Aruba Wireless Reviews

We use the product predominately for beacons and peer devices.

It has very flexible features.

I believe more security options are needed.

I have been using the product for seven or eight years.

We have not had any problems with the stability of the product.

It is a scalable solution.

When we have had to use support, everything from the service was helpful.

We have used Cisco products in the past.

The setup is not a problem, it only took five minutes or so.

We used five technicians for the deployment of the product.

I rate Aruba Wireless a nine out of ten.

We have about 30 APs and a lot of sites with centralized management on controller 7030. We use it to control the network in standalone mode and handle the active and standby modes.

All features are useful for me. It lets me perform some specific configurations depending on the site or the client. All WAN features are valuable.

Their documentation needs to be improved. Aruba's documentation is poor.

I have been using Aruba Wireless Controllers for about a year.

Its stability is okay. There is no issue with stability.

Its scalability is okay.

Their support is good. When I need to open a case, I get a fast response. I can contact the technician immediately. I would rate them an eight out of ten.

I also use Cisco solutions. Both solutions are very good and suitable for different kinds of networks. Cisco is very good for certain kinds of networks, and Aruba is good for other kinds. Cisco is simpler to deploy, whereas Aruba is more complicated and complex to deploy.

The initial setup was very complex because we deployed a new controller in a small network. It is useful for large networks, but for small networks, it is very difficult to understand all the models. If you don't use Mobility Master, the configuration and deployment are very complex. It took us six months to deploy it.

We got help from a third-party vendor, not Aruba. They were okay. We didn't have any problem.

You should know about the topology of the Aruba Wireless solution. It is very important because it depends on the size of the network. Otherwise, you might end up buying something that's not adequate for large networks.

I would rate Aruba Wireless an eight out of ten.

I have worked with versions 2.207 and 3.303 and 305. Because I am the service provider for my customers, I've worked with Ruckus, Aruba, Cisco, and UniFi. Most of my customers ask for new wireless solutions. Last week I installed 37 access points. My customers are very satisfied.

Configuring the main controller is very easy; with Aruba, it's just plug-and-play. The roaming features are great too.

Most of the access points don't include the chargers. If you want to increase your coverage, then you need to have a charger. When our customers ask about access points, we always recommend Aruba; however, when we tell them that they need to buy the chargers separately, they become upset, saying: "We already bought Aruba access points, the chargers should come with it".

This is my main concern. In the last five years, I've installed nearly 300 Aruba access points and most of my customers have complained about the chargers. If this problem was addressed, I wouldn't have any other complaints.

I have been using this solution for five years.

I have not experienced any bugs, software, or hardware issues with Aruba.

This solution is both very stable and scalable. I want to mention something about Aruba's compatibility between various model types. If you already have version 207 installed and you want to switch to version 3.3, it's not compatible; you can't add it to your network. You need to create a standalone network for this access point only.

I only spoke with Aruba's technical support one time. With Aruba, you don't need a lot of support. It is very easy to use. 

The initial setup is very easy. You just need to configure the main device. If you have a standalone or virtual appliance, you can just configure it and install the rest without connecting to the main device.

Deployment time varies, but usually, it's very fast. Most of our customers need 10 access points on-site. For me, this only takes roughly 15 minutes to install.

I used to use Ruckus. Ruckus takes a long time to configure. Cisco takes longer too. Aruba is the easiest to install. Just configure the main device, and install the rest. Nothing else is required.

I'd like to mention something else. Last week, I installed roughly 37 access points — Aruba 303 I believe. Our clients complained about the coverage. Their access points should be able to cover 50 meters, but Aruba was only covering 25 to 30 meters, max. I know Aruba, and like anything, there are advantages and disadvantages. I like Aruba for its easy installation, management and because they provide the best and most optimized connection.

The most important thing is the heat map; you need to have a good heat map and make sure it's configured correctly with Aruba. If you don't have a heat map, you may have issues.

Here in Jordan, some providers will go to a company that requires 10 access points and tell them they only need five. In reality, they just want the job and the client. Then, after everything is said and done, the client complains about the five access points not covering the whole area. 

Some preparation is required before you can get started with Aruba. The total amount of power needed for the access points needs to be calculated. I would recommend doing this yourself as some companies just want to sell their products.

Companies in Jordan were quite loyal to Cisco, but in the last five months, I have installed roughly 500 Aruba Switches. Version 1920 is very popular; it's very fast and great for network stability.

Cisco and Aruba offer the same features. My customers don't need advanced features. What's the point in spending an extra $300-400 dollars for features you won't even use?

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. If they increased their coverage, I would give them a rating of 15, not simply ten.

I am a system integrator and Aruba Wireless is one of the network infrastructure products that I have experience with. We have customers using versions all the way from AP-100 to AP-535.

We have these devices in many industries, with a focus on educational institutions.

The most valuable feature is the client match. This feature continually monitors the client and provides automatic load-balancing, as well as other advanced features.

Improvements to the GUI, such as being able to search in the Mobility Master, would be nice. It is hard to find and provision APs when you have a substantial install base.

I have been using Aruba Wireless since 2007.

The stability has been great.

We haven't had any trouble with scalability. 75% of our clients are using Aruba Wireless.

I have a lot of experience with wireless networking products from Aruba and Juniper. I also have some experience with Ruckus.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward and the deployment is quick. With our experience, it is pretty easy to do.

We integrate Aruba Wireless and other devices for our customers.

My advice for anybody who is considering Aruba Wireless is to try it. If you try it then you're going to like it.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

The primary use we have for the product is for users' corporate mobile access.  

