your troubleshooting.

Additionally, it would be a huge boost if the AirCheck could be used for site surveys, a bit like the Ekahau Sidekick. I think this feature is coming, but -in general- more functionality towards surveying (for example turn the G2 in a survey access point) would be useful.

Also, we use 802.1x authentication for the corporate network so, to onboard the G2 I need to download the certificate onto the device. It would be nice to have this functionality through the cloud as well. Right now, you need to do it through the software (windows only) by connecting your laptop physically to the AirCheck. This is one aspect that could be improved. Lastly, many companies are worried about the security of data in the cloud and SSO through API integration is the norm today. I found Link-Live API support it a bit lacking on this side. So far, we haven't been able to integrate it into our single sign-on procedure.

I have been using AirCheck G2 for one year. 

We bought it a year ago and then we required our support team to buy it as well as part of their standard toolset, so it's still kind of new in terms of our usage. They haven't explored all the functionalities of the tester yet. It has a lot of potential, but it is still not used 100 percent.

I haven't had any issues so far. It's always been super reliable.

It probably could be scalable, but that would be a strategic decision of the vendor. I guess some features are locked and it depends on the firmware release. I think the device can do more, hardware-wise. It could be that they are testing new features before releasing them. Potentially, it is scalable, but not massively scalable, otherwise people wouldn't buy the bigger brothers, the OneTouch or the EtherScope.

I haven't dealt much with the technical support. The tester has been reliable.

I have only enquired once about API integration and they did reply quite fast. During the transition when NetAlly took over Netscout there was a bit of delay with support responses. Now, it should be fine.

We had the old AirCheck, the one from Fluke Networks. But the G2 is a huge move forward. 

If you know what you're doing, it's not that difficult. If you don't know about certificates and advanced wireless stuff, it can be a bit difficult.

Less experienced users might need guidance in order to take full advantage of the tool, that's why I created a step-by-step guide for our internal use.

It would be good to have a series of tutorials, some videos, and a properly structured course. If you work in the field, you don't have time to read a PDF guide.  A series of videos "from A to Z", to explore all the menus, sub menus, and use cases, would be useful. It is especially important to explain  how to read the results. For example, what does it mean that this device has this signal rather than that signal? What are the implications?

We did everything in house.

For a big company, there is a slower return of investment because, in a big company, it doesn't really matter. At $2,500, it is no big deal. For a consultant, it is a huge value because your time is money. It sounds like a paradox, but -in my opinion- for a smaller company there is a better return on investment than for a big company.

In a big company, if there is an issue with the WiFi, the support team can work on that ticket for one week as priorities changes all the time. So if it takes a week or, say, three days to solve an issue, it might go unnoticed in some companies. In big environments time is stretched somehow.  But for a small company with limited man power, time is everything. You show up on a site and troubleshoot issues very quickly. You could finish the job in one hour instead of three hours and move to the next customer. It's a massive return on investment.

It is a bit expensive, to be honest. For a big company it's not a big deal. But for a small firms, like a wireless consultant or small IT support company, it is hugely expensive and that's a shame because it is a fantastic tool. 

Netally have a unique position in this market so I guess they can do whatever they want. Fair enough.

Because I work in a big company, it is a no-brainer. The yearly maintenance fee is okay; if I were a consultant, I would still buy it, but it would be a huge investment. Overall, it's a good tool to have. 

We tested something from JDSU, which is slightly different. Really, there is nothing on the market like the G2 (apart from other more expensive testers from the same company).

I have learned that I can use G2 for more than I thought. Initially I thought, "Okay, I can go and check the coverage." But actually, there are so many things you can use it for. Sometimes you quickly need the MAC address of a wireless client. You take the G2 and you see that straight away. That's one of my favorite things. It's like having a multi-tool. We often use it for quickly finding information while we are doing other tasks, things that are not necessarily support. Suppose we are testing a new access point and it is mounted on the ceiling and we need to get its MAC address quickly. It's quicker to look at the G2 than to log in the controller (or use a software scanner) and find the MAC address.

We also bought the LinkRunner testers and we use them a lot. I was also looking at the OneTouch because at one point I was approached by a vendor that was offering a massive discount (it was going end-of-life) and it was a very attractive  price. The OneTouch, from a wireless perspective, does more or less the same thing as the G2; I couldn't justify this expense to my manager.

