Aruba Networks Wireless WAN Reviews

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.

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.

The main use case for this solution is in the education sector and public services.

Aruba Central seems to be a good way to go in cloud management. However, compared to Cisco Meraki, it's still very early days.

The product should improve Aruba Central.

I have been working on Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for five years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is very scalable. 

The initial setup is not difficult, but it has its limitations, with guest authentication. The deployment takes a couple of hours. It is very simple. However, it depends on how you do it. If you use the virtual controller, it is pretty easy. But it has got its limitations. If you do it by Aruba Central, it does take an awful amount of time.

With Aruba, you get what you pay for compared to the other vendors. Although Cisco is very expensive and their management is way better than Aruba Central. So, you have to consider what you are after. But price-wise, they are really good.

I can’t see Aruba helping me, but it does its job.

I would recommend this tool because it's stable, easy to deploy, and easy to manage. I would rate it nine out of ten. 

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN benefited my company because it increased mobility significantly. After all, users don't need to search for LAN cables in the conference rooms.

Adoption was also relatively fast in terms of user onboarding.

What I like most about Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is seamless integration from an endpoint perspective, for example, the core domain joined machine.

I also find the onboarding process for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN fantastic.

Another valuable feature of the product is authentication, as Aruba Networks Wireless WAN supports certificate-based authentication. It has remarkable security features, particularly in its machine and user authentication levels.

Device integration has room for improvement in Aruba Networks Wireless WAN. However, there has been a development where the access point can be deployed through cloud-based controllers. It can connect via the internet and doesn't require MPS connectivity, but that can be improved further.

I've been using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for around six years.

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN has good stability, so that's a nine out of ten for me.

The scalability of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is good. The only constraint is that the hardware comes with a fixed number of access point support, which becomes problematic if you have an on-premise deployment. Still, if you plan for the capacity in advance, then it's okay.

That could be a constraint from a large deployment when the access point only lasts two or three years. I don't want to put a high number or high capacity on the hardware on the first day, so scalability-wise, I rate Aruba Networks Wireless WAN as five out of ten.

The technical support for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is good. That area is an eight out of ten.

Positive

I'd rate the initial setup for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN as six out of ten.

One of my Aruba Networks Wireless WAN deployments took two and a half months. Deploying the product entailed site-specific surveying, identifying access point location, how my controller will be set up on-premises, the IP schema to be utilized for the access point, IP allocation, and which access IDs I'm going to broadcast.

My team and I deployed Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

I enjoyed almost fifty percent of the cost reduction from Aruba Networks Wireless WAN because it helped reduce the LAN infrastructure, such as switching hardware, LAN cables, etc. I no longer needed to deploy the switches and LAN cables for every point, which resulted in an almost fifty percent reduction in costs compared to the past cost computations.

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is pretty cost-efficient than Cisco ISE when my company did a PO, but for a single-party tender, its pricing was on the higher side, so it depends. I rate the pricing for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN as six out of ten.

I have experience with Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

My company has a 7200 series Aruba controller, almost five hundred access points, and Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager.

My company's existing database is deployed on-premises, including the controller, access point, and the Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager.

A team of five people, including myself, deployed Aruba Networks Wireless WAN. It was a process of putting and mounting access points. I also had two members in charge of configuring the switches while I configured the controller and the Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager. Once access points become visible on the controller, my team will proceed to the template configuration deployment for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

The deployment team consisted of five L1s, three L2s, and me, so a total of nine. My unit deployed five hundred access points to six thousand end users. My team of eight takes care of administration.

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN requires maintenance, for example, upgrading the controller or the Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager and then posture agent deployment for six thousand users. Any agent upgrade means deployment for the users as well.

I'd tell anyone looking into implementing Aruba Networks Wireless WAN that it's a good solution with many advantages, such as mobility, flexibility, and scalability, so I suggest using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN to enhance user experience.

My rating for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is seven out of ten.

My role is similar to an integrator of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

My company is an Aruba Networks customer.

We have vertical markets and there's almost no real use case since it's all industry. Aruba is not really designed to be used in private households. We do have a few private customers. However, they have a very high demand on security. If they have a high demand on the performance, we definitely reach with Aruba however, the majority of our customers are industry related.

For one customer, what happened was they used to be on a different network on NPLS. That was very expensive and software-defined wide-area networking is a huge cost saving and much easier to be managed.

The solution can save money and can be easily implemented, depending on the environment.

It’s very stable and reliable.

There aren’t really any large improvements necessary. There are smaller improvements we request, however, they are communicated directly. We are not an end-customer. We use our direct channels.

The initial setup is complex.

I’ve been using Aruba since 2005.

The solution is very, very stable. It’s not buggy. It’s not glitchy. It doesn’t crash or freeze. It’s very reliable. The performance is great.

It is scalable in its limits. It's scalable. The main purpose is for bigger organizations - for public, schools, universities, or bigger industries. You could scale it down also to household usage or to high-demand private usage. You can do a lot with it.

We have implemented it twice on a university campus and there we have maybe 2,000 to 3000 users. We have industry users. I would say it could be anything between 3,000 and 10,000 users.

If it is a midsize company, they don't have planning for scaling expenditure. With the bigger companies, they plan to expand, however, then you always bump into Cisco. It’s the biggest competitor and the most popular one.

Customer service from HP is pretty good.

Positive

We didn’t really use a different solution. There wasn't much in the market in 2005. When we started, we started with wireless into the early and late nineties. By that time, you had very small island solutions. There were three coming market and a few other products that were controller-based, and almost nothing was controller based.

If you look at the competitors, they're almost all the same, they're just the different flavors and whatever you are used to it and how comfortable you feel with the product. We do WAN products with Aruba. We do WAN products with Fortinet as well. We do software-defined networking, the same as Aruba offers; however, there's not much difference between them.

We’ve also used Ruckus. We have a few customers in the carrier business, and Ruckus is primarily used in the carrier business. It's placed in the same league as Aruba.

In terms of the initial setup, it’s complex. It's not straightforward. The only straightforward item is the very instant access points; however, as soon as we’re working in a complex environment, then it takes a lot of knowledge. It takes good knowledge and could take a few days to implement.

I’d rate it a two out of five on a scale from one to five, where one is extremely difficult, and five is extremely easy.

We are a very small company. We normally use the IT department of our customers, and they are trained. They keep maintaining their own system. For smaller customers, we do the maintenance, and we also do the monitoring. We have partner companies. We swap our 24/7 services. If you offer 24-hour service, it takes about six to eight technicians to take care of the 24/7 services.

We don't monitor if the company or the customer has any ROI. It's quite difficult to answer what the ROI is, and what the return of investment is. Most customers don't even look at ROI on wireless.

The license is a one-time subscription. It's a one-time purchase, however, the update is a subscription.

It is unfortunately very expensive. The subscription, the software maintenance subscription, and even the one-off pricing are very high.

The license costs reflect the features. The more features you require, the more you have to pay.

We use different versions of Aruba.

We are Aruba partners. As a partner, of course, I will try to encourage other people to look at Aruba and implement Aruba. Some of the features are not unique however they are very highly developed, and the solution is highly sophisticated. It's the best of its breed. As a partner with different vendors, however, you have to look at the requirements, and you have to make a decision on the requirements.

I’d rate the solution a ten out of ten.