Aruba Wireless Reviews

We're upgrading from version 9 to version 10, but I'm satisfied with the new proposed upgrade.

The solution is deployed on-premises.

Aruba Wireless is reliable, and the signal strength is pretty good. The controller has good features.

I want to have a virtual controller, so I would like to see integration with other vendors of the LAN network. We need security features to recognize the traffic source and to apply Zero Trust security.

I have used this solution for nine years.

The stability is excellent. I would rate it as nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability as eight out of ten.

We have multiple canvases and sites, so it's easy to scale up and across the same controller within the same enterprise network. When we add new access points, there is a limitation in the virtual appliance, but it's not that bad.

Technical support in Aruba is very good. It's better than other solutions' support.

I would rate technical support as eight out of ten.

Deployment was done through a third party.

The price is reasonable. I would rate the cost as 8 out of 10.

I would rate the solution as nine out of ten. 

We made an evaluation between Aruba and other vendors, and we've seen the Gartner Magic Quadrant report for Aruba. Aruba has employed a lot of experience and vision in their product, which is why it's better than others.

My advice is to have a professional survey with the best used tools for the survey and an excellent design. I think that's the most important. The sizing and dimensioning have to be done well from the beginning.

Aruba Wireless does not have too many distinguishing feature sets. However, tunneling is more flexible in this solution than other solutions, such as Ruckus.

Aruba Wireless could improve the dashboard. It is not straightforward or intuitive to use and could be more user-friendly. For IT employees the dashboards are fine but when it comes to the end-user it is difficult. The Mobility Controller dashboard is not meant for non-IT employees.

I have been using Aruba Wireless for approximately 12 years.

Aruba Wireless is a stable solution. The controllers have been working well for over four years, but I have replaced a few APs.

I rate the stability of Aruba Wireless an eight out of ten.

Aruba Wireless is scalable. However, you need to purchase certain models of the solution to have high limits. For example, the 7210 model has hard-coded limits that I cannot increase.

We primarily support hotels and I have completed 500 rooms. The system can handle approximately 500 to 1000 users.

When we need to escalate to a priority one case it is difficult.

I rate the support of Aruba Wireless a two out of five.

Neutral

I have used Ruckus previously and when I compare this solution to Ruckus, they are both very similar. I implement both of them.

The initial setup of Aruba Wireless is a lot easier to do than on other solutions.

The price of Aruba Wireless could improve. It is expensive. However, I am able to reduce my costs because I do not use all the features in the controller, such as the AD integration and other enterprise features.

I prefer Ruckus over Aruba Wireless.

I rate Aruba Wireless an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for access points. 

The solution is very complete. 

The portal has been very helpful for us. 

It's easy to set up the solution. 

We have found the product to be stable. 

It's scalable. 

They need to increase the number of routers on the controller. The VSSIP needs to have at least 25 access points. I just need them to increase the access points without the controller.

Other than that, it has everything we need, and we do not need any new features. 

The downside is right now there is a shortage of hardware. It's hard to acquire switches and access points. 

I started using the solution one year ago.

The stability has been good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution is scalable. 

We have ten people using the solution right now. 

I've never called technical support. I haven't needed any assistance so far. 

I've also used Juniper.

The product has been very easy to set up. It's straightforward to implement. It did not become overly complex. Under ten access points only takes about five minutes to set up. 

We only need one person to manage the solution. 

It is free to use. It is open source. We do not have to pay for a license. 

We're an Aruba partner. 

We are using version 11. In 2022, it might be now version 12. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

Aruba Wireless could improve the interface, it does not have a smart web interface. Other solutions have smart web interfaces, such as Cisco Meraki.

I have been using Aruba Wireless for approximately six years.

Aruba Wireless is stable.

Aruba Wireless is scalable for the needs of my customers. Some of my customers have approximately 1,500 users using the solution and it works well.

The price of Aruba Wireless is reasonable.

I rate Aruba Wireless a seven 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. 

Aruba is part our our network infrastructure.

The most valuable features are ease of use, a simple management interface, cost-effectiveness, reliability, and simple installation.

The web-based GUI is much simpler to use than similar products by Cisco.

Because it's cloud-based, it takes time for the floor maps and the heat map to load. I understand the reason for this but it would be nice if once you click on the flop map, instead of waiting sometimes 20 or 30 seconds, it would come up a lot quicker.

I have been working with the Aruba Wireless cloud service for between a year and eighteen months. It's fairly new but I work on it every day.

This is the most stable wireless product that we have had.

We have only had similar products by Cisco but we've had a lot of problems with them. Our partners have come out to look at them, as well as remote services, and they've told us that "everything is fine". However, we have to reboot APs here and there at all of our sites.

Once we implemented the Aruba solution, we've not had those problems since.