As far as maintenance of the G2 goes, it's very easy. You don't need to know anything, other than checking for software upgrades. I believe you still need a laptop to upgrade the firmware, unless they've changed something recently. 

I use AirCheck to track down rogue devices connecting to my access point.

The airCheck is the real-time spectrum analyzer to see clients that could be connecting to our network, not just rogue networks out there, but rogue clients and other interference in that particular spectrum.

The solution doesn't have much functional information online. Most of the information online is regurgitated from marketing brochures. I purchased the solution for a job and sold it afterward because it is expensive.

The AirCheck is no longer available and its software is not updated for current use. Additionally, it is not compatible with Macintosh and must be run on an emulator to access the outdated Windows software. Since Fluke sold all its intellectual property to NetAlly, there is no longer any support for the original Fluke AirCheck, which further influenced the decision to discontinue it. Going forward, I would attempt to buy the newer NetAlly product.

I have been using the solution for a couple of months.

The solution is stable.

The upfront cost of the solution is around $4,000. This cost does not include service contracts for support.

I give the solution a ten out of ten.

New users should consider purchasing the latest edition. The outdated models lack the latest Wi-Fi band, rendering them a poor investment. I made the mistake of buying an outdated version on eBay for $500, which I only used for a single project. I eventually had to resell it since it was incompatible with the new Wi-Fi band that emerged in the past five years. Hence, it is advisable to invest in the new version.

Working in this company for a year and counting. I received the task of being mostly responsible for an extensive > 250 id. wireless environment, where there were quite some existing issues. These are mostly related to an ongoing vendor migration going on from one vendor to another.

The Wireless network is both responsible for work-, medical-, client-, and public-related converage (access).

As medical devices are included in this, it's important to have a reliable connnection.

(I am using the latest version. I update it quite frequently.)

In a child-treatment area, quite some issues existed on medical monitoring systems, where they would frequently lose connectivity.  As these resulted in alarms and an increased personnel workload, these had to be minimalized.

Quite a hard hard task to troubleshoot, especially without anaylizing tools.

While we could do some basic monitoring, AirCheck really helped me out. I could simulate the medical devices. I can connect to the device and do a full check of the area to troubleshoot what is happening. In this case, I noticed that we had some interference and overlapping channels. So, the device was immediately useful.

In a way AirCheck made a lot of children and caregivers quite happy. While I might not have resolved everything, I have reduced the problems considerably.

Where there were about three or four of those alarms daily. I was able to reduce it to once or twice a week.

As the appliances are quite limited in their wireless capabilities, a complete avoidance is mostly impossible here.

I use a lot of its functions. 

The most used feature is the AutoTest. This provides quick verification and troubleshooting options. It also offers the possibility to go quite in-depth. It goes through everything with a profile that you can define. It creates a profile and connects to our network, then it tries to make an outside connection. It goes through all the steps, and you can dig in through all the steps. So, you can go into the first step of the authentication and connection. Then, in the second phase, you can see the neighboring access points, possible interference, and overlaps. In the end, you can see if your final connection was successful, e.g., a connection to Google. You can see the delays and time. The final step is that you can integrate a report automatically, uploading that through either one of your systems or a NetAlly online portal.

Overall, the complete appliance is quite easy to use. Even without going through a manual, you can figure it out quite fast. It is quick and easy. On the device, there is a help function that also relates to the navigation you are on. There are predefined profiles, so you can compare.

It is a very quick informational tool. If you go to an unknown location, and you don't know that location, you can immediately see which access points are there. So, if you have to replace one and don't know which one it is, AirCheck will tell you. If it is a known vendor, like Cisco Meraki or Ubiquiti, then it will show you that information.

AirCheck provides in-depth information for resolving connectivity and performance problems. You can do a full analysis on the web interface. You can also download reports into a spreadsheet. I couldn't imagine it being more in-depth.

I have used AirMapper twice, but it was mostly just to try it out with a test case. It works, but it is limited for gathering WiFi site survey data. For quick, small, and easy things, it is great and useful. However, it is not for a complete environment, which shouldn't be your main task with this appliance. For example, instead of relying on this tool to do a complete hospital, you should use a more specialized device, and they offer that too.

