Aruba Wireless Reviews

I'm working with other products in networking, but not about FortiGate device and Check Point. Currently we use Cisco and Palo Alto for firewalls, routers, switches, and networking devices. We use Aruba Wireless for our wireless office, warehouse, and office environments.

Aruba Wireless includes automated RF optimization capabilities. We have set up a virtual controller function that we use for Aruba products. There is a wireless controller that we use to manage the access points. I think the integration is good with no problem or issue. I believe it has been a stable product, and we're happy and enjoy the equipment and products.

I'm not entirely sure about deeper functionalities because almost our vendors handle that. I'm not sure if Aruba Wireless already includes AI functions.

We have been using Aruba Wireless for more than five to six years.

It looks stable because we don't have too many reports. Once implemented, we do not get reports about issues. I think the integration is good with no problem or issue. I believe it has been a stable product.

Mainly we used Cisco for networking. We also use other products such as Cisco access points. I have experience with this product. I have experience with Cisco Duo before, but we didn't use it for long periods of time.

Mainly we contact our vendors. We do not go directly to Aruba Wireless.

Regarding the price of Aruba Wireless, in comparison with others, I think it is reasonable. It's a brand name product, but I think the cost is competitive with other brand names such as Cisco. It's enterprise grade, and it depends on the model that we select. I think the price may be a little cheaper than other products.

I have experience with Cisco products and the Cisco brand. The product is mainly a hardware product. Regarding the software part, I don't have a lot of experience. Aruba Wireless was not too difficult to set up. When compared with other products such as Cisco, they also have products with wireless controllers, and it's similar to that. I think it should be recommended for both bigger and smaller companies based on the feedback and our experience. I believe there should be AI functions that might help us in some cases of cybersecurity matters, detecting threats regarding security would be better with AI. For this role, I have more than twenty years of experience. I would rate Aruba Wireless eight out of ten overall.

Aruba Wireless is used primarily to access the internet with applications like Salesforce, which is a key requirement. Approximately 500 employees use Aruba Wireless across the organization.

The most valuable functions in Aruba Wireless are the AI-powered performance, which uses AI and machine learning to automatically detect any Wi-Fi issues and fix them, as well as managing all access points from a centralized single point, along with high speed and better performance.

The analytics feature is helpful for network performance and user behavior, providing cellular Wi-Fi visibility with insight. The analytics feature is also useful for monitoring user behavior, allowing the admin to monitor from a permission standpoint.

Automated RF optimization in Aruba Wireless is not a beneficial function. I would like to see more additional functions for AI analytics and AI machine learning to simplify operations with Aruba Wireless.

I have been working with Aruba Wireless for seven years.

Until now, I have not seen anything negative with Aruba Wireless; it has performed well for us.

I rate the technical support from Aruba as nine.

Positive

I compare Aruba Wireless with Cisco. For scalability and performance, Aruba Wireless is the preferred choice over Cisco.

The setup process for Aruba Wireless is simple.

I do not purchase the product directly from the vendor.

I would rate the pricing for Aruba Wireless as six, as it is cheaper in comparison to Cisco.

Aruba Wireless is integrated with a SIM solution, specifically with CrowdStrike.

In the last few months, we are still working with Aruba Wireless and making significant investments since two months ago for new active components. Good performance is essential for our use of Aruba Wireless. Aruba Wireless security tools, particularly NAC, are helpful. I can recommend Aruba Wireless to other users. The domain was changed from MNHD to Madinet Masr at madinetmasr.com. I rate this review as a nine overall.

I am using Aruba 7030 Wireless for seamless connectivity across our locations. The product is installed to ensure robust performance. I require a solution with excellent roaming capabilities for connectivity across various locations without interruptions.

The Aruba Wireless solution has excellent roaming capabilities, ensuring seamless connectivity. Once installed, Aruba Wireless works robustly without overheating issues. This is particularly effective compared to other products I've used, like FortiMonitor and FortiAPs, which sometimes heat up. 

I am very satisfied with the roaming feature, as it ensures connectivity when moving from one location to another. The product's stability, after setting it up, adds to its value.

Improvement is always possible. They need to work on reducing prices as they are currently on the higher side. At the time of purchase, the prices were moderate, but now they are quite expensive.

I have been using Aruba Wireless for approximately five years.

The solution is one hundred percent stable. I have been using the product for the last nine years without facing any issues post-installation.

The solution is scalable, as multiple sites connect seamlessly. It offers reliable connectivity across various locations.

The customer support is good. I would give it nine points out of ten.

Positive

I previously used FortiMonitor and FortiAPs. FortiMonitor's features were not useful for me, so I moved towards using HP products. I did not find satisfaction with FortiMonitor, which led me to HP.

The initial setup requires careful planning about what I want to do with the product. Once the roadmap is clear, the setup becomes straightforward.

The solution is time-saving, especially with its roaming capabilities. There are significant time savings, around thirty to forty percent, due to minimal disconnections.

The solution involved a one-time cost, and I am managing the expenses with maintenance in mind. The initial prices were more affordable compared to the current high prices.

I evaluated FortiMonitor during its deployment, however, the results from HP were superior.

My advice is to be clear about your goals and requirements before installation, as this will simplify the setup process. 

I would rate Aruba Wireless nine out of ten overall. The solution is stable and scalable, and the support is excellent.

Neutral

We use Aruba Wireless to connect our laptops and other devices and to provide guest access. We are in the healthcare industry, with approximately twenty hospitals in India and an equal number in the UAE region. Hence, we use this wireless solution to give access to our corporate staff and the guest network.

