Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN alternatives and competitors

We primarily use NETGEAR for home and office to allow internal network sharing among devices and people. It really is the backbone of the entire network. There is no need for servers or for other equipment beyond what we know is registered in the inside portal. As such, we just get a feed from our ISP and it goes directly into the access points. That's it.

The population for our use case is pretty small. While there are three or four employees who utilize the Insight access points concurrently, there are many more who make use of it throughout the day.

When it comes to remediation, we have rid ourselves of downtime. The metrics demonstrate that NETGEAR really does a good job of balancing the load between the various access points on the network and this results in an elimination of downtime. While a device may conceivably fail in respects to an access point that is in a different room or in a different part of the facility, there have been no instances in which we've been down without internet or network access. Prior to using the Insight access points, this was an issue every other week. 

I am also impressed by the speed and the feature range. It has allowed us to venture beyond the confines of the standard office space. 

Moreover, it is critical that the Insight Management solution saves us from needing to utilize additional cloud controller appliances, network managers, PC servers or to configure and manage our access points. Were this not the case, we would be left with the option of using home grade equipment. This would simply be too complex and require more maintenance than would be feasible for a business of our size.

Also, I use the Insight Management app on my phone. We occasionally utilize the internet portal for more complex concerns, although 99 percent of what I do is on the iPhone app. I am actually looking at it right now on YouTube. It's just great. It provides real-time changes, with real-time monitoring of what's happening and what needs to be changed. It's the way to go for sure.

Additionally, the solution provides live updates on network status and alerts us when there's an issue. Real time alerts are delivered via email and push alerts. We get emails whenever there's an issue on one of the access points on the network.

The configuration and monitoring have been very valuable features. When it comes to the pain points, the ability to monitor and address these is one of the best perks of the app. Setup becomes a breeze once you pass this stage. We only need to scan in a QR code for things to basically be set up.

Insight Management is extremely user-friendly and very relevant with the details that it gives. I'm not a trained IT person, but the layout of Insight or the capabilities of the Insight management tool have allowed us to build a pretty complex network with little formal knowledge on the topic, absent the need to conduct some internet research and follow the prompts.

Moreover, we can manage our entire network from anywhere in the world. This is important because there's no one else to do it. If something goes down or is not working, it's good to have the resources to know what the problem is and to have the ability to rectify it remotely. Since we don't have the onsite resources for engaging the services of IT people or consultants, the ability to be in command of the network and the access points from anywhere we wish is pretty valuable to us.

Furthermore, the throughput speeds are excellent. World-class throughput speeds with the WiFi Six is what we're using in all of our devices.

My impression of the user interface of the top tier version that we licensed is that it's very friendly, informative, and relevant. It has what we need to see and it's easy to access, maintain and monitor.

While the data throughput does provide us with full insight into data being used, we find that it's not very accurate. The numbers are just way off. I have already brought this up with NETGEAR Insight Access Points. As for the Insight portal and the Insight app, meaning the part of the app that allows you to see which clients are connected to the access points and how they're connected, these do not work at all. Although our main WiFi network has 50 devices on it, when we enter the app on the website it shows it to be zero.

When it comes to features needing improvement, the WAX610, WAC540 and the WAX610Y do not reliably stay online and this is especially true of the WAC540. This is why we have defaulted most of our traffic over to the SXR80 device, which is the company's newest and most innovative WiFi Six product. 

However, it has been months since the Insight app has acknowledged that there are access points connected to it. Unplugging and replugging it would only enable it to work for around fifteen minutes. It is constantly offline. Meanwhile, the 610s, which are simply the normal Insights, are terribly slow for WiFi six. As such, my praise for the Insight access points really must go to the SXR80 product. It has been phenomenal in every case.

I have four of the newer devices sitting under my desk right now. They plan to unplug the 610s. Since these are only three or four months older than the new SXR80s that have been introduced, I'm a bit disappointed that they're not as reliable and as fast as they should be. Fortunately, since we possess the proper tools and technological resources, we have mostly not been impacted by this. This is because we rely on the main SXR80 access points to a greater extent than those other access points and we consider these to be reliable and great to work with.

We have been using this solution for at least a couple of years.

The scalability and its potential is great. One can segregate different WiFi networks so that they can simply access other things on the network. If I had the time, I would play around with it more and do such things as captive portals for guest networks, and make things more fancy. I feel confident in my abilities to do all kinds of things with relative ease, such as being able to segregate different WiFi networks so that they can simply access other things on the network.

As for usage, we are unlikely to make increases. While I know this to be possible, as we have the infrastructure in place with the access points for the connectivity of thousands of devices, we have no expectation of doing so. I do know it's possible, though. 

When it came to deciding which route to take, we felt the scalability to be important, as it started with just one access point and then it grew to switches, then to multiple access points and then to Power over Ethernet devices, etc. Therefore, I consider this an important point, even though I don't foresee short term growth.

Moreover, I would say that it's worth spending a little bit more on these products. They provide future-proofing and enable scaling and perpetuation of its use as the network demands increase in pace with technological considerations.

Occasionally, I have made use of technical support, although the only time I talked to them directly concerned a switch, not an access point. More recently, I did send them an email about the issues I'm having with the model numbers I mentioned. This was two or three weeks ago. They told me someone, an engineer, would get back to me and this has yet to happen. I simply don't have the time to chase after them right now. 

Generally speaking, the solution is a good thing. It's money well spent. It's worked out well for us. I think it will continue to work out well for us. I just wish that, in light of what we're paying for ongoing licensing fees, the engineers or tech support were a little bit more accessible. For example, I told you that I emailed tech support two or three weeks ago. When I went into the app to create that ticket, all the devices that I had concerns with were still under warranty with a next business day replacement. Yet, for some reason, the phone and email support options had expired. I don't understand how one can troubleshoot and exchange a unit when tech support remains inaccessible. It was only when I clicked on one of the newer solutions that they responded to me. I explained that it was not the one giving me trouble, but that I felt I had no other means of getting in touch with them. 

I'm sure I could have spent an hour on the phone pressing prompts to speak with somebody, but email was the route we took. I would say there are positives and negatives. Yet, overall, I can't think of a better solution out there that would be without pitfalls. Like I said, I'm pretty happy with it.

Before using Insight access points we were using ones which are more basic and home grade. 

We switched because of the features, the scalability and the speed. A regular NETGEAR, spaceship-looking access point can cost a lot. However, after only a year or two it can give out and become slower and incapable of handling the number of devices we have. What I mean by devices are actual things connected to the network, not people. There are 150 things connected to these access points, but there are only a few of us using them here.

These devices include phones, computers, printers, smart devices such as TVs, and Amazon solution features. There exist many of what you would refer to as smart or automation-types of equipment. They comprise a significant portion of these devices and are connected to the access points. However, these are features that we're not using on a daily basis, even as they consume resources.

This is why we need something more robust and scalable, so that it can manage and sustainably carry that type of load. We don't deem these criteria to be met with the other solutions.

The initial setup of the Insight access points did not require us to have any special expertise or knowledge and there was no need to bring in somebody from the outside.

It took us a single afternoon to do the initial deployment.

Our implementation strategy involved us making use of adequate coverage with our requisite speeds. This was simply the strategy that was involved in the placement and purchase of the different devices. We did not make use of a third party integrator or consultant for this undertaking and I handled the deployment independently.

While I haven't made exact calculations, I feel that our ROI accrues to the elimination of downtime and the lack of necessity to hire someone external to build and maintain the network. Since we do not consider downtime to be an option, I find it difficult to quantify our exact savings. To properly address this issue I would first need a more detailed understanding of the disparity in licensing costs between our next best solution, Cisco, and the one we chose. I think that the money that we've put into the access points and that which we are investing in licensing them on the portal is well spent.

The yearly pricing is reasonable. For what you get, the price of Insight access points is very reasonable. I don't feel like there is anything cost prohibitive or difficult to operate or use. Overall, I am impressed with the Insight portal and how it works and maintains itself, as well as with its scalability. 

My only concern is that our costs will increase with continued use of the product, since they license us annually. This will probably result in some of the less reliable devices being taken offline. Should we not see satisfactory delivery, we will deem it not worthwhile for us to pay the ongoing fees. 

I did not evaluate other options prior to choosing NETGEAR. I did a lot of research before going this route. It was the cloud aspect of Insight and the fact that it didn't need to be managed on site with servers that sold me on the product. 

Nevertheless, the insufficiently reliable access points made me have second thoughts. However, once we got into the situation with the current setup, it's just been outstanding. Even when it comes to those devices that aren't functioning as well as I would like, the cloud capabilities make it easy to do troubleshooting and get them back on line. I find this to be the case even though it is not what I wish to be doing with my time.