I would like them to modify the interface. The button to change profiles is fairly small. When you have interventions, it is not always possible to have a ballpoint pen or perfect precision touch with it, since sometimes you need to touch it quite a lot when your hands are very dirty. I would like a special pen that is compatible with that responsive screen. That would make it easier.

I have used a simulation of the phone apps software on my laptop, but it was more of a hassle.

The battery requires current charging in between longer usage as it'll not be able to last through a whole day of using it.

I have been using it for six to seven months.

There are some glitches, but that is mostly with the unresponsiveness of the screen. However, that is only if you have gloves, dirty hands, or applied some moisturizing cream. Apart from that, there are no stability issues.

In the beginning, I asked for the possibility to export to flash drives. They have since fixed that with software. Their support is very fast.

I would rate technical support as seven out of 10. In the beginning, there were some delays.

Neutral

We replaced an old Fluke tool. It wasn’t a bad tool, but as it was outdated and new devices are considerable higher priced (and complicated?), they were not really in scope for our use case.

NetAlly gave me a comparison of three tools, depending on what would best suit me. I was impressed at first sight by the overall build quality of the device and all it accessories, including a decent charger, locator antenna, sturdy rubber casing, and nylon bag. (I can’t say this is “standard” though, but we bought a cable tester at a later time and that included such extras as well.)

The initial setup for the product was straightforward. You can grab it out of the box and figure it out.

It took five minutes to get it up and running, excluding any software upgrades, but those aren't required. I did those later on. Those upgrades took me about an hour to create an account and change all the settings to my preferences. However, it depends on what your preferences are. If you want quick and easy preferences, then it comes out-of-the-box. You just turn it on.

To implement it, you connect with your laptop or cellphone to a public access point.

We have seen ROI. I have found lost access points, and an access point can be quite expensive.

AirCheck has made our networking staff more productive. I am able to remain at my desk for a much longer time. Whereas, in the beginning I was being called away by problems every day. Back then, I had four or five tickets assigned to me every day regarding wireless. Now, it is that same amount but in a month.

The solution has reduced troubleshooting time by a lot. You don't need to go into your installation plans, etc. If the office is a couple feet away, you can simply go there. Or, if it is remote, you can have someone with the appliance go there, boot it up (taking 10 seconds), and it then will tell you which access points are there. You can then do the reverse by going into your reports. This will give you an overview of whatever you have and you don't have to search for anything anymore.

The product has a pretty good price. 

If I oversaw all the budgets, I might even pay double for it. Not that I want that, then I couldn't get it approved. I hope they don't increase the price with their future models. However, it is worth its price.

It comes out-of-the-box, even with updates. There are no requirements. You only need an account for any software updates, but those are free and easy.

We also evaluated Fluke. AirCheck is more user-friendly as a tool.

It can be seen as the perfect, all-in-one solution. I would recommend AirCheck. Based on my experience, we bought a second one for cable networks.

I use the product along with some colleagues who use it. It was very easy to train them. I just told them that I created a predefined profile, pressed AutoTest, and voila.

Now, AirCheck is mostly used if there is a problem case, which is about once a week.

I used AirMapper once, and it works, but it requires a bit more preparation prior to using it. It is not something where you would go onsite and immediately start doing. It is best to create a floor plan and have the settings a bit predefined prior to going somewhere. It requires some preparation, but that is always required, since you would want to know the area that you were going to. However, it is straightforward. It will ask you to create a simple floor plan and have a description for it. You can then select the size of the room and do a passive or active test. 

The passive test will do a rather quick overview to see all the broadcasts. Whereas, the active test will be roaming and connecting to each access point, which is more in-depth but takes a longer time.

I would give it an eight out of 10.

I use it primarily for signal distribution, identification, Cat5 and Cat6 identification, access point, decibel levels, and identifying all areas of IT equipment onsite.

I use the device in one area to identify access points. This device not only identifies access points, it tells me audibly and visibly the strengths of the decibels. So, it allows me to advise installation crews where exactly to place certain types of equipment, like access points.

I am a site administrator for about 25 sites. At one particular site, they reported that the circuit was totally down. This means that their communications with their PCs, tablets, and telephones (which were Voice over IP) were not functioning. Therefore, the entire site was down. This was a state facility. 

My job is to resolve the issue regardless of what the problem is. When I go out and troubleshoot, I'm able to take that NetAlly device and verify the equipment is working. I can verify if the LAC has signal coming into the facility along with every access point from that point forward. Thus, I can troubleshoot the entire system from point A to point Z for that matter. About two weeks ago, I had to do that and it saved a lot of time and money. 

The state was going to overnight some very expensive equipment, and I told them that I didn't need that equipment because NetAlley identified that our equipment was functioning perfectly. To make a long story short, the problem was on the provider's side, not ours.

It is a very clean device. It has resolved troubleshooting issues 100 percent, streamlining our networking operations.

All of the features are valuable. It is a wonderful tool. It allows me to troubleshoot and bypass network operating personnel. It takes the place of an IT troubleshooting department, because now I can do all the troubleshooting. I can walk into an environment and know what is going on. I don't have to call for IT assistance.

The solution’s one-button AutoTest feature is able to identify common problems. This is a major feature and plus for this particular device. You are able to hit one button and then identify different areas of the IT environment.

The information provided by the solution for resolving connectivity and performance problems is very thorough. The reporting functionality is extremely good as I can pass that information on with little input. The device will identify issues and problems, e.g., the diagnostic material. When you have Internet access, it sends the information to your email address, which is very useful.

The battery life needs improvement. For example, when you are doing an Ethernet test, that seems to drain the battery pretty quickly.

I would like it if they could somehow build/develop a type of fiber optic module with the device. That would be good. 

The tool itself has a series of features. I think that each set of features should have its own way of identifying, "Here is the problem, and this is how NetAlly fixes that problem or resolves that issue." Typically what happens because there are so many features, marketing might not be familiar with all the things that a solution can do and the problems that it will solve. So, they'll give two or three quick phrases of what it can do, and if you're not really familiar with the issues, then you won't understand what is being said.

Approximately a year.

It is a pretty rock-solid device that is well-built.

I have never used the technical support for this device.

I used several tools previously. I used toners, butt sets, Sidekick, and Fluke tools, but AirCheck is an all-in-one solution.

The first time I used it, there was return on investment. It is not only the time involved, but its ability to solve issues for the client quickly. The client is impressed with what you're telling them, because now you can show them (by means of this device) where the issue lies, which gives the customer confidence. Before I get to the customer, I have to travel. A lot of that time is now saved.

This solution has provided visibility into our network that we could only get by using many other tools. One device takes the place of many, which is time efficient and cost-efficient. 

It saves me a tremendous amount of time when I am troubleshooting. For example, if a site only has 20 devices, then you could save three or four hours. However, if a site has 100 devices spread out over a mile, then it could save you a couple of days.

The solution has made our networking staff more productive, saving me at least 20 hours a week.

The price is fairly expensive, if you are a single individual. For me, it's well worth the cost of the unit. Depending on the nature of the work that you're doing, the upfront costs can be expensive. Typically, what happens in an environment is a department might have one device as opposed to technicians having them individually.

We purchased our unit outright.

I am the only one using AirCheck right now due to the cost of the device.

I looked at several brands. I do a lot of research before I make decisions on technical tools. It just so happened that the makers of this particular device had a client that I was very familiar with, and it was a medical facility. That particular example made me look further into this particular unit. Being used in a medical facility of a significant magnitude, I was pretty comfortable with my decision in using this device at a state-run facility.

Thoroughly research the functionality and features of this particular tool. I am finding that the tool itself has so many features and so much functionality that the cost benefit could be missed. A client looking into the device might not realize its potential or ability to solve certain niche problem.

It is easy to use. A novice would have to get used to trusting the tool. More advanced technicians would find this tool extremely helpful. The learning curve depends on the level of the technician. If you are a novice, then the learning curve might be overwhelming. However, for an advanced technician, the learning curve is pretty quick and intuitive.

I would rate this solution an eight (out of 10). If they fixed the battery, it would be a 10.

Mostly, this is a WiFi analyzer. I get a report from an end user saying, "Hey, I'm in my office, and the WiFi isn't working." What's complicated about that is it could be the person's laptop or their phone. It could also be the wireless infrastructure or they tried to get to some website that just happens to be down and are confusing the fact that www.company.com is down with local WiFi behavior. 

