Aruba Wireless Reviews

We are a system integrator that specializes in providing complete network infrastructure for wireless solutions. This includes Aruba Wireless, Huawei Enterprise Solutions, and Extreme Networks. 

The customers are seeking cloud implementation. Currently, all our deployments are done through the cloud, which is a strong selling point for positioning Aruba Instant access points. As a result, companies with multiple branches often prefer deploying Aruba Instant access points via the cloud.

With Aruba Instant, we can use the access points independently, allowing us to position them in many places. This is a great feature as it helps us save costs on access controllers and licenses.

The Return Material Authorization procedure is time-consuming and needs improvement.

I have been using Aruba Wireless for six years.

The solution is stable and I would rate it an eight out of ten.

The solution is scalable, especially with cloud implementation, which has not presented any challenges for me thus far. I would rate the scalability at eight out of ten.

The technical support is excellent, but the Return Material Authorization procedure is time-consuming.

I would rate the initial setup an eight out of ten. While the implementation may not be instant, it is relatively simple.

The deployment time depends upon the organization. So, even if it's a big organization with multiple branches, their network, availability, and other factors can differ. However, if it's a single-site implementation, it will not take much time. The only thing that we need to ensure is that the prerequisites are ready, which may take a few days. That's it. Two to three people, including a project manager and one or two engineers, are required for deployment.

We implement the solution for our customers.

I would rate the cost as an eight out of ten, with ten being the most expensive. Aruba Instant is more affordable compared to other solutions, and we also appreciate its features.

Some of the products from Aruba Networks are covered by a Limited Lifetime warranty. To ensure customer support, we maintain extra stock and include this in our integrator fees, which are separate from the product cost.

I give Aruba Wireless an eight out of ten.

We currently have six clients using the solution. My clients include small, medium, and enterprise-level organizations. 

Aruba Instant is highly recommended for organizations with multiple branches and office locations. Based on client feedback, it is easy to implement and configure, making it accessible anytime and anywhere. The solution is expensive for a single-entity organization.

The hospital's internal network is used for communications between staff, including emails and direct point-to-point access. One of the most challenging features of the network is its ability to facilitate live video communications between staff in different parts of the world that can view operations live. We use Aruba Wireless to help facilitate the three requirements of always on-time, on-live, and on-direct. In certain cases, I have to communicate with another surgery room, whose call may be back to back or parallel in that same venue.

The most useful feature of this product is the configuration that allows us to have several areas covered with one unit. However, when we have to make maintenance to that unit, the other units can go back and support the one that we have in maintenance. This back-to-back service or this come-alone service is the best thing for us. If I have to remove the unit that we have in surgery, I know that another unit or two can take its place.

The most important thing that needs to be improved is the internal web feature. This allows all our units to use this as an internal GPS to locate somebody or some elements. However, the problem is that they need another unit different from the 535. This point is not good because we put that on this unit, and changed it from 515 to 535. For this unit, just to enable the possibility of locating equipment, we have very expensive equipment in the hospital and we put a GPS stack, so the system can track. We put them in all the time, but we need another unit to make it functional. Aruba can improve this by including the GPS stack in each unit. This would reduce our maintenance work.

Aruba Wireless needs to provide more visibility into the differences between their models so we can better understand them. The changes between the 515 and the 535 are just scalable in one step; We don't feel that one unit is going to be better in so many ways. Instead, it is just one change. The scale from one model to another is very short and because of this we are going to try to save money, we're going to pick up the lowest model because the newer model, doesn't have many additional features.

The bad things about the product are the price, the information about the product, and the time it takes to deliver the product. 

I have used the solution within 12 months.

The heat map is already running and it is very stable. There are no issues with the corners of the building, except for the sign, which I think is covered well. I give the stability of the solution a nine out of ten.

I give the scalability of the solution a nine out of ten.

