Aruba Wireless Reviews

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.

The use case is basically for wireless authentication. We are also using Aruba clear path policy manager and we are providing our customers with free WiFi. We have our retail customers, where we give them free WiFi.

Their technological improvements and innovations are always great. They are up to market level. They’re always upgrading to whatever the latest technology is.

They are a bit of a monopoly solution.

It offers an easy initial setup.

The solution is pretty stable.

There are so many features. Even we are also not using the complete functionalities and features of Aruba. We need to explore more.

There are some issues we occasionally have. However, they are easily remedied.

Recently, HP acquired Aruba. There have been some changes in the licensing form. Platforms are changing. These kinds of things are slowly happening. However, it is not a problem.

The issue is that the delivery timelines have increased. That is not only for Aruba, even for all the partners; it is increased. That is something which they need to improve. The hardware takes too long to be delivered.

I’ve been using the solution for seven years.

The solution is pretty stable. There are some issues; however, it’s all pretty fixable. For the most part, it doesn’t crash or freeze. It’s reliable.

We have about 4,500 people on the solution. Everyone at all levels of the company uses it.

The solution is scalable. We started pretty small and we were able to grow as required. The number of people and the number of retail stores increase yearly.

We pay our partners for technical support. They handle everything.

We used to use Ruckus.

With Ruckus, we were in on the initial stage. We were facing a lot of issues depending on the management. With Aruba, we did a POC, and we were satisfied with that. That's why we moved to them.

The solution is simple to set up.

The configuration and everything it is pretty straightforward. We are using Aruba’s central console to manage the wireless. There are no complications, actually.

On the initial level, it took two months to complete the complete projects and everything.

In terms of maintenance, we are paying our partner for an AMC annual maintenance contract. We are paying yearly, and they are just maintaining our network. They're managing everything. We have around 20 people working on their team to support us.

We have a partner who is working on this with us, and they are the ones implementing the solution. They're managing our infrastructure also.

We are not calculating any kind of ROI as it's an infrastructure solution and therefore, we cannot calculate any kind of ROI here. It's used for the basic infrastructure.

We pay a yearly licensing fee.

I’m not sure of the exact cost. We are negotiating our pricing and can do so on a global level. When we were comparing it to others, we found it to be reasonably priced.

We’re end-users and work with Aruba partners.

This is an in-house solution and we use the latest version.

I’d rate the solution nine out of ten.

For new users, Aruba can be a good solution. The hardware portfolio is great. They have instant access points for small-scale businesses to medium size and even large businesses. They have all kinds of portfolios in their hardware catalog. Even for COVID times, they also introduce access points for the work from home. These kinds of things are there already in their portfolio. When we are plugging in their stack, we can leverage Aruba Central, Aruba Wireless, Aruba Switches, et cetera. It's easy to manage. Everything is managed under a central console.

The primary use case for Aruba Wireless is for wireless network solutions. Clients use Aruba Wireless for various networking needs.

The solution supports both on-premises and cloud environments, catering to many customers who use either of the deployment methods.

Support for both on-premises and cloud environments has proven effective for network management. It contributes to stability, as many customers do not face network downtimes or issues.

The pricing could be better, especially with potential discounts for partners.

We have been using Aruba Wireless for over ten years.

The solution is very stable. Many customers do not complain about the product or network downtimes.

I would rate the scalability of this solution as a ten. It scales impressively well.

The customer service and technical support are excellent. I would rate it as high quality.

Positive

The initial setup of Aruba Wireless is straightforward.

The pricing of Aruba Wireless is competitive, especially compared to solutions like Cisco. The overall cost is considered reasonable.

I recommend Aruba Wireless because of its competitive pricing, user-friendly technology, and strong after-sales support.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

The most valuable features of Aruba Wireless are the seamless feature and the concurrent user.

Aruba Wireless can improve the assigning of access points. We have times that the nearest access point is not assigned but one far away. The integration between access points could improve.

I have been using Aruba Wireless for approximately one year.

Aruba Wireless is very stable among all the other access points I have used.

The scalability of Aruba Wireless is good.

We have approximately 1,000 to 1,300 users using the solution. We plan to increase the usage of the solution. There are plans to install 150 access points in January.

We have a partner in Indonesia that we use for support that is called Agiva and they sometimes escalate issues to Aruba Wireless. I do not have direct experience with the support of Aruba Wireless.

I do not have any experience with other vendors other than Aruba Wireless.

The initial setup of Aruba Wireless is simple, including a wireless plan used. If we have instant access points and change them to computer access points, it is simple to do.

We have a license for the source mobility controller.

The price of Aruba Wireless is expensive.

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

We have four people for the maintenance of the solution.

