Aruba Switches Reviews

We use this product for network access, including setting up VLANs.

The most valuable feature is that it's very easy to configure. Aruba is comparable to Cisco in this regard, and we are comfortable with them. Huawei Ethernet Switches are also easy to configure but we are less comfortable with them.

We can easily connect access points to these switches, and there are no major issues.

The delivery time for this product is slow and is something that needs to be improved. This is the biggest challenge in the market right now.

We have been using Aruba Switches for between 10 and 12 years.

This is a stable product.

Aruba Ethernet Switches are scalable. We have approximately 200 users.

The technical support for Aruba is good.

I also work with different models of Cisco Ethernet Switches, such as the Catalyst 2960-X series, and the Catalyst 2960-X-24TS-L.

Another product that I have experience with is Huawei. We are most comfortable with Aruba and Cisco switches, configured for use as VLANs.

The cost of Aruba switches is higher than that of Huawei and many other brands.

Aruba switches are easy to set up and we have had no issues with them.

Aruba switches cost between $500 and $600 more than similar products by Huawei, as well as many other brands. 

My advice for anybody who is interested in using Aruba switches is that they are easy to configure. In a normal network environment, we have almost zero complaints about them.

Many of their switches support power over ethernet (POE).

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for WiFi and LAN. It's for connectivity.

We find the connection while using Aruba to be very good.

Aruba has many good products that can be used with this solution. It has a good controller and antivirus. 

The solution is stable.

Technical support is helpful and responsive.

It is pretty easy to implement the product.

Scaling the solution is possible.

The endpoint capabilities could be improved. 

There are no missing features at this time. 

It was a bit expensive. 

I've used the solution for two years. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. I'd rate the solution's stability ten out of ten.

The scalability has been okay. I'd rate the scalability seven out of ten overall. We do plan to increase usage. 

Technical support is good.

Positive

The initial setup was simple. It is not overly difficult at all. 

I implement with external support.

I have not personally looked into ROI. 

The price could be a bit better. We'd like it to be lower. 

I'm not sure which version of the solution I'm using. I use the solution for my clients. 

There could be more specialists available in Chile. There aren't as many in the country.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. 

We've got switches on-premises, and they're managed by central management.

We primarily use the solution for normal office use. It is for normal networking, including wireless. 

I like that I can cloud-manage my network. This is useful due to the fact that I have multiple offices. 

It's a stable product.

We can scale as needed. 

The initial setup is relatively complex.

There is nothing to improve on in an enterprise environment, however, if you're wanting various  functionalities, you need to know how to do these things. It's not straightforward per se. Some training would be ideal for getting the most out of the solution. I had to learn a lot on the job by myself. 

I've been using the solution for three years. 

The solution is very solid, and very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The product is scalable. We can expand usage if we need to. 

We have 300 people on average using the solution.

In terms of expanding usage, as a solution, at this point in time, I don't need to. With its wifi capabilities, it can handle a little bit more load, so that's fine.

Since I have the solution through a partner, I use the partner services. It's up to them to get me in touch with support if needed.

We had very low-end build switches or old Cisco switches previously, however, they were relatively minor since we had moved to a new office and the company was relatively young at that point in time. Afterward, we made an investment in Aruba.

The initial setup is not necessarily straightforward. It is complex. 

A service partner did the implementation. It took about a month and a half.

We had a service provider assist us with the setup. 

We pay an annual license for the solution. 

It is an enterprise product, so it's not the cheapest, definitely. I'd rate the affordability between a three and four out of five.

I'd recommend the solution if a company wants an alternative to a Cisco environment. It's a very reliable solution.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

They do have partnerships, and users can get training and insights on how to manage it from a partnership perspective. 

We got Aruba Switches when we wanted something very redundant. I have two core switches, and both of them are configured for fault tolerance. If one fails, the other one will be able to sustain the load of the network.

Initially, we had a 1G switch. Now that we have upgraded to Aruba, the infrastructure is on 10G. The throughput has definitely increased, and many people were able to realize the speed of the internet and data sharing immediately.

I like the number of available throughputs and its ability to have different speeds of ethernet cards or fiber-optic SFPs. It's a core switch, and you can configure it as per your requirements.