As we had to present our submission or change a model to another, the technical support was very bad. The work I have to do to research the difference between the models and compare them is all manual. When we asked the factory, what the differences between the models are and what is going to be the advantage from one another. The training can't support me. I have to do all the research myself. We asked the representative, and we had conversations with the factory, and nobody tells us it is a small change, instead they say it was a software issue. When we have to present the submission, the presentation has to be very complete with all the technical information, with all the features and we have to say this is a processor that works in this area, this works at this speed. The technical support could not help with any of our required information.

Negative

The initial setup is very easy because we change all the models. We have around 1,000 units and we changed all of them in one week.

The implementation is completed in-house by our team for our customers.

Aruba Wireless is expensive. The balance between quality and price is there, but the cost is still high.

I give the cost of the solution a seven out of ten.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

Eight IT people are required for the maintenance of the solution.

The first thing I'm going to do is check all the features to make sure they meet our requirements. The step from one model to another is very important. There are little changes, and we have to review a lot to know the difference between the models, and what the major advantage between them are. In PeerSpot, we've seen the difficult differentiation, but the compliment of the functionality, how does it work, what is the benefit that I get with each model in the field? What is the difference between the software, and the versions? Is it throughput out? It's a factor that we need to consider. It doesn't address the major concerns, and I check every single specialized page and I don't see anybody saying, "Okay, five megabytes is a huge improvement in throughput out."

At our company, we use the solution on a daily basis for our customers in the healthcare sector. 

Aruba Wireless has its own protocols in the controller that are managed by the firewall of our company.  

The vendor should include multiple additional protocols for basic applications and advanced tech that are absent in Aruba Wireless. Overall, the product needs further development by introducing new tech features. 

I have been using Aruba Wireless for five years. 

The solution offers satisfying stability. I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

Aruba Wireless has adapted to the scaling needs of the customers of our organization. As our company works with clients in the healthcare sector, we need to manage diverse management systems and supplies. At our company, we segregate all the systems based on Aruba Wireless's performance in integration with the firewall of the systems. I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. 

In the beginning phase after purchase, the vendor provided us with support, but later on, we didn't require much support for Aruba Wireless. For any issues that arise for the customers of our organization, we try to resolve them in-house and minimize the downtime. The Aruba Wireless vendor tries to rectify any issues or bugs that arise in our organization. I would rate the customer support an eight out of ten. 

Positive

During the product's initial setup process in our organization, we faced numerous obstacles at the configuration level because, in some cases, complete configuration was not possible only using the GUI. Some configurations need to be implemented using the command line.

Nowadays, for other solutions, all configurations can be implemented using GUI, and it makes the setup more user-friendly and manageable, removing the need to memorize commands. I would rate the setup of Aruba Wireless as four out of ten. 

The deployment of Aruba Wireless using GUI should ideally take one or two days, but in our organization, due to the configuration obstacles, it took five days. The deployment process took an entire team because the solution needed to be deployed separately for more than 500 access points to join the network loop. 

In our organization, Aruba Wireless is used for on-prem environments because the majority of our customers belong to the healthcare segment and thus have their own private medical data and records that cannot be shared in the cloud. Even for disaster recovery, our customers avail local resources, and any private data is not shared. 

I would rate the pricing a five out of ten. 

There are many options in the market, and in our company, we evaluated them based on budget. In the past, when our organization was starting out and there were quite a limited number of employees and clients, we didn't need any solutions from Aruba, but when the company expanded, a reliable and budget-friendly solution like Aruba Wireless was required rather than small solutions with limited users.

Our company had the option to choose a similar solution from Cisco, but Aruba Wireless was finalized due to its cost-effectiveness, user-friendly interface, and easy integrations. 

I would rate the performance and reliability features of the solution an eight out of ten. At our company, we have achieved certain cost savings by using Aruba Wireless because the competitor tools from vendors like Cisco are more expensive. At our company, from the core to the ERS network we are using backbone switches from Cisco. 