We have nine remote sites right now, around the world, with multiple access points per site. Some sites have two or three access points, whereas others have between 25 and 30, depending on how large the site is. In total, we have 147 access points.

We have a data network that we use, and we also have a guest network. ADF authentication logs into the data network and the guest network is open. It's pretty simple to scale.

We had a building and a site that we decommissioned, so we have between nine and eleven spare APs floating around. All you have to do is plug them into the network using the right port, give them a name, and they come online. After that, you assign a foundation license to them and overall, it couldn't be simpler.

With the spares and backups we have, should we need to scale, and we always do, it's easy.

The technical support is good. They know what they're doing although the biggest problem that I have with them is their accents.

You open up a ticket and I have nothing against the people, but it always routes to India. We open a support case and they're very difficult to understand. Not all of them, but a lot of them are. As such, we've had some problems communicating and we've had to use text messages to compensate for the accents.

Otherwise, their technical skills are top-notch.

Another thing that I'll say about their tech support is that it's easy to get in and have a ticket assigned, which gets the ball rolling when we have a problem. With Cisco, it sometimes took days to get an engineer assigned.

I also have experience with Cisco wireless LAN controllers and a little bit with the Meraki line of networking equipment.

We were primarily running Cisco products at one time. However, we pulled out the Cisco devices because they were too complicated and too expensive.

We bought out another company that is currently using Aruba wireless LAN controllers. However, we're getting rid of that system and moving them to the cloud.

The reliability of Aruba products is better and the technical support from Aruba is more responsive.

Cisco is good but there's much better competition out there.

The initial setup is very easy.

Once the cloud is set up, you assign each AP a license through the web portal. You plug it in, make sure it's in a port that's configured for our Wi-Fi network, and it works. It's a three or four-step process and it's very simple to do.

Maintenance, such as deploying updates, can be done using a single person. I do all of it for our company and we have 147 access points, worldwide.

Doing an upgrade involves two clicks, and it can be done within 15 minutes.

This can be compared to Cisco, where you had to pre-stage everything. It was painful and it took me four hours to complete.

This is by far the best investment that we've made in a long time.

Aruba Wireless is much cheaper than our previous solution by Cisco. It is a significant saving, measured in thousands of dollars per year.

We looked at Fortinet, Aruba, and several other vendors. Ultimately, we found that Aruba was by far the best.

We authenticate through Aruba ClearPass, which is the TACACS server that we use.

This is a product that I recommend and especially if you're with Cisco, I suggest switching. Cisco just makes things complex. They are simplifying things with Meraki, which is something that I understand because I've been in the IT industry for a long time. With the company scaling back, I'm doing the job of three or four people and with this in mind, it's important to go with simplicity. Cisco, for some odd reason, just cannot keep it simple. It has to be complicated, even when it comes to their documentation.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We use this solution for wireless infrastructure. We completed the upgrade of our Wi-Fi this year.

It's a hybrid solution. Our controller is in the cloud, and there are devices installed in the offices. Our provider is a local telco.

Between 400 and 500 people are using this solution in our environment.

In terms of customer experience, the Wi-Fi signal in the office is a lot better right now compared to in the past.

Aruba Central is a valuable feature because I can monitor access points remotely, even if I'm not in the office.

We would like to declare a specific number of devices that an employee or a user can use to access their Wi-Fi. Right now, it's a free for all.

The other features that I would like to explore are alerting and auto reporting of users accessing the internet. I want proactive alerts on the usage of these applications because I have to go to Aruba Central every time to see what's going on.

I have been using this solution for one year.

 It's a matter of experiencing the benefit of the solution in our environment.

Since we have a lot of branches, the scalability is open. For now, the scope is really in the head office and I think the promise is that we can scale. We can incorporate this to our branches across the Philippines.

Part of our agreement is that we would receive technical support. I would rate them 4 out of 5.

Initial setup was complex. The vendors have to perform due diligence and heat mapping in the height of the pandemic. The project started last year in September and it was completed last February. Deployment took less than a year.

We had a software and hardware implementation plan. 

Aruba provided an implementation partner who helped us on the project. Fewer than 10 people were needed for deployment.

The return on investment is subjective because we're trying to improve the host experience. IT is not host centered in the company; we are just providing solutions. This is an initiative and the benefits aren't convertible into an amount of money. It's really an investment, and I think the promise is to improve the hosting experience, speed up the internet browsing, etc.

The price is low. There is an additional cost for maintenance. We had a local partner, so we signed a five year deal to support our Wi-Fi infrastructure, including the hardwares.

We evaluated Cisco Meraki and Ubiquiti. The price of Cisco is very high compared to Aruba and Ubiquiti.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

For someone who is looking into implementing this product, they need to understand what the objective is of that project. It could be coming from the IT modernization strategy. You have to evaluate different vendors offering different solutions. Then perform that pitch to the management and the usual project management. If there is a winning vendor, of course implementation comes in. Make sure that the target date will be completed as planned in the project plan.

We run a number of guest wireless networks with captive portals with layer 3 networks. We run .1x for corporate SSIDs or wireless networks for additional certificate-based and/or WPA2 security.

Aruba has a lot of features that work particularly well. One of the things that Aruba is trying to do in most of its product ranges to make sure that all of their products now have a fully functioning northbound set of APIs. That basically means that you can plug it into any kind of system that you have for some operational pieces. For example, if you want to have Tufin, but more in line with things like change management. We're a ServiceNow shop, so we use that for change management and orchestration.

The ability to use the APIs that are available in the Aruba Wi-Fi controller means that you can get information from the system very easily by using APIs, or you can push changes to it. So, if you want to lock administrators there and restrict the type of functions that people can do, you don't have to give them access to the systems anymore. 

This functionality has been useful for us because we have recently outsourced a lot of our lower operational tasks to an outside vendor. With that, obviously, other people need to access systems, but we don't always want to give them direct access to the system. So, we can provide them with APIs to be able to perform basic tasks without giving them access to our dashboard services.

Aruba is an industry leader. The hardware is on par, and its performance is also on par with anybody else. The Aruba brand really only focuses on wireless, so they're not competing their R&D for switching data center products and cloud security. They're really focused on that and their underlying key pieces. 

They provide a role-based authentication that is native to the controller. A lot of other systems don't do that. They won't provide you the ability to basically have everybody join the network, regardless of whether or not they share the same network space, the SSID, or the wireless LAN. You can segment it down to a specific user role based on any kind of attributes that you like. That's their differentiator. If you need per user, per device, or per port segmentation, you can get that with Aruba. There isn't another vendor who does it.

Currently, the stability of the code is the basic underlying problem for us. They had an 8.6 release that came out two weeks ago, but we had to migrate twice because the code wasn't stable. We can't get things to work the same way. Version 8 was a big change for them. They made a change so that it is forced to be a managed hierarchical system. It means that you make changes at the top, and it pushes them downstream. There are a lot of problems with the 8.6 version code. I ran into four bugs in one week and was informed that we should just move onto the next one because all of those fixes have taken place. The feedback loop for fixes is not always really relayed back to you.

I don't have a lot of strong things to say about version 8.6. When we had version 6, the controller was pretty much rock solid. We had no problems. We made a heavy investment to migrate a lot of stuff to take advantage of things like WPA3, Wi-Fi 6, and all that kind of stuff, and we haven't been able to turn those features on because we are not confident that they are going to work just yet. So, right now, we're still very much stumbling through the version 8.6 code and just trying to make sure that it is safe before we turn on some of those features. 

In terms of the marketplace, they are one of the top three leaders. In some respects, one of the things that they focus on is wireless. Therefore, there are some things that should be beyond reproach, as far as I'm concerned. In terms of the stability of the code, there are always going to be bugs, but the core stability of the code needs to be there. When it is not stable, that's a real problem for me because you lose a lot of confidence in the products.

I have been working with Aruba Wireless for about four years now.

It is pretty good. There are a lot fewer people in the office, obviously, because of COVID. Under normal situations, we were probably about 2,000 users a day. Between 40% to 50% of that would be corporate users with mobile devices, such as iPhones, as well as laptop users accessing corporate resources and the corporate LAN. We also have guest users.

They are really moving towards making it cloud-based and less attractive for you to use on-premises. There are still a number of limitations with the cloud. One of the reasons we don't use cloud controllers is that they're not able to support more than 250 access points per tenant instance. For example, you have two sites. One has 200 APs, and one has 300 APs. You could put one site in the cloud so that you wouldn't need to have on-premises wireless controllers. You could manage it all from the cloud instance, and you would have zero hardware and all that kind of stuff. 

However, you wouldn't be able to deploy the second site in the cloud because you can't put more than 250 APs. So, now you have got to go back to doing it the old-fashioned way, which is to have on-premises controllers or two management suites. You don't want to do that because the way this new code works is that it is hierarchical, meaning that you build your configuration centrally, and then you push it down to your access points or your local controllers. So, if you've got one management session in the cloud and one management session on-premises, you would have to manage them at two places.

I do understand that you can configure that local hardware. So, for the site that has 300 APs and a local controller, you could plug that controller into the cloud, but it is still for two different models. So, the companies that just want to have a very simplified setup or want to make it less complicated, they can just say that we're going to go cloud or just stay on-premises, but now you have to have a combination of both, or you just stay with on-premises. There are still some basic limitations preventing us from doing wireless deployments where controllers are based in the cloud.

I use them a lot. Sometimes, I use them every day. They are pretty good. There is a problem in getting hold of people. That may be just because of COVID, but it is very much dependent on when you call and the type of issue that you have.

If it is a fairly standard issue, if you need assistance with a programming or configuration change, or if you need to know how to do something, you can normally get a very quick resolution. The meantime for resolution is pretty quick. It is within that call, half an hour, or one hour. You can generally speak to somebody. If it is some of the things that I have experienced or a bug, it can be very problematic. It could take days or weeks to get resolutions.

The basic stuff is really good. Anything past that, you probably need to have a dedicated support engineer on your camp if you're big enough, or you need to have resources that really know how to do the legwork beforehand.

I worked for a company that had Cisco for many years. Actually, towards the end of that, I switched them from Cisco to Ruckus. I did a POC and a pilot between Ruckus and Aruba, and Ruckus came out on top because of its simplified approach to wireless networking. I have also used Meraki, which is Cisco's cloud-only based AP solution. 

Cisco is like the other de facto. A lot of shops are all Cisco. Their hardware is probably on par with Aruba in terms of processing and handling capabilities. Features are also probably the same. It is more like a Ford-GM question. If you were brought up in a Ford household, you are probably going to buy a Ford sort of thing. I don't think there is much to them, to be honest.

The differentiator for me is that Cisco has a product, which is its network access control system, called ISE or identity services engine. That's a terrible product. It really is an awful product. It is very cumbersome, and it makes adding network access control to your wireless and wired networks very problematic. Aruba's product is called ClearPass, and it is a very flexible tool and easy tool. It is a much more reliable tool. While it doesn't have all the features that you can use with Cisco, it is a standard network application system, which means it will work with any vendor for any system. So, you can do 90% to 95% of the stuff you want, and it is a much more stable and capable system. This difference and the price are differentiators for me. 

From a purely wireless perspective, I think that Aruba is number one. Cisco is a very close number two, and then Ruckus is actually a distant third. Ruckus doesn't have all of the advanced capabilities, but what it does, it does very well. If you want a very basic entry-level wireless that is cheap for K-12 schools or a lot of environments like that, you can use Ruckus. If you need some of the advanced stuff, then you're going to have to pick one of the other solutions.

I would say it is straightforward. It is just that it is a backward way of doing it. They had a fundamental shift in the way you deploy configurations in version 6 to version 8. So, basically, you would do one way in version 6, and then they completely reversed it in version 8. When you come into the product for the first time, it is easy and fairly straightforward. It is an easy adoption process. If you have got lots of experience with the previous version of code, such as version 6, and then you move to version 8, it is very confusing.

Aruba is probably cheaper than Cisco, and yet you get all the things that you want.

I would recommend Aruba Wireless, but it depends on the size and the scope. If you are a large-scale enterprise, you are going to need to deploy something large. If you are a big university or something, you are going to have to pick one of the big three, which, in this case, is going to be Cisco, Aruba, or Juniper. Juniper's Mist is a recent addition that is hugely popular right now because of a lot of the stuff it does in the cloud. They are all cloud-based controllers, and they integrate machine learning into all of your analytics to give you data. 

I think that Aruba Wireless is a good product overall. They have some code issues with this change as most vendors do when they go through a major change. The product hardware is really good, and they have additional capabilities that Cisco doesn't have, like being able to do per-port tunneling so that you can keep isolation on. They are building features, and you could only make use of these if you extend out and use all the Aruba products like Aruba switches, Aruba ClearPass, etc. 

I've had a couple of conversations with them about the next release, which is actually pending. I don't think it is happening this year. It will happen next year. Version 10 is their next step of code, and it is geared more towards automating a lot of the setup. There are still a lot of manual tasks that you have to do. The automation piece has been something that has really garnered a lot of interest from the wireless community in terms of being able to set networks up. You can just buy access points and just throw them up, and once they're powered on, they communicate with zero-touch provisioning and all that kind of stuff. A lot of the automated processes are coming along, such as the ability to tie in cloud-based analytics to look at your reports, training, or data, like Juniper Mist is doing.

There will also be a change in the user interface. They have now brought in things like COVID tracking. It is not like they are adding features that the market wants. They will add the ability for you to be able to write things that you want to see so that you can basically do your own SDK, if you like, and more easily be able to tie that into what you're doing. I'm not sure whether they'll offer that within the version 10 code.

I would rate Aruba Wireless a seven out of ten. The negatives are the instability with the specific versions of code. These could be specific versions of code, but the newer features, such as WPA, WiFi 6, require some of the newer code. The newer code isn't really very stable yet. The high point would be that it is still an industry leader with on par hardware and performance like anybody else.