All the configuration details are well documented on the HP website or Aruba website, and one can easily refer to those and find all the relevant commands from the documentation itself. It's also easy to maintain this solution. It's also cheaper than competing products. 

I don't think there is much to improve. I have seen that Aruba releases the patches on time, and it keeps upgrading the firmware. I have configured this device on an active basis. I don't think I have any bad reviews about the device's overall performance.

In the next release, I would like Aruba to incorporate wireless controllers and build them into the chassis.If we can integrate a wireless module, we can have a segment dedicated to wireless infrastructure.

I have been using Aruba Switches for nearly three or four years.

Aruba Switches stable. Until now, I haven't had a chance to restart the device. It's pretty stable and working well.

Aruba Switches are scalable. The device that I procured is a six-day device. In these six days, you can probably populate any number of ethernet ports or SFP plus ports, or any kind of interface.

It was okay as we had the help of an experienced external team. It took us almost two days to implement this solution. We have two technicians maintaining this solution.

I had an experienced team from outside who got the contract for configuring it. It was a team effort, a team from outside and my own IT department team. Both had to copy the old configuration running on an Extreme Network Switch and configure it on Aruba's high availability platform. As we did it over a weekend, the workers weren't affected.

Aruba Switches are cost-effective.

Aruba is cost-effective. I have a direct account manager who used to visit us to understand the complete requirement. On the other hand, Cisco costs way too much for the same kind of switching device. 

I think Aruba did a better job compared to many other vendors. In the end, I just wanted a solution that could serve the university's requirements. We have tested many different products like Alcatel Extreme and others.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Aruba Switches a nine. 

We use it mostly for data center switches such as the CX Series 6405 and 6300 as a distribution or TurboRock. We also use it for access switches like the 2000 and 6000 series.

Aruba's SameNet platform allows for a seamless transition from the data center to access switches, unlike Cisco, which has different operating systems for each. Additionally, Aruba offers zero licensing fees for Layer 3 features, and their solution is known for its stability.

There is room for improvement in the customer service and support team. 

I have worked with Aruba Switches since 2013. But once I convert to the sales sections, I'm not using it anymore.

I have had a great experience with it. I'm currently working with a partner platinum partner with Aruba.

I would rate the stability a seven out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. 

I've had experience with Aruba technical support. In some cases, we have opened robust support tickets for critical customers, and the first layer of engineers took a long time to solve the issue. They didn't know how to proceed, so we had to escalate, which also took time.

Neutral

I like Aruba switches. There's no specific reason for the switch, but I prefer the configurations on Aruba switches over HPE.

It's very easy, not complex at all. Moreover, it offers seamless integration. It has good third-party integration. It's very good in this case. It is easy to customize. For example, with the CX series, we can use Python scripting and API.

For the deployment process, I usually place the order and communicate with the vendor about the delivery time. Moreover, maintenance is not difficult. 

It's not cheap or very expensive, but I think the price has increased recently.

Mainly, customers need to consider whether they need switches for data centers or access networks. Also, they should consider the name ID. Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We primarily use the solution for connectivity purposes.  

If you want to connect your network, you definitely need a switch for end-to-end connectivity. The good thing about Aruba switches nowadays is that these particular switches also can be managed through the cloud. You can manage it through the cloud, you can manage it to NMS, and you can manage it to the individual switch also. You can manage it as a cluster. 

We like that it is very easy to manage the product through the cloud. 

If you compare Aruba to other switches like Juniper, Aruba has constantly maintained a Gartner leadership position over the last ten years.

Aruba is a very, very powerful switch in terms of the modular operating system.

It has sensor-based analytical tools. 

They have this multi-tier operative system to manage the data center environment or campus Wi-Fi, et cetera. Whatever the Aruba access point, the Wi-Fi device, and the Aruba switches, are both on a common platform. They have dynamic segmentation. The connectivity and the management are very easy as it is centralized. 

There is a whole product range to choose from. They have a huge portfolio, from 1GB all the way up to 100GB. It offers a wide variety of variations. 

The user interface is very good. 

There are a lot of great features, like dynamic segmentation and a modular operating system, that users can take advantage of. 

Aruba switches are a new generation of switches that allow each access point to carry different user data and have the capability of handling different policies. They can prioritize traffic based on policy or an IP address range, for example. If I have my own device and my work device on the same network, the permissions can be set differently so that my work device has certain access and my home device does not. Or I can request permission for my home device. It can pick up and adjust for authorized and non-authorized users. 

Their hardware has been completely redesigned and has stringer processors and all kinds of different improvements. 

They offer good DRAM and can support a multi-gig PoE.  

There is multi-tier architecture within the switch itself. 

Aruba is still losing out to Cisco, which continues to dominate the space. Aruba needs to continue to improve its product range in order to compete with Cisco's dominance. 

I've used the solution for five to six years. 

The stability of Aruba is very high. It's very reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. I can rate the product nine or ten out of ten in terms of stability. 

The solution is scalable in two ways. You can increase your network with the device, and you can also upgrade your application operating system to increase the usage of new-generation technology. Aruba is great at offering scalability in both areas. The devices also last a long time and have a five or six-year lifetime warranty, and within this period, you're eligible for the latest software that continuously expands the Aruba experience over time. 

We'll likely continue to invest in Aruba and expand usage when the time comes.

Technical support is very good. There is a default lifetime for R&D and it will give you only the troubleshooting and support for the lifetime of the product. That troubleshooting support will identify either if your switch has a hardware fault or if it has any other issues. If it has been diagnosed that it is a software-related issue, they will give you the latest format to upgrade to. However, if you go for the full level of technical support, so you have to purchase the Aruba service agreement. This is called Foundation Care. 

If you don't go with any support, you are only eligible for the hardware replacement. No other support will be provided.

I previously worked with Huawei. That was three or five years ago. I've also worked with HPE as well as the entire Aruba product range. I'm aware of Cisco and Juniper's capabilities as well. 

Aruba is considered a premium product and therefore the pricing is quite high. That said, it is competitive against, for example, Cisco. Based on its vast service offering, the pricing is actually quite fair. 

We've compared Aruba to many switches, including Cisco and Juniper. However, Cisco is more comparable and Juniper has a very limited product profile. Cisco and Aruba are very similar.

We are not a reseller. We are the national distributor of Aruba in India.

I'd rate the product in general eight out of ten. If a company is looking for a future-proof solution, Aruba really is a good choice. If they are looking to build a very sophisticated network, it's great.

The 5400 series is a modular chassis-based switch and it allows us to buy parts for different needs, such as 10 gigs, or a one gig ethernet over copper for workstations. It's really our core switch and we actually have a couple of different models.

That's in our headquarters, and then we have some other sites that use Aruba. I think they're the 2600 series or 2700 series, the smaller, modular ones, and stackable ones. Not the chassis-based.

When I first started two years ago, we didn't have these centralized modular switches and we had a bunch of stackable switches and there were many loops in the network.

We had different brands too. HP, Cisco, Linksys, Aruba, we had NETGEAR. There was not a common type of interface. We had network issues almost weekly.

We were able to get it organized and centrally managed, with a spanning tree to detect loops and more.

All of the networking products that we use are Aruba, so we use Aruba Central to manage them. This gives us a single place to look at land switches, wireless switches, and switches in other offices. It makes management a little easier.

It's the same type CLI commands to manage these.

There are many options with the modular switch and you buy cards for it. If you want 48 ports of one gig, you can buy a card for that, but more options would be better.

Right now, there's only eight, an eight-port, 10 gig module and sometimes we need a little denser than eight ports. It would be good if I could get a 24-port, 10 gig module.

We have been using Aruba Switches for two years.

The Aruba Switches are very stable. We keep it up to date.

We update the firmware and software annually, as needed. We haven't had any issues. They are relatively new.

Aruba Switches scale well, because of the modularity of it and to be able to buy different modules and interchange modules. We have a pair of them and they are linked together with 40 gig connections, so all of the cards are interchangeable between the two switches and some of that is just by design.

These are the core switches in our organization and everybody in the office uses them. This includes our remote offices. Everybody passes data through them, albeit this is somewhat less at the moment because of the COVID quarantine.

I have not had to contact technical support.

We had a mix of modular switches at this company. We had some HP, Cisco, NETGEAR, and Linksys. We looked at the switches that can provide us the port density that we needed, in one or two chassis-type units, and was also affordable.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The price point was a big consideration for us and it is reasonable enough that we're able to standardize on Aruba for the networking pieces in our organization. This also includes Wi-Fi and access points.

Generally speaking, the price is good.

Overall, this is a good, solid tool. It doesn't do anything fancy but it does what we need it to do. We don't do any routing through it. We have other routers to do all of that work. Again, the modular flexibility was a big attraction for us.

I've used Switches forever, so I knew what to expect. There was no installation really needed. We knew how to set up VLAN and set up the interfaces. We're happy with it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The primary use case of this solution is for access points. You can look at any site and take the static ID, or the real ID. It's similar to VPN.

With the access point, you take the real ID and install it in the controller, you then access the site with this access point.

We are interior designers and we have many showroom sites, we use the Aruba controller. We have twenty-five Aruba Switches with fifteen to twenty access points.

We are using the 205 and 215 series. The bandwidth is 1gHz.

The most valuable features are the controller and the access points. Aruba access points have a good transfer rate.

It is powerful for the internet, the GUI is good, the configuration is very good, and it is very easy to use. In contrast, the Cisco configuration does not have a GUI.

Aruba has many features that are very good.

Managing Aruba Switches is not as good as Cisco Controller.

The switch needs to be bigger than it is now. Increasing the number of gigabytes in the switch would improve the switch interacting. You can download the DBS or the datasheet to see the switch interacting.

The switch interacting is the transfer of data from the port to the switch.

They should provide training courses for certification, and have it available on the internet.

They need to increase marketing for their products, especially for the solutions that are stable and very hard working. They should plan an event to market this solution.

Aruba could consider opening a training center for engineering, or IT students.

A suggestion would be to see the unit have a configuration switch like SMTP to send an email to the users if the performance is delayed or down. That would be very useful.

In the command line, we can configure in SMTP to send an email alert to the user and the support worldwide, so that they can know about the problem before it happens.

This solution is very stable.

We have two ways to do the configuration. There are the standard way and Care. If you configure Care, we have a controller and things are fine.

We can deploy the configuration by the controller appliance. The access point can be made into a controller.

The solution is scalable.

With many ports, we blended for the first time and we did not face any problems.

You have to have a plan to expand or increase to a table or other devices.

The technical support is okay, I would rate them a four out of five.

We had some issues with resetting the password, it requires a special technique, there is some reconfiguration involved. 

The guide on the internet is very helpful and easy. You can do a specific search on the internet describing the error or the problem and you will get a very simple, easy, and quick answer.

We have a client who has a nine-story apartment building and in our design, and we researched the internet for different access points. 

We presented the client with Cisco and TriCom, but our customer was not satisfied. We then introduced Aruba to the client and he was satisfied with the performance and our design.

The initial setup is straightforward. It only took fifteen minutes to deploy.

It depends on the number of VLAN, or if there are any rules in the switch. This is all according to the configuration and the settings.

We have three engineers helping with the deployment.

We did not use a vendor team to implement this solution. We did it ourselves.

This solution is not cheap and they don't have a plan to certify it as Cisco does. Cisco is a famous vendor with options for certification.

Aruba does not have a certified license in ARC and CNV. Their certification is for the marketing of the device in Cisco.

The license is annual. If you purchase a switch, you get a one-year free subscription.

Aruba has better pricing than Cisco.

We used and configured Tricom Switches. HP merged with Tricom and the company after that Aruba merged with HP.

The switch became very different, it is good and has a different configuration.

We have had a few problems in our company, we have had some conflicts in the configuration.

Aruba was the first company to introduce access points, as far back as ten years ago.

It's a good product, but it's not equal to Cisco. It's better. I compare it with Cisco and Aruba is a better switch. With Cisco,  you buy the name, history, and global branding.

If an engineer or any company ask me about network solutions, I recommend Aruba.

I have some concerns because not many engineers write on the command line in Aruba. Not many engineers know the solution, unlike Cisco, which is well known in the education industry and on the market.

If you can configure the Aruba Switch for the very first time without any issues, then you are a very good engineer, you know the solution.

Aruba Access points, controller, and performance are the best!

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.