The most valuable feature is the fact that it can work with many devices. It supports everything that we need it to. Whatever features are required from an enterprise standard, it supports all of them. The main advantage is broad device support.  

The area that has the most room for improvement is upgrades. What we have seen many times now is that new releases tend to have bugs. Sometimes the bugs are a little bad and cause some undesirable issues. The new code in the upgrades or something leads to conflicts. I would say testing releases before making them available is one of the areas which Aruba needs to improve most with the wireless product. More comprehensive testing is required for a better, more reliable end-user experience.  

It is not necessarily testing more often, it is just for new releases. The testing they need to do is to work more closely with different environments and take notice of where issues tend to occur. They should have some idea of what environments are experiencing issues more often by now because of which companies are reporting the issues. They can make compensations for testing in those environments.  

I do not have any new features that the product requires off the top of my head. I think that more than improving the product, there are management portfolios and other peripheral things that could be better integrated. But just doing better testing is the main improvement that they need to make.  

We have been using Aruba Wireless for between seven and eight years now.  

Aruba Wireless has been a stable solution for us. Once it was set up correctly it was fine. We had some initial hiccups. We still have issues with upgrades sometimes. Except for mostly minor issues, it has been a good solution.  

Aruba Wireless is easily scaled between a lot of devices and a lot of endpoints. When we decided to use it as our solution we had planned to use it exactly for its ability to scale. We went through a massive scaling and did not have issues with devices and endpoints.  

Right now we have 30,000 users and around 45,000 devices between those users. It does not seem that there are many limitations for scaling the product's use.  

Technical support is good. The only issue we have had with them is that we often have to be referred to their engineering response team. That situation actually happens most of the time. On the other hand, we do not need to use support very often.  

So, yes, we get support for the product and we eventually get the solution we need, but most of the time it gets referred to their engineering team to get the complete solution. Overall, the support is pretty good.  

The initial setup was a little bit complex because our environment is complex. Because of that, I would say the initial setup was complex. It may not be as complex for other companies.  

It took almost a year for deployment. But there are two sides to the setup. One is the product is good and it can be configured to do what we need. But our environment was complex because it involves some legacy devices and some really advanced new devices and technologies as well. It is good that the product is able to support both of those needs.  

We have a couple of IT specialists, one architect, and a development operations engineer for deploying the updates and maintaining the solution. In total, it is around four or five people who maintain the product. Not everyone needs to be dedicated to it full-time.  

The advice that I would give to others who are looking into implementing Aruba starts with that it is a good product. It has some really good features. But the other reality is that you might need to be prepared to face some hiccups with any upgrades and with the setup.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate the Aruba Wireless solution as a seven-point-five out of ten. Because of the upgrade issues and the persistence of those, I would rate it a seven.  

We use it to manage a substantial number of access points for our clients, ensuring reliable and secure wireless connectivity across their properties, including indoor and outdoor spaces. It helps streamline operations, and we are actively engaged in consulting and expanding our services in this regard.

It is highly stable and user-friendly. It provides excellent performance and security through the use of available features and policies, reducing the reliance on external firewall configurations while ensuring a secure and reliable network environment.

It would be helpful if they would release training materials and updates to enhance their offerings. When it comes to switching, there can be occasional variations, such as with the cooler switches. Also, there might be technical issues with the code that could lead to variations in performance. To enhance the system, more work on integration would be beneficial.

I have been working with it for four years now.

I am highly satisfied with its stability capabilities. I would rate it nine out of ten.

It provides good scalability abilities.

Its support services are satisfactory.

The initial setup was easy.

The deployment process can vary significantly based on the number of access points and the controller. When you're dealing with a large number of access points connected to a controller, it's important to monitor the synchronization process, which can take some time. Fortunately, there are features integrated into both the Access Point and the controller to help manage this process more effectively, help streamline the deployment process, and ensure it runs smoothly. It typically takes around two to three days for changes to become fully effective in the live customer environment.

It comes with a relatively higher price tag, but it's essential to assess the value it brings to the market because it actively competes with other players in the industry and dedicates efforts to offer competitive devices.

The product is known for its high quality and reliability, fulfilling its intended purpose effectively, which positions it as a practical and worthwhile option. Overall, I would rate it ten out of ten.

I have found the most valuable features are the new Wi-Fi six technology and it also integrates with triple-A solutions. It has good bandwidth and virtual control.

I would like to see the management improve.

I have been using Aruba Wireless for the past two to three years.

The stability is excellent and ranks a nine on a scale of one to ten.

The scalability is very high with Aruba Wireless.

Technical support is very helpful and response time is good.

Positive

I have used all three solutions Aruba Wireless, Cisco, and Ruckus.

The initial setup is straightforward and easy to set up. Simply plug and play and it will automatically block calls. You can change it every Friday or by favorites.

The setup is generally in-house and we support it.

When you look at the price it is a higher price than Cisco.

I have used all three and Cisco is more complicated than Aruba Wireless.

I would rate Aruba Wireless an eight on a scale of one to ten.

We have 150 clients who are using this solution.

The solution is deployed on-premises.

The wireless controller and access points are valuable features.

The console is difficult to use. The firewall settings could be improved.

I have been working with Aruba Wireless for two years.

It's a stable solution.

The scalability is okay.

We had some complications with the controllers, so we received help from technical support when we couldn't find any tutorials online.

I would rate technical support as five out of five. They're very fast.

We have also used Cisco. Aruba's database is better compared to Cisco. We chose Aruba because the pricing is better.

Setup is straightforward.

Aruba is less expensive than Cisco.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten.