Aruba Access Points Reviews

In Oman, I successfully implemented Aruba Access Points for a hospital with nearly two hundred access points. There were around three hundred users, and the deployment, featuring two controllers of the 7200 series, went smoothly. The captive portal solution worked well, and even after I left, it continued to run efficiently. In Egypt, I replicated the same setup for the largest group of hospitals, implementing seventy-five access points in the first phase. The remaining hundred and twenty-five are scheduled for implementation this year. 

Despite positive experiences with the technology, there were challenges with the captive portal solution, ClearPass, due to a significant increase in its license cost, potentially from HP, Aruba, or the local vendor. To address this, we explored an alternative solution called Sancfor, a Chinese product, which proved to be effective and cost nearly one-third of ClearPass. The only downside was the local distribution and customer service in Egypt, particularly with Aruba Egypt, which was non-responsive and lacked satisfactory customer service.

The main strengths of Aruba Access Points lie in their connectivity, range, and straightforward configuration. Setting up the access point is a quick process, taking only seconds. Standard features such as identity access management, captive deploy tools, and VLE are available. Additionally, Aruba offers medical-grade access points like the 400 series, which is well-suited for healthcare or hospital environments.

One noteworthy feature is the impressive handshaking capability, particularly when transitioning between access points. This ensures a seamless experience without disconnection, especially when a well-designed heat map is in place. Aruba Access Points are robust and require minimal maintenance, making them reliable for long-term use.

The support from Aruba, as well as the overall HPE unit, has been lacking. The regional head and hepatic services are nonresponsive, leading to a decline in market share. While Aruba is recognized for its top-notch quality, especially in switching technology, the services and support in the African region need significant improvement. There is a suggestion to focus on enhancing services, support, and presale activities in this region to address the challenges faced by customers, particularly in healthcare. Continued emphasis on research and development, along with addressing regional issues, is recommended for sustained success.

I have been using Aruba Access Points for more than two years at this company and more than four years while I was in Oman.

It is very stable and has no issues related to its functionality.

The scalability of the Aruba Access Points is impressive. It allows for easy expansion, with the capability to add up to two hundred and fifty-four access points using the seven thousand two hundred model. To further extend the capacity, a license is required, allowing for straightforward scalability without complications.

We have multiple hospitals under my jurisdiction, and some of them are currently using Fortinet. Fortinet has proven to be competitive with high service levels, aggressive market strategies, and cost-effectiveness, and in comparison to Aruba Fortinet excels. Additionally, Fortinet's integrated firewall serves as a controller, eliminating the need for a separate controller, which enhances investment and management efficiency. While both Aruba and Fortinet deliver strong performance and functionality, Fortinet stands out in terms of cost savings and simplified management.

The installation and deployment of Aruba Access Points are straightforward The process, from mounting to configuring the access point to the controller, is simple and takes only a few minutes. However, a drawback is highlighted regarding ClearPass, particularly for the captive portal feature called GuestFire. The complexity arises due to ClearPass being a separate solution with additional licensing costs, especially in Egypt, where prices have increased. This has made the solution comparatively expensive, making companies consider alternative options in the market for captive portal functionalities in Wi-Fi, such as VMware.

It can be accomplished by a single person.

The implementation of Aruba Access Points in the previous company showed a positive impact with the return on investment (ROI) achieved within three to five years. The calculation of ROI considered improvements in communication, internet access, and Wi-Fi services, contributing to the overall success of the implementation. While it may be challenging to precisely calculate ROI for certain aspects like service level improvements, the tangible benefits, and cost savings were realized within the calculated timeframe.

The cost of Aruba Access Points has been on the rise, which may be due to market dynamics or regional factors, such as in Egypt. Additionally, the availability of Aruba products is a concern, with a lead time of approximately twelve months. This prolonged waiting period and a lack of responsiveness from HP, the parent company of Aruba, have led to the cancellation of some orders. The supply chain for Aruba appears to face challenges, impacting product delivery timelines.

The key advice is for Aruba to avoid the adamant behavior of acting as the king of market. It is extremely easy to lose relevance due to a lack of market awareness and adaptation. Aruba should continually update itself, stay attuned to customer feedback, and remain vigilant about market trends. The company needs to be proactive in crafting solutions that align with customer preferences and needs. The representatives and resellers in each country should not merely be resources but active contributors, engaging with customers and staying smart in addressing market demands. In essence, the message to Aruba is to stay dynamic, responsive, and customer-focused to avoid becoming obsolete in a rapidly evolving market.

Its client match feature is crucial as it helps ensure that devices are optimally connected to the network. It enhances the quality of service by prioritizing media traffic and reducing potential disruptions. The roaming features are also essential and primarily managed through the MCC technology. It focuses on maintaining the quality of service during media traffic, ensuring a seamless user experience. When connecting multiple Access Points, users can independently select their feature controller technology. This simplifies management and deployment, as you only need to configure one AP, and it can then replicate settings to others. Another valuable aspect is integration with other technologies, as it can be incredibly useful when replacing or upgrading systems.

