Aruba Wireless Reviews

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. 

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 use Aruba Wireless to give wireless network coverage to users without any requirement of connecting PCs or laptops to the network.

The most valuable feature of Aruba Wireless is multi-tenancy. You can have a multi-tenancy setup with the same setup, and the same access points can be used for multi-tenancy.

The solution could be improved on the security side.

I have been using Aruba Wireless for a few years.

I rate Aruba Wireless ten out of ten for stability.

Aruba Wireless can scale up to 22,000 access points. We have more than 250 customers for Aruba Wireless.

The solution's technical support is excellent.

The solution's initial setup is very straightforward.

You are good to go once you set up the controller and the policies. You need to connect the access points, and it will automatically provision to the groups, and all the access points will start working on it.

Controller one-time configurations take 45 to 50 minutes or one hour maximum. Then, putting access points to the groups takes another five minutes.

Customers have to pay for perpetual licenses with Aruba controller licenses, depending on the features they are looking for. The features they need to pay for are wireless access points and connectivity. Customers need to pay for the Layer 7 firewall on the wireless. Customers need to have an RFP if they want to have a wireless IPS.

Aruba Wireless can be deployed on both cloud and on-premises.

Aruba Wireless is a good solution for customers who are looking for a multi-tenancy setup and want to segregate their guest traffic from their employees' traffic. Aruba Wireless is a more secure setup.

Overall, I rate Aruba Wireless 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.

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.

Neutral

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.

We deployed Aruba Wireless in our corporate head office, where we have a lot of business users. We use the product both as corporate WiFi and guest platform.

What I like best about Aruba Wireless is that it doesn't need a controller.

The product also has a GUI that's easy to navigate.

I also like that Aruba Wireless shows statistics that give you a lot of insight.

Aruba Wireless is a good product, but it still has some issues, especially at the beginning, where there's inconsistent syncing between the cloud and the APs. Sometimes, there's also a little lag when accessing the query.

I started using Aruba Wireless two years ago.

Aruba Wireless is a stable product.

I find Aruba Wireless scalable.

We've contacted Aruba Wireless support many times, but there weren't proper resolutions. Cases remain open for a few days, and then they'll automatically resolve. Then, sometimes, those cases will reappear.

Aruba support would be a four on a scale of one to five.

My company has a particular office on Cisco APs, then replaced completely with Aruba Wireless, one of the most extensive Aruba deployments in the company.

My company is still planning to switch from Cisco Wireless to Aruba Wireless in other offices. However, concerning Cisco Wireless, the product is pretty stable and solid. It has been running for years, but eighty percent of the environment is on Cisco Wireless, which Aruba Wireless will eventually replace.

Deploying Aruba Wireless is pretty straightforward.

It took several days to complete the deployment because the office was enormous and the number of APs deployed was quite significant.

It took one to two months to pre-stage, install, and make Aruba Wireless stable.

My company pre-staged the equipment and the APs, and then initially, the deployment team had a few issues during the Aruba Wireless installation.

A third-party team deployed the product for my company.

As Aruba Wireless doesn't require a controller, my company saved some money, so there's ROI from the product.

I don't know the exact costs associated with Aruba Wireless, but I have a rough idea, and it's not too cheap, though it's less costly than Cisco Wireless. Pricing for Aruba Wireless is moderate. It's a three out of five.

I have experience with both Cisco Wireless and Aruba Wireless.

My company uses Aruba Wireless IAP-245.

It's a centrally-managed cloud product.

Daily, the number of Aruba Wireless users varies. If there's a meeting, then many high-profile users will come. At least two or three times a week, there will be many product users, for example, IT engineers, designers, finance people, and people from other teams.

My advice for anyone looking into implementing Aruba Wireless is that it depends on the use cases. You get all the features available in Cisco Wireless at a lesser price, but in terms of support and stability, Cisco is ahead of Aruba. However, Aruba Wireless is a good option when considering the price and if you're a mid-sized organization.

Aruba Wireless gets a seven out of ten from me.

We use Aruba Wireless to direct all enterprise traffic, including emails, video calls, and browsing. Each office typically has between 50 to 150 users. My biggest office has 150 users, and the smallest office has 25. Depending on the strength, we use the APs.

All of our users access the internet through a wireless connection, and we do a lot of Zoom calls through Aruba Wireless. We send emails and have internal tools like Zoho, NetSuite, and cloud applications like G Suite or Office 365. Everything goes through the Aruba Wireless.

I think Aruba Wireless' Wi-Fi 6 capability is something that really makes a difference. We used to have bottlenecks. Each user has one laptop on one mobile device, so that equals 40 devices connecting to one AP. The Wi-Fi 5 series couldn't handle the traffic during peak hours, and when I say "peak hours," I mean Monday at 11 a.m. We used to see a lot of packet drops, but we haven't seen that problem at all since we moved to Wi-Fi 6.

Aruba needs to improve two things. One is security. These days, security is about more than just the endpoints — it's also about the devices connecting to the endpoints. They need to improve wireless intrusion detection and prevention. If Aruba can do something like that, I think it would be a game-changer. The second thing is the range. Before Aruba, we had Ruckus, which covers a larger area than Aruba. 

We have been using Aruba Wireless for about two and a half years. 

Aruba Wireless is stable.

Aruba Wireless is highly scalable because it also offers a cloud version of the controllers where you can add as many APs as you want. You can add close to 10,000 APs, so it's really scalable for us.

I rate Aruba technical support six out of 10. We have a hard time connecting with them every time. There is a long queue whenever we reach out to support, and we have to wait for them to answer calls. Once we get in touch with them, we have to coordinate with different teams, so our engineers struggle to understand who are the correct team members. I think support is another area where Aruba needs to improve.

Neutral

We previously used Extreme Aerohive then we started using Cisco Meraki for some of our locations. We had Meraki at one or two of our offices, but we decided it was too costly, so we shifted to Aruba.

We've also used Ruckus Wireless, which is an 802.1X solution. Ruckus lacked a security feature that is available in Aruba. We didn't want to compromise on security with Ruckus even though the range is really good. It can cover larger areas and a greater number of devices. However, we are an organization that places a high premium on security, so that is why we switched to Aruba.

I think Meraki and Aruba can go hand in hand, but Meraki is expensive, and the OpEx is costly. You need to renew the licenses every year, so it's a lot of overhead. Meraki is a fantastic solution apart from that. 

Setting up Aruba was straightforward. We did the initial deployment on our own. After we got the Aruba Central licenses, Aruba's team provisioned the first five APs and prepared documentation on how to do provisioning. My team was quickly able to do that. We completed everything in a day and had it running without any challenges.

We had a lot of downtime with Aerohive. The AP used to reset every three days or four days, and we would lose connectivity. Zoom calls were interrupted, and emails failed to send. Even my company's founder faced many challenges with the wireless. But after shifting to Aruba, we haven't seen any downtime. We've gone two years without downtime, so we are doing well now.

The price of Aruba Wireless is fairly reasonable. It was within our budget.

I rate Aruba Wireless eight out of 10. If you're an enterprise customer like us working with applications daily, you should check out Aruba. However, if you're an educational institution, a large stadium, an auditorium, or something like that, I suggest Ruckus.