Aruba Networks Wireless WAN Reviews

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is very stable and reliable. In the solution, the first part is obviously its security part because security is what is concerning in any Wi-Fi situation. In the aforementioned scenario, Aruba Wi-Fi solutions are very secure. They have some Triple DES or whatever security standards are there. So, corporate people are comfortable using Aruba Wi-Fi, especially in any enterprise or SMB segment.

The price for the license could be a bit improved since it is the only area with an issue.

I have experience using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for years. I used to supply Aruba even before HP acquired Aruba. So, I used to supply it from eight to ten years ago.

Aruba is a very stable system.

Most of the enterprise customers, big names, buy it without giving any second thoughts.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

I'm not aware of its scalability, but I have seen that a big complex, maybe a 14 to 15-story or 20-story building, can be covered up. Many hotels are covering it up. Also, they have around 10,000 users. Aruba Wi-Fi is very good.

Though not all are my customers, I am aware that many of the big hotels, like Marriot, work using Aruba. Few of the five-star hotels in and around Bombay.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Though I am not aware of the customer support, I am assuming it will be as per HP standards, which is quite good.

The initial setup of the solution is simple, and the setup is as per industry standards. Hence, everybody has to follow the setup phase.

Regarding the time needed for deployment, the survey takes time, first of all. Then, you have to set up the Wi-Fi. Actually, if you talk about the installation part, installation takes time because different rooms and false ceilings are there, and so the installation of Wi-Fi takes time. Once the installation is done, the setting up of the Wi-Fi takes maybe a couple of hours. In short, the installation takes more time since it's more on the infrastructure side.

The solution is deployed on-premises.

Aruba has an annual subscription, and they have three years and five years costs. People generally take the three years' cost. It has to be taken because, basically, licenses are needed more from the security perspective, nothing else.

It is expensive, but it is also very competitive. So I wouldn't say it is very high on the price. It can compete with many, many local players as well as equivalent players.

I rate the pricing a seven or eight on a scale of one to ten, where ten is the highest and one is the cheapest.

Aruba has a very good reputation. Aruba products are very stable, and they give regular updates. Whatever Aruba has mentioned in their literature, regarding their bandwidth, etcetera, is correct. One can rely on what they write in their literature.

I would definitely recommend the solution to those planning to use it. In the Wi-Fi space, Aruba is an extremely good product.

For Aruba's software and hardware, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

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.

Our clients are mostly K-12 education, community colleges, and local governments.

Aruba Wireless WAN is reliable, cost-effective, and easy to troubleshoot. Aruba is a leading solution provider on Gartner's Magic Quadrant in the wireless realm.

In a meshed environment, the handoff between access points is sometimes not smooth when users are mobile. For example, a connection is occasionally interrupted when a user takes their laptop from the gym to the cafeteria. 

Sometimes there's not a seamless handoff. Services are interrupted,  so you need to wait until you're found again and reconnect to the wireless. I call that a meshed network. This issue isn't unique to Aruba. It's a problem with Meraki or any of the other wireless vendors.

It could be several things. You might have too many users in a given location could create bandwidth issues, so it disconnects somebody quicker to allow someone else. There could also be physical barriers like steel-reinforced walls between different areas, so your signal is interrupted as you travel around a corner.

I have used Aruba for more than 12 years. 

Once Aruba Wireless is set up and configured correctly, you just walk away. That's what we like about it. We have some devices that are six or seven years old, which is rare in the wireless world because everything changes so quickly, but in some banks and municipalities, it just keeps working. 

Aruba has a product lineup that scales depending on the density and bandwidth you need. They have different models that scale for different capacities. You can get a low-end, less-expensive model for small businesses, or you can scale to high density, like exam rooms, computer labs, plants, and manufacturing floors where there are lots of machines that require a strong Wi-Fi signal. Aruba has a deep product lineup. 

We switched to Aruba when Hewlett-Packard Enterprise bought Aruba. We previously used Cisco, Meraki, and Hewlett-Packard. Aruba had a broader offering than some of the other solutions.  For instance, if you used Cisco, there was a missing middle area in terms of capacity where you had to jump from a low-end to a higher end with nothing in between. Meraki started on the low end, and they didn't have much on the high end. We found Aruba fit the entire range. 

Setting up Aruba stuff is straightforward. I can't say it installs itself, but it's effortless and only requires a couple of people. 

Aruba costs around $100 annually per access point, but that varies. It could be $125 or $85 depending on the buying plan. For instance, education will get a bigger discount than commercial.

With some vendors, the access point is not manageable anymore if you don't maintain the license. It's more or less a doorstop because you can't configure and control it. You can't troubleshoot it unless you maintain the license. That's not true with Aruba.