What this tool allows me to do is walk up to their office, sit next to them, and turn on the tool, then I've programmed it to do some basic checks. If it succeeds, all lights are green, then I know that it's an issue with their laptop or phone. On the other hand, if my tool has trouble connecting to the WiFi infrastructure, I know immediately that I have problems with the wireless access points or whatever constitutes the infrastructure. Therefore, the tool helps me rapidly narrow the fault domain: Is it the client's device, the infrastructure, or the remote server?

A common problem in rented buildings is that folks with a little WiFI knowledge, either the manufacturers of the (low-end) WiFi AP or the local IT staff, will change the default channels of their APs to something off the base frequencies. This is a problem for everybody:  once you understand how WiFi works, you don't do this. However, it is a common error. AutoTest picks up this error immediately and helps inform me how I might go around troubleshooting. I might, at that point, go and visit the folks who are running these APs, and say, "Here's a better way to do it where we'll all benefit if you make these changes."

It allows us to support WiFi with our existing staff. The solution has reduced our troubleshooting time by a factor of 10. Without AirCheck, I simply couldn't tackle the problem of, "Hey, I'm in my office. I can't connect."  Sure, I could of course visit with my laptop and phone, and if they also struggle to connect, then I can suspect the infrastructure  ... although I won't be sure, because of course perhaps my laptop & phone are running buggy WiFi drivers or similar.  But what then?  Is the DHCP infrastructure failing?  The authentication infrastructure?  Are there problems with signal strength / noise ratio?  Remember that phones will give you 'bars' for signal strength (which measures how loudly your device hears the WiFi signal), but they don't measure noise (which measures how much background chatter may be drowning out your ability to hear the signal ... recall the metaphor of talking to someone across the table from you in a noisy cafeteria):  you need to know the signal / noise ratio to assess the quality of radio signal.  The AirCheck automates checking all this into its single AutoTest function, and then gives you an easy-to-parse display for checking all the various components of the infrastructure which makes WiFi work.  Frankly, prior to AirCheck, we would mostly ignore WiFi tickets, because they were so time-consuming to tackle.  For VIPs, we would thrash around on their tickets, generally producing unconvincing and unsatisfactory results, degrading our department's reputation and of course wasting lots of time (change the VIPs phone, make random adjustments to the local Wireless Access Point's settings, urge them to 'try again' ...)

A lot of features are useful.

AutoTest: You press AutoTest, then in 30 seconds you have an assessment of how well the tool is experiencing the WiFi environment. What I generally find is that the infrastructure is fine, which points me toward end user's device:  that allows me to focus on the phone or laptop. Then I can use the AutoTest tool to perform a packet capture of what the device is doing, giving me more insights:  perhaps the device has refused to roam from a distant Access Point, for example (e.g. bug in the WiFi driver). Often, I find that the end user device simply isn't transmitting anything at all. Then, of course, the user sees everything is broken, but that at least narrows the fault domain to the device and gives me a place to start trouble-shooting it.

On the other hand, when the AirCheck fails AutoTest, then it gives me a whole range of insights into what might be going on.  For example, it may show a strong signal, low signal/noise ratio, high throughput ... but failed authentication.  This points me toward the Radius authentication infrastructure.  Or failed DHCP address reservation -- this points me toward the DHCP infrastructure.

One of the things that NetAlly excels at is providing tools which are useful to both neophytes and experts -- someone with little expertise can press the AutoTest button and focus on any Yellow or Red items.  in the hands of an expert, it's even more useful:  it displays a rich, detailed view of the radio environment, in terms of channels, utilization, Access Points, clients, and the various pathologies for all of these.  

I would love to have a button that pretends that you're an iPhone 5 or an Android Samsung model X, then tell me what you think the experience is. This is a very difficult thing to do because each of these things has different radios in them and behaves differently. As it is today, I can go into the user's office, and say, "The tool says everything's green. The WiFI infrastructure is fine, but their iPhone experience sucks." Is it a problem with their particular iPhone or is it a problem with any iPhone model? If I could have this solution emulate an iPhone model so I can walk into that room, and say, "My tools pretending to be your iPhone and it works fine. It must be your particular iPhone that we have a problem with." I found mobile phones in general have weaker radios, compared, say, to laptops, so they tend to be the devices which struggle first.  I suppose though that this is wishful thinking -- from an engineering point of view, I don't see how NetAlly could pack lots of different radios into a single device.