The Aruba Central portal is a good interface that helps us monitor wireless devices extensively. Furthermore, the access points we use, mainly API nine zero five, are working well.

One of the issues with Aruba Wireless is that when twenty or more people connect to the same access point, the device works too slowly. The density of the access point needs to be increased to better manage this load.

We have been using Aruba Wireless for approximately three to four years.

Stability is not an issue; I would rate it between eight and nine.

I would rate the scalability around a six to seven due to the density issue where no more than twenty people can connect to one access point, unlike Cisco or Allied Telesis.

Technical support from Aruba is very good when it is direct. However, the issue arises when the support is given through partners not adequately trained. When escalated to Aruba, support is satisfying, but some partners are not up to the mark.

We have used a combination of vendors. Some hospitals use Aruba, while others use Cisco, Allied Wireless, or RACUS devices.

The initial setup is easy. The configuration is straightforward, often involving just plug and play, taking about fifteen minutes to half an hour.

The deployment was done by Aruba through their vendors. When we expand, we handle it ourselves.

It's too early to see a return on investment, as we have been using Aruba Wireless for three to four years. ROI is typically evaluated after five years.

The pricing of Aruba Wireless is well-priced, comparable to competitors. I don't have any significant issues with the pricing.

We have experience with different vendors, including Cisco, Allied Telesis, and RACUS, which allows us to distinguish between the services provided.

I recommend Aruba Wireless based on its technology. However, newer products have been withheld from offers due to their perceived cost, which could be improved by the sales team providing better insights and updates.

I use Aruba Wireless solutions for enterprise access and office open spaces.

The best features of Aruba Wireless are its controllerless solutions. I do not need to buy a controller for the access point since the Aruba Access Point has a built-in virtual controller. This solution is cost-saving. I do not have to purchase additional controllers for management. Its ease of management and high scalability are very beneficial.

The access points could be cheaper. While the technical specifications are satisfactory, the access points are expensive.

I have more than five years of experience working with Aruba Wireless.

I perceive the stability of this solution as very high, rating it as nine or ten.

The scalability of this solution is very high.

Customer service and support are of high quality.

Positive

The initial setup of Aruba Wireless was easy. I set up only one access point, which acts as a virtual controller, and other access points configure themselves using this virtual controller.

This solution is cost-saving. There is no need to buy additional controllers for managing access points.

The pricing can be expensive, and there is room for improvement for cheaper access points.

I rate the overall solution as nine out of ten. 

I recommend this solution due to its simple installation, easy management, high scalability, and high availability.

A customer uses Aruba Wireless because we have compared various solutions and decided to use this technology with this customer.

We are satisfied and think that the security features in Aruba Wireless are good. When compared with Cisco and FortiGate, Aruba Wireless is comparable to Cisco and better than FortiGate. On the Fortinet side, we have less customization and fewer options. We prefer Aruba Wireless or Cisco. FortiGate is less expensive, but the quality is lower.

It is complicated to say everything. There are advantages and disadvantages, but in general we prefer Aruba Wireless or Cisco instead of FortiGate.

I have been using Aruba Wireless for one year.

The scalability depends on the person. We cannot make a definitive statement.

The technical support from HP rates at eight out of ten.

Positive

The installation rates at five out of ten for ease of setup because it is not simple. You have to know what you are doing and need to be careful with the implementation.

We see saving time as a return on investment.

I am Alessandro, and I am here with my colleague Roberto, who is a manager. I am reporting what Roberto has shared with me as I do not usually work with this technology. For more information, it would be best to contact Roberto directly. Based on our experience, we rate Aruba Wireless an eight out of ten.

I use Private Dhiman in the corporate sector, mainly for banking and security purposes. ClearPass is one product available for this, which authenticates users with MPSK features. It has many integrated features, including Azure AD and multiple active directories, making it easy to authenticate.

A product, ClearPass, is used, which authenticates users with MPSK features. It has many features and is integrated with Azure AD and multiple active directories, making authentication easy.

Mobile Wireless zero-touch provisioning is required, as well as Verizon. Zero-touch provisioning is needed, and although a cloud version is available, like Aruba Central, easier provisioning and configuration would be beneficial in the future.

I have experienced using Dhiman for six to nine months.

The price is high and not too reasonable. It is very high compared to other products. It is equivalent to Cisco products.

The overall product review rating is nine out of ten.

My primary use case is mainly for trying to find out which device is where and which device is in fault, or for guest access.

I can have a clear picture of what's happening in my Wi-Fi cellular networking environment. One feature that stands out is that it's quite simple to have a clear situation on my network. When the device is switched on, it automatically sees it, which is nice.

I had some problems with Wi-Fi coverage in the workshop, which required purchasing more devices.

I have used Aruba Wireless for about four years.

The stability is good. I don't remember it going down during the years it existed.

I don't have a big problem. I had nine access points in the beginning, then added six more, and the transition was smooth.

I had a good support experience. I only needed support once or twice for a replacement, and it was handled smoothly without any difficulty.

Positive

There was a switch from the Cisco solution due to several reasons, including only having WEP security, physical control instead of cloud control, and frequent downtimes. We often had to restart the wireless system.

We had another solution, a Cisco solution, that was much less stable. Wireless security with the previous system used WEP, however, now we have a more secure environment.

It is straightforward to set up Aruba Wireless. It is simple to use, and when you switch on the device, it automatically configures itself within the network.

I had a network specialist on the phone who guided me. It was just myself and that one other person.

I would say the price is good. It was a key point in decision-making relative to Cisco.

I would give Aruba Wireless a rating of around eight out of ten. The overall experience is satisfactory.

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."