I rate Aruba Networks Wireless LAN 10 out of 10 for the reasons I stated earlier. It's reliable, scalable, and low-maintenance. Planning is crucial. We insist on a walkthrough site survey with wireless survey equipment to first check the building where we will be implementing the wireless solution.

I've deployed in multiple healthcare environments and significant infrastructure in higher education. We have a variety of corporate environments, and they range anywhere from two APs to 2000 APs.

The solution has full integration with their NAC, and their ClearPass service. Specifically, with the wireless LAN, they have a layer 7 firewall at every AP. They have extensive firewall capabilities in the controller.

They have a capability called multi-zone, where you can terminate one AP to multiple controllers, and that's a unique thing for Aruba.

They offer per-user tunneling to a variety of endpoints.

The product needs some simplification of the configuration for their security tools or for SD-WAN, specifically. We call it SD-WAN. They need automation wizards and things like that, including macros.

There’s a bit of complexity in the initial setup.

I’ve used the solution for eight or nine years.

The solution’s stability is rock solid. It’s reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. The performance is good.

The solution is quite scalable. I know of an installation that has 55,000 APs. It’s extremely stable, and they had no problem going to that size.

Their tech support is excellent. Their tech is up there with any of the other major manufacturers.

We actually represent a variety. We have several in our portfolio of products, and Aruba and Cisco are the top two. Cisco and Meraki being the top of the Cisco brands.

Compared to those, Aruba has a more customer-friendly focus for its business model, not only on the support function but also on the acquisition and operation side. Where I mentioned the complexity before, Meraki has simplified its installation. That's something that if Aruba could accomplish what Meraki did with their simple installation plan, they would be top-notch in every area.

The initial setup is complex and not that intuitive.

We have a higher-end installation where there are a couple of thousand users, endpoints, and so on. With several thousand endpoints, a couple of thousand users, there are only two people on staff supporting it. It’s low-maintenance.

As a service model that's fully supported, that can be $30 a month with no capital outlay at all.

Extra costs depend on the model and the deployment. There are standard maintenance requirements for license maintenance and so on, for supportability. However, there are other models. For the smaller installations, anything of 128 APs or less, typically there are no additional costs. The licensing is incorporated as part of the base and a limited lifetime warranty covers the repair and replacement of the APs. We typically don't sell maintenance on those. They are just spare units, and the customers love them.

We are partners and resellers.

The solution is a mix of on-premises and cloud deployments.

I’d rate the solution a ten 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.

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.

Our company uses the solution to create networks for customers. We have more than 100 users across project management and service delivery. 

The solution is easy to use.

The solution provides good compatibility with Huawei access controllers. 

The customization options could be improved.

The pricing could be a bit lower. 

There are some minor bugs or errors when using the Huawei access controller. 

The solution should offer a laboratory view for emulations and simulations like Cisco or Huawei.

I have been using the solution for three years.

The solution is stable so stability is rated an eight out of ten. 

The solution is very scalable compared to Cisco. Scalability is rated a seven out of ten. 

We rely on documentation so do not need technical support. 

We previously used Huawei AP but had some issues and budgetary concerns. 

The setup is not difficult. Installation time depends on the number of devices but generally takes two or three hours. 

We implement the solution for customers. They have the POI to provide ongoing support to employees. 

I recommend the solution and generally rate it a ten out of ten. 

We mainly use Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for our corporate wireless access for corporate mobiles, corporate laptops, and guest wireless access. We also use the product because of its tax asset.

The most valuable feature of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is centralized management. It has features like other solutions, but it's easier to manage. Aruba Networks Wireless WAN also has a tax asset benefit which is good.

What needs to improve in Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is the support because it takes quite a long time for the support team to resolve issues. Whenever a new version or update is released, my company sees many bugs and issues, so that is another area for improvement as well.

I have one year experience with Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is a stable solution, but whenever there's an update, many bugs and open issues arise, but as a product, it's stable.

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN has some scalability issues with the on-premises model. My team may have to explore its cloud model.

The technical support for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN needs improvement because it takes longer for the team to resolve bugs and issues.

It's been a long time since Aruba Networks Wireless WAN was set up in my company, so I can't remember if there was any complication involved, but the deployment model was straightforward, and there wasn't that much complication. Even a new addition to Aruba Networks Wireless WAN was straightforward. Deployment took no longer than two hours.

I'm not sure about the licensing cost or pricing for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN has been in the company when I joined, so I'm unaware of other solutions evaluated it.

More than ten thousand people, particularly enterprise users, use Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

Two to three people handle the deployment and maintenance of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

What I'd say to others looking into implementing Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is that it has scalability issues and its support needs improvement. It has many open bugs that could stop you from moving forward.

I'm rating Aruba Networks Wireless WAN seven out of ten.

My company has a partnership with Aruba, but it's not a reseller.