And then, they haven't found a way to separate out actual non-802.11 interference from legit 802.11 traffic on channels for which the device cannot hear the device(s) which are communicating on the central channel.  As a result, there is a screen where you can see how busy is the channel, e.g., is it a hundred percent full?  In which case, you would expect devices to have a lousy experience. But because it is hard (perhaps impossible) to distinguish between non-802.11 interference and legit utilization in this situation, they conflate the two.  They know this -- there is a box you can check telling the AirCheck to quit trying to distinguish -- I have this checked now.  Again, asking for more precision in this area is probably wishful thinking.

I suppose another area which would be helpful would be NetAlly-certified WiFi training -- training which helps me understand how 802.11 works, so that I can more effectively wield the AirCheck.  We have been hiring Network Protocol Specialists for this, which has worked out well -- they 'look over our shoulder' remotely, as we practice using the AirCheck in our environment, and NPS staff explain to us what we are seeing.  But being able to purchase such a coaching / training session from www.netally.com directly would be helpful.

I have been using the AirCheck G2 for ~3 years

The stability is rock-solid. Normally, everything that's a computer crashes on you, but I've yet to see the AirCheck crash.  Obviously, it must be possible -- but I haven't seen it yet.

There are only three of us who use it. One of them is the network technician (me), then there are two end user help desk folks who are out in the field helping people. I'm the one who uses it most, but they will sometimes take it along and either use the wired or WiFI side when they are delivering a new machine. They use the tool to provide a final check, before they close a ticket, to say, "It looks like WiFI works here, and it looks like that jack I just gave you works here too."

I have used the technical support only occasionally, and they're good:  responsive, technical, drive to solving my problem.

I didn't have a solution before AirCheck. I had to tell people, "There's not a lot we can do for you," besides having me bring my laptop in to check.

I wanted to create a service account in Active Directory, with a non-expiring password, so that the AirCheck could automatically connect to our corporate WiFi, without my having to use my personal credentials (and remember to change the password each time I changed my AD password).  Creating a service account in our environment takes some effort, so yes, this took time. Furthermore, as I learned more about 802.11, I started creating more Profiles -- some 'check everything' while others just look for, say, non-802.11 interference or focus just on radio signal health.  So, at the end of the day, I have spent substantial set-up time on the device.  But for basic testing, just out of the box, one needs to do very little:  identify at least (1) SSID of interest and then enter credentials for it

Even though the tool is useful without training, I have done a ton of training with third-parties. We hired Mike Pennacchi from Network Protocol Specialists to do both our onsite and remote training. We could log into his device so we were seeing the same screen at the same time. Then, if any questions came up, we could ask, "What does this really mean?"  And similarly, we run VNC on the AirCheck, then share our screen in Teams/Zoom/WebEx/whatever with Mike, who then can guide us through analyzing an actual problem in our environment.  This training has made us substantially more effective in using the AirCheck

The solution saves us a factor of 10 in time. If a typical WiFI ticket would cost me an hour with AirCheck, then it would cost me 10 hours without it. At 10 hours, you start to avoid a ticket, because it is just too expensive, in terms of my time.

For a few thousand dollars, you save yourself a ton of time. It's a great deal.

I did not evaluate other solutions. I have had such good experiences with Fluke Network, NETSCOUT, and now NetAlly that I didn't bother.

It combines so many functions in one place that it's hard to find competing tools. Without this, I would have to use a whole range of other tools. I suppose it's doable, but it would take a long time.

It has provided tremendous education about how WiFI works. I understand Ethernet fairly well ... but WiFi is remarkably complicated:  I am a novice. But, with the AirCheck, you get this graphical interface which packs a lot of education and teaching into it, as well as diagnostic capabilities.  The UI takes the theory that I've studied and helps me understand, "Oh, that's what they mean." It's sort of like an educational tool in addition to something that helps you solve problems.

The multi-technology functionality is certainly convenient to have on the wired side. However, I have a lot of tools that to do wired analysis, so I rarely use it. Then again, the functionality is convenient and saves you the time of carrying two tools. For some people that will be a powerful use case. Whereas, myself, I prefer to just carry a lot of weight (i.e. multiple tools).

I would rate this solution as an eight (out of 10).