I would definitely recommend Aruba Wireless to others. I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

The tool's most valuable feature is Aruba Central, which offers centralized management. You can manage its switches, APs, and data access. It is easy to manage the entire switches and APs. The solution is the best in terms of security and manageability. 

Our customers ask for a security portfolio, which the tool doesn't have. 

I have been working with the product for three years. 

I rate Aruba Wireless' stability a nine out of ten. It comes with a limited lifetime warranty. 

The solution is scalable. My territory has at least 70-80 customers. 

The tool's deployment is easy. Its deployment depends on the network type and scope of work. Simple scenarios can be completed in a week. Complex networks take two to three months to complete. 

Our customers who use Aruba Wireless are very much happy. We have a pre-sales team that helps us with solution design, POCs, installation, and implementation. Our customers appreciate this kind of support. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

The primary use is for facilitating client communication.

Its graphical user interface is designed to be user-friendly, making work more efficient.

There has been a recent decrease in the level of support. When issues arise, we often require additional support, and this aspect should be enhanced.

I have been using it for more than three years.

If there is a controller in place, I would rate its stability abilities at around eight out of ten, as it tends to be quite stable. However, if it's a controller-less setup, using clusters of access points only, I would rate it lower, around six to seven out of ten. The stability tends to vary, especially when there's no central controller, which can make the configuration and management more challenging.

There are around two to three thousand users who rely on wireless connections for their daily work. It demonstrates excellent scalability, and I would rate it around nine out of ten.

I have noticed a decline in performance over the past two years, and I've been working with it for almost four years. The initial two years were quite satisfactory, but the performance has deteriorated since then. I would rate it six out of ten.

Neutral

I have experience using Cisco, HP Comware, Commvault, Palo Alto, and Fortinet.

The initial setup process for these access points tends to be time-consuming. While other products can start up in as little as ten to fifteen minutes, these access points take longer to get going. They are relatively stable once configured. We've noticed that they can remain stable for a year or even longer initially.

When it comes to installing access points, especially the IAPs, I've encountered some issues. These access points don't always remain stable, particularly during reboots or configuration changes. Even when I've configured ten access points, there's no guarantee that they will consistently come back online and perform as expected after a reboot or network interruption. This is a concern I'd like to highlight, and I believe the team should work on improving the stability of these access points.

It offers a lower cost compared to other products, which is a significant advantage. I would rate it eight out of ten.

I would recommend it due to its affordability, which stands out compared to other products. In terms of overall performance and management, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

Our company uses the solution for wireless service. We currently use the latest version but have been using the solution since version six. 

The solution is hybrid because it is deployed on-premises but managed in the cloud. 

Our company currently has 300 users and we plan to grow by 100 more.  

The solution is well designed so you can easily integrate it in an infrastructure network. 

The APs can be implemented as a campus AP, remote APS, or instant APs. As soon as you buy the solution, you can instantly use APs. You don't need anything external because you can use the virtual controller inside the APs.

It is easy to create clusters using the controller that comes inside the AOS of the APs. 

You can add an external controller at any time because the solution is resilient and very upgradeable. 

The security components are very, very, very well designed and strong. 

The Aruba Central portal allows you to centralize all management for your infrastructure and security. It is not a monolithic solution. 

The solution's documentation could be better organized in an information portal. There are many assets on the technical side so there is a lot of documentation. Sometimes it takes work to find what you need because of the vastness of information. You need to know the products to find things. The solution could offer some kind of portal for documentation to better organize things. 

The cloud CHS and remote APs could be improved faster. The solution has already been integrated with the cloud and there are plans for other product integrations but they could occur faster. 

I have been using the solution for five years. 

The solution is very stable and reliable. I rate stability a nine out of ten. 

The solution is very scalable. I rate scalability a ten out of ten. 

The technical support is very useful and good. Every time we need help and open a case, they solve our issues. Technical support is very knowledgeable about the solution.

Most of our issues are regarding upgrading versions or firmware. We sometimes need assistance finding new versions. The process for solving our issues is very straightforward. 

Technical support is rated a ten out of ten. 

Positive

We previously used Cisco. 

The setup is very easy. All the APs come from the manufacturer so you can start right away with configurations. The features make configurations and upgrades very easy. 

I rate setup a ten out of ten. 

Three in-house engineers implemented the solution with help from an integrator. Deployment took one week to ten days. 

There is no ongoing maintenance because the solution is very, very reliable. 

The pricing is fair and similar to other products. It might be a bit cheaper than Cisco. 

I rate pricing an eight out of ten. 

Cisco is a good product but is old and very monolithic. They are working to improve but their mindset is different.

The solution is the future because it integrates with the cloud and addresses new needs. We prefer the design and strategy of the solution over Cisco. 

When you are looking for a wireless option, it is important to pay attention to key points that include resilience, expandability, security, and integration.

The solution is one of the best available and is very valuable for centralizing management. It is very resilient and expandable so you can grow it to the needs of your company. Even if you buy the small solution, the features of the big solution are there. This is a great benefit over Cisco. 

For example, you buy a switch from Cisco that includes 48 ports but only 16 of the ports have licenses. If you need more ports, you need to buy more licenses. With the solution, you don't need to buy additional licenses. What you buy is what you get with all the included features like AOS and security. This is very important because you can start small and grow using the same device with no extra licensing costs. 

It is important to find a solution that already implements security. The solution has all these features included so that is why we moved away from Cisco. 

The solution also integrates very well with nearly every other vendor. 

The solution is a very good product and I rate it a ten out of ten. 

We are using Aruba Wireless for land ports for customs. The inspection guides use the solution while walking around with tablets.

The most valuable feature of Aruba Wireless is the controller. It is easy to use.

We have an issue with the integration of Aruba Wireless with our LDAP servers.

I have been using Aruba Wireless for approximately six years.

I rate the stability of Aruba Wireless a ten out of ten.

Aruba Wireless is a scalable solution.

We have approximately 200 users using this solution.

I rate the scalability of Aruba Wireless a nine out of ten.

The support is good. However, they sometimes take some time to respond.

I rate the support from Aruba Wireless a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I have previously used Cisco and Huawei solutions. The major difference with Huawei is it provides one single platform for the management of all of your features.

The initial setup of Aruba Wireless is of a medium level of difficulty. However, it is not simple to configure. It took approximately one month to deploy.

We installed the devices everywhere on-premise and had the field engineer from Aruba Wireless first power up all the access points. We then tried to integrate it with the LDAP, but they found some problems. They had to change it with another system for it to work.

I rate the initial setup of Aruba Wireless a five out of ten.

Two of our engineers had help from the two Aruba Wireless engineers for the implementation of Aruba Wireless.

Aruba Wireless is the best for the price. Aruba Wireless is the least expensive, the second is Huawei, and the most expensive is Cisco. 

For every device, you need to get a license which is charged separately to add to the control for Aruba Wireless.

I rate the price of Aruba Wireless a nine out of ten.

There is no maintenance required for the solution.

I recommend others who want to use Aruba Wireless should first determine the integration of which server they want. There can be some issues with devices that they connect to the switches.

I rate Aruba Wireless a nine out of ten.

Our team handles the Aruba controller. We have four senior and two junior engineers.

AirWave is a valuable feature.

We're using the Aruba Sensor, but sometimes the sensor isn't talking to AirWave or the AP. If something happens, we need to receive an email directly from the sensor, but the controller doesn't know. If there's something like the high channel utilization from the sensor we send to the controller, the controller can change the channel because they're all in the same environment.

Also, the controller can not do active/standby mode. It only works in active/active. I haven't seen any option for active/standby because we want to put one in the backup center. However, with the active/active mode, the traffic must go to the primary and the backup center.

I would like it if Aruba had a mobile app so I wouldn't need to log in on my laptop. They should also simplify the solution, so there aren't so many layers. It would be nice if the solution double-checked your configurations. For example, it could warn you if a configuration change in one layer conflicts with your current settings. 

I have been using Aruba Wireless since 2018.

Aruba is stable. 

Aruba is pretty scalable. 

I've called Aruba support directly for several tickets. It is quite good most of the time.

I work with Cisco and Aruba. We are more familiar with Cisco because we've been using it for more than 15 years. It is stable and available in active/standby. We can put one in the backup dial center and one in the primary dial center.

Cisco's controller is also stable, and they're using DNA to monitor. It sends us an alert if something happens and tells us what caused the problem. It can identify the root cause and solution. 

Deploying Aruba is somewhat complex. There are many layers. It's easy to make mistakes because the same setting will appear in different layers. Various parts of large buildings can have different settings.

We don't like the subscription model. We need to adjust our budget every time we renew the license.

I rate Aruba Wireless eight out of 10. I would recommend it to a small or medium-sized company. It depends on your budget because Aruba is slightly cheaper than Cisco. 

Our company has a conference center and we use the solution for all our conferencing needs. 

The solution has been helpful in improving the way our company functions. 

The solution is easy to configure on-premise. We always got complaints about support for our prior solution so handling configuration in-house is easier. 

Configuration could be made easier with more bandwidth than they offer at the moment. 

I have been using the solution for three years. 

The solution's stability is good. 

The solution is very flexible and scalable. We have about 10,000 users and are at about 50% of maximum capacity. 

We used to contract with outside, local vendors for technical support, but found them picky about their ability to respond. We now handle support on-premise. 

Neutral

Our company uses a few solutions for our conferencing needs including this solution and Ruckus Wireless. We added Aruba because we expanded and needed two solutions. 

The initial setup was easy compared to other solutions. We have two staff members who maintain the solution. 

We hired a third party for setup and it took about four months. I rate the setup experience an eight out of ten.

We have received a good return on investment. I would rate our ROI a six out of ten. 

Licensing for the solution is based on number of users. There was also an initial setup fee, but I don't have those details. 

Our company looked at a few other options, but chose Aruba based on recommendations from other large businesses that compare in size/scope to ours.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

I have implemented Aruba for a few small customers. 

Price is one of the most important factors. We have a solution that's reasonably cost-effective when balanced against all the areas we need to cover. 

Aruba doesn't match some competitors in wireless signal strength. It isn't in the same class as Cisco Meraki, so I would use Cisco Meraki in situations where I need to cover a large open space. Meraki has more powerful signals going out.

Coverage and penetration have been the biggest disappointments. You should be able to connect to a visible Wifi access point. Often, people 20 meters away from an Aruba external access point need to move closer to get into the coverage radius. 

I have used Aruba for the past couple of years.

Aruba Wireless is stable. 

Aruba is scalable. I'm not doing dealing with the management or licensing, so I'm not aware of the costs compared to some other products.

I would be using it through a third party, so I wouldn't go to Aruba for support directly.

I rate Cisco Meraki higher than most others I've used in the same price range. Ruckus is stable, but it can be difficult to implement an external Wifi connection without some kind of problem with the cabling or something else.

Aruba is in roughly the same class as  Ubiquiti, which carries no licenses that I'm aware of. Ruckus is an excellent product to use for local government clients when I'm not planning to go back there. Plus, it has the advantage of being an HP-branded product. 

All wireless solutions are relatively pricey in my experience. The cost of a Wifi access point is only part of it. The implementation cost is bigger. I'm paying just over €200 for an additional internal access point. An external access point costs us €676 plus VAT, so that's about €840 for an external AP.

I rate Aruba Wireless about six out of 10. When planning for the cost of a project, you consider the price of different products, including operational and implementation costs, and make a judgment call. It's different if you have a portal. If you need to invest in a portal, it's difficult to transition away from that portal's brand. For example, if I have Ruckus access points in certain buildings and a Ruckus gateway handling all of those, I'm probably going to stick with Ruckus for any additional Wifi points. I'm not going to deviate from that.