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. 

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 primarily use the solution due to the fact that the architecture is suitable for management and engineers.

The user interface is great.

We have found the pricing to be reasonable. 

Technical support is pretty good.

It's very easy to set up the solution. 

The certification for licensing could be better.

I've been using the solution for seven years. 

The solution is stable and reliable. While we have noticed many bugs in other offerings, Aruba has been issue-free. The performance is good.

The solution can scale if you need it to. It's not a problem. 

We have 20,000 people, including network engineers, using the product in our organization. Right now, we do not have plans to increase usage.

I've used technical support in the past and find them to be helpful and responsive. They are better than, for example, Cisco, when it comes to assisting us.

We also use Cisco. We find Aruba's technical support is better.

I've been a part of the implementation process and found it to be quite straightforward and simple. It's not an overly complex or difficult process at all. 

We can have it deployed in an hour. It's pretty quick to get everything up and running.

We are able to handle the implementation process ourselves.

It's not an overly expensive solution. However, I cannot speak to the overall costs involved in buying or operating the product. I don't handle the licensing aspects. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. We've been fairly happy with its capabilities. 

We primarily use the product for wireless connectivity in terms of securing wireless access.

Wi-Fi 6 is the most beneficial aspect of the solution. Apart from that, the WPA3 introduction in terms of security is one of the key features.

The solution is stable.

It's a scalable product.

Technical support is helpful.

The pricing is pretty good.

The scope of improvement would go along with the technology's adoption into the market. Even though Wi-Fi 6 has been introduced, everyone is quite skeptical in the market in terms of the adoption part, as the platform network should be that strong to cater to that kind of bandwidth. While it may be great in the future, currently, the existing versions are incompatible with some of the networks which customers own.

They could improve the seamless roaming, which is already there, however, needs some tweaking.

I've used the solution for quite a long time. I've been deploying this product to multiple customers and it's been almost five years.

The solution is stable. For example, even some military organizations are using Aruba Wireless and RF features. It is quite reliable for an enterprise to work with.

Aruba works with small to large companies. Data is open for all three. They have different kinds of solutions for individual stakeholders in terms of small, medium, and large. They have a different product portfolio offering for small. They have something else for mid-size enterprises and larger enterprises as well. Everyone can be catered to.

It is quite easy to scale, even if a small-scale business is starting with a standalone deployment. They too can scale up to 50 or 60 access points on a mid-scale deployment eventually. The group pattern in terms of the wireless controller has limits to the physical hardware appliances if you already own one. That said, the cloud adoption part is one of the aspects which gives you quite a bit of scalability and you need not worry about your scalability and your future growth.

Technical support is quite brilliant and they offer good support as well as product replacement. Any Aruba product that is wireless includes a limited lifetime warranty wherein the delivery scope is not bound to an SLA. They will give a replacement if you purchase support or not. That is the best part of Aruba.

Positive

I also use Cisco.

There are no differences in the technology. There are some user experience differences. Integration would be a part of that. There are many integrations possible in the Cisco portfolio in terms of their own product line. If the entire portfolio is of Cisco, then the integration is quite easy and Cisco has the same kind of offerings. The SLA might differ and some of the user experiences might differ. However, in terms of the portfolio, Cisco stands out as they have an enterprise-class and a different portfolio altogether to cater to the cloud-based market. They have an entire offering called Meraki. They do focus on the enterprise with Cisco. Companies that are small or medium scale work more with Meraki.

The standalone deployments are straightforward whereas the introduction of wireless controllers and security parameters can be complex. That depends on the architecture to which you are applying. Even though direct integration with any of the radio servers or any of the triple-A authentication servers like Mac is very straightforward, it could be complex depending upon the environment.

A standalone deployment would not take more than 15 minutes. It is quite simple. You might need some pre-planning before that. If you planned enough in advance, then it would take you 15 minutes or 20 minutes at a maximum to deploy. If there's a wireless controller deployment, it would take a maximum of two hours to three hours. Not more than that.

Maintenance as such is not required. It's just the regular maintenance that you do in terms of software upgrades or firmware upgrades, in terms of when vulnerabilities are found. 

Aruba is quite competitive in pricing. In some cases, on a case-to-case basis, Cisco also gives better discounts in terms of price. 

You may have to pay for additional support if you require services bound to some actual replacement time. They will charge you some amount for RMS support, not for technical support. Eventually, the technical support is built into the cost.

I used to work with an organization that had a business relationship with Aruba, however, recently I've moved on.

I typically work with the latest version of the solution.

It can be deployed on-premises as well as in the cloud.

I would recommend new users utilize each and every feature of the wireless capabilities which are being offered for security. There is quite a bit of integration possible.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.