We encountered some challenges when deploying different models of access points, particularly as our network expanded. Initially, using smaller models like the 200 or 300 series worked well, but as the network grew, issues related to signal strength and coverage became noticeable. The newer models, such as those supporting Wi-Fi 5 and Wi-Fi 6, had stronger standards but suffered from slower signal penetration, which resulted in dead spots. Another concern is that when clients wish to migrate to higher-end models, it necessitates running additional cables to address these coverage gaps, mainly due to the higher models having less penetration. I would appreciate for the higher-end models to offer the same signal strength as the older, smaller models, even while maintaining the latest standards, as this would enhance the overall network performance and coverage. There was an issue with equipment delivery where a different model was received, resulting in signal coverage gaps due to differences in signal strength compared to what was initially tested. Having stronger signal strength in the higher-end models, similar to the lower-end models, would be a valuable improvement.

We have been working with it for three years now.

It provides exceptional stability and reliability. I would rate it ten out of ten.

The scalability is highly satisfactory and it is a straightforward process to expand the network. If you're using a centralized mobility conductor architecture and you have ten thousand clients, and you want to add another ten thousand, it's as simple as adding another mobility conductor. You can set up this new conductor as a multiple instance, ensuring active redundancy, and then you add additional controllers and access points. The key benefit here is that you only need to configure one mobility conductor initially, so adding new ones is relatively painless. You can migrate configurations and add more control planes to accommodate the growing network seamlessly.

They provide good customer support.

Positive

I have experience working with both Cisco and Aruba, and I noticed some key differences, particularly in the context of client deployments and the flexibility of the two systems. With Cisco, the deployments are typically smaller, involving just a few access points. One noticeable difference is that Cisco requires additional licensing for features like security and DTC encryptions, and to fully utilize the capabilities of a Cisco switch, you often have to purchase separate performance licenses, which could be somewhat complex, especially when dealing with high-performance switches. Aruba's approach is more straightforward and flexible and the licensing is more user-friendly. It's a one-time purchase, and there's no need for additional licensing for various features.

The initial setup is straightforward.

When it comes to configuring virtual instances, the difference in time efficiency between using a mobility controller and a mobility connector is significant. With a mobility controller, the process takes longer because you need to configure the controller first, and then provision the access points individually. This step can be time-consuming, as you have to configure the controller and then proceed with the provisioning of each access point. With a feature controller, you save a significant amount of time, as you only need to configure the first access point as the feature controller, and the subsequent access points are provisioned automatically. This streamlined approach means that setting up the feature controller typically takes less than an hour, making it a much quicker option for deployment. For monitoring the access points and switches, there are typically two phases: configuration and ongoing monitoring. Self-configuration can be quite efficient while monitoring ongoing operations can be managed effectively. In situations where you're deploying a substantial number of access points, having multiple team members working in parallel, perhaps as many as ten people for more than five hundred access points, can expedite the process further.

The pricing has been quite favorable. As partners, we often engage in negotiations with Aruba, which enables us to secure discounts, making the pricing even more attractive. Overall, I would say the pricing is reasonable and meets our expectations.

It offers remarkable client-handling capacity. Specifically, the Aruba 505 can accommodate up to 266 clients, which is a significant advantage. The speed and performance of these access points are highly commendable, making them well-suited for various applications, including educational institutions such as schools. Additionally, Aruba has introduced gateway technologies, which are handy for multiple branches. By deploying gateways in these branches, you can use technologies like SD-WAN to efficiently manage and route traffic over the Internet while being centrally managed from the headquarters. This enhances scalability and flexibility, ensuring that the network can easily adapt to expanding requirements.

We use the solution for official purposes.

Aruba is a controller-based solution. We have some multi-story buildings. We only need to maintain one controller, and we can manage it from a single IP address.

The solution’s updates and firmware are complicated to upgrade.

I have been using Aruba Access Points as a customer for five to seven years.

The product is stable.

The solution’s scalability is good. 70-80 users are using this solution in our organization.

The technical support is good, and there is no issue.

Positive

We have used Cisco and D-link. We chose Aruba since they provide a lifetime warranty with zero maintenance and can be managed easily.

The initial setup is easy, and one person is enough to deploy within five hours. It's plug-and-play only. We can buy it on the access phone and install it on our network. It will automatically take an IP address, then we can use it.

The product is costly and comes with a lifetime license. There is neither renewal nor subscription. It is a one-time solution.

The solution is easy to maintain.

We don't have any issues with the network. I recommend this solution if someone asks me what to choose.

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

We use Aruba Access Points mainly for wireless connection.

Aruba Access Points is an economical solution.

The solution's technical support and the quality of the new releases need to be improved because we have seen a lot of bugs in the solution's new releases.

I have been working with Aruba Access Points for more than five years.

Aruba Access Points is a stable solution for the short term. However, it is not stable in the long term. For example, it won't be stable in an environment where the Wi-Fi needs to be up 24/7 and 365 days.

If I turn on my access points today, I will not face any issues for the next six or seven months. However, after eight to nine months, or after one year, I'll start facing a lot of issues directly connected to what we call maximum tolerable uptime.

The solution's scalability is good. We have one of the largest Wi-Fi infrastructures in terms of the number of access points, and we have never faced any limitations or issues related to capacity or scalability.

I rate Aruba Access Points an eight or nine out of ten for scalability.

The solution's technical support team can fix minor issues. However, when it comes to resolving complicated or complex issues, they either lack expertise, are not routing it through the proper channel, or are not engaging the right people. We are yet to receive solutions for the complex and unique problems we highlighted to them around two years ago.

Neutral

Cisco has an edge over Aruba in terms of stability and support.

We are getting the expected return on investment with Aruba Access Points.

Although not cheap, Aruba Access Points is a reasonably priced solution.

Users should insist on checking the SLAs in an environment where they need to run the solution 24/7 and 365 days without any break, planned maintenance window, or outage window. They should insist on defining strict SLAs right at the beginning of the project for support and resolution. We call it response time and resolution in terms of SLA.

The solution is scalable, easy to deploy, and easy to maintain.

Overall, I rate Aruba Access Points an eight out of ten.

The solution is used for medium to high-enterprise businesses and the government sector.

I find AI Insights valuable.

The product should improve its integration and the grouping of the features and functions.

I've worked with Aruba access points for about five years.

The product's stability is great.

I rate the scalability eight to nine out of ten. We have more than 10,000 users using Aruba access points. We plan to increase the number.

We still have one case running about Aruba 203, the microbranch. The issue is about the uplink. We couldn't do a file transfer. Last time, we needed to migrate through the OSM. We cannot change the uplink to traffic. Their last answer was that they would upgrade the platform, Aruba Central, sometime by the end of this year.

The initial setup is easy. It's faster with the RS10 than the RS8. But it can still be improved. It took about ten to 25 minutes to deploy from onboarding to the stable installation.

When deploying the solution, we configure and test all the devices before deploying them at the customer's side, where the solution should then be plug and play. Then, there is further testing, such as the users and the bandwidth.

We need 11 staff members to deploy the product. They are the delivery team, and their main jobs are to do the configuration, the assessment, and the deployment.

From a return-on-investment point of view, the solution is worth it.

We have to pay for a license for Aruba Central, the platform for Aruba access points. It is an annual license. The price compared to other brands is slightly higher.

In our company, we are using a number of products from Aruba, such as access points, Gateways, switches and so on.

I rate Aruba access points eight to nine out of ten. The solution has great features, and we are exploring IPS and IDS. Some companies have already begun asking about those features.

We use them for internal or external wireless LAN, and indoor or outdoor access points. We have on-premises controllers, switches, access switches, installation switches, and core switches. The network is big.

We have many projects, and this is a good product.

The integration with their other products, like ClearPass, and the security features they have. These are good features.

The ICT dynamic is important. Every other vendor is innovating with new features and ideas. They need to compete and implement these things to stay ahead.

So, I would suggest Aruba continue to gain the competitive edge. 

I have been using this product for 10+ years.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. It is a stable product.

It is a scalable product. It is easy to scale. I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. It is okay. 

We have enterprise-level clients. 

The customer service and support are good.

Positive

I also have experience with ExtremeWireless (Extreme) and Ruckus. I have parallel experience with Cisco, HP, Aruba, and Huawei.

The initial setup is easy. Our customers mostly opt for on-premises deployment. Customers aren't interested in cloud-based solutions because they need that on-premises control.

The deployment depends on the client's site. For around ten access points and wireless controllers, it takes less than two days. 

The pricing is competitive. It is neither cheap nor expensive. It is moderate. It offers better price than Cisco and other competitors. 

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

The tool's most valuable feature is better connectivity. 

Aruba Access Points should improve its automation. 

I have been using the product for three years. 

I rate Aruba Access Points' stability a nine out of ten. 

The tool's scalability is good. 

Aruba Access Points' support is good. 

Aruba Access Points' deployment is straightforward and completed in one to two days. 

The tool's pricing is not expensive. It is perfect as per the features. 

I rate the tool a ten out of ten. You should go for it. You can get better manageability, support, and stability. 

We use Aruba Access Points in our office environment. 

The solution gives good visibility into access points. 

I am not able to integrate Aruba Access Points in Azure AD. It is also quite expensive. 

I have been using the product for two years. 

Some users have reported low latency but I am not sure if it is because of the solution. I would rate the product a seven out of ten. 

We have 700-800 users for the product. 

I would rate the product an eight out of ten.