As far as Cisco Meraki or Ubiquiti access points go, I did research Cisco a little bit online. I didn't undertake anything in person. However, I found it to be much too complex for the building and expanding of the basic infrastructure that we require. Plus, the licensing fees made it unrealistic and cost prohibitive.

Furthermore, a key factor in my decision to go with NETGEAR over Meraki was the lack of need to spin up a controller. The fact that it is cloud-based played an equally important factor in this decision. 

We are making use of three WAX610s, one of each of WAC540 and WAX610Y, and five SXR80.

I handle maintenance on my own and this is not a full time job. It's pretty straightforward and this is especially so as the units we have in place are up 100 percent of the time and are lightning fast.

The biggest lesson that I've learned from using the Insight access points is that there is no need for expertise. A master's degree and networking for their use is not required to put together a complex network for meeting one's needs. What we've got going here is pretty complex. As it turns out, it's been built up piece by piece, in a way that doesn't require much technical knowledge.

My advice to someone who is evaluating and thinking of implementing the Insight access points is that it has limitless uses. The solution can be as simple or complex as one wants. We started simple and built it up to be somewhat complex and that has worked out pretty well for us. 

We work at a courthouse, however, we manage the data for the entire county. We have them at the Sheriff's office. They use them in commissary purchases, which is a separate SSI and separate VLAN. That's to segregate wireless traffic for different groups of people per their needs. 

We have lawyers that maybe need to reach back into the network and access their documents when they take a laptop to the courtroom with them. And so through that, we've done some radius authentication. Therefore, it's not just an SSI ID. They actually have to log in with credentials as well. 

Then, we have a guest SSID just for general public access, and that's basically running wide open. We do have a simple password audit, however, everybody knows it, and that's separated by VLAN as well and run through Palo Alto. We also have a whole different SSID for patrol units for the Sheriff's office, where they upload car videos and update their car computers wirelessly. We use it broadly. 

The solution has let us get network access to more people in different locations where wires aren't feasible - like in a garage or for the Sheriff's office uploads in courtrooms. In some of these courtrooms, you can't run additional wire due to the fact that they're historical buildings. You have to have wireless. Also, you have lawyers walking around and you don't want them tripping over stuff. It's useful in every aspect of getting public access - even for when there are events in the square, across from the courthouse. It's basically helped us better serve everybody and provided them with network access.

It always runs, and it's very reliable in terms of performance. They are very, very robust, very rugged, and can handle indoor or outdoor coverage. We typically don't have too many problems with the hardware.

The wireless LAN controllers at the time when we started rolling out, we went with it simply due to the fact that everything else worked that was Cisco. We figured, if everything else works and we're satisfied with it, let's go that route. However, now people want more access points and more spots. And if you give everybody coverage, the cost is crazy high. You can either say, "No, we can't," or you can go with the cheaper product, even slightly cheaper, plus you get more APs out there for more coverage.

At least with the WLC 2500 that we've been using, you can't take just the stock AP from them. You have to use lightweight firmware. You turn it into a lightweight AP and then you can join it to, or provision it to, the wireless controller, which should be automatic. In most cases, it works pretty well, however, it's still not there yet, as far as plugging it into this network that's going to tunnel back to the controller. I would say it works 7 out of 10 times. For the price, it should be a 10 out of 10. Especially with Cisco running an entire Cisco network with CDP all over the place, there should be no reason it doesn't tunnel back every single time. And yet, there are a few times where it doesn't.

It got to the point where, when I prevent in APs, I just take them directly to the switch that the controller is plugged into and provision them there instead of just plugging them in like you should be able to. 

The software on offer is not great. Cisco lacks in software updates, surprisingly. They don't update their firmware too much for the controller. This is not something you want to be done constantly as it does make downtime, however, I would like to see them more than once a year. Unless there's a critical flaw, or you're running an early release. They're their main releases, I want to say year after year, it's been maybe once a year, and then you have to push it out to all your APs. 

Their software's really clunky. It's not very user-friendly, which you can see that as a good thing and a bad thing. We should learn this stuff, but at the same time, it shouldn't be overly difficult. You shouldn't have your options hidden in menus. You shouldn't have to go 25 minutes deep to get to some security options for a specific SSID. 

Also the way the group their security settings is a little bit backward to me. It's not done by SSID. There's just a security tab. Then, you have to link back and forth through that. However, that's something that you're going to fight with through every controller, every different type of device. We all wish they were organized differently. 

We originally started using the solution in 2014.

We had one before then as well. Since we've gone wireless, or implemented wireless throughout the buildings here, we've always used Cisco. This is just a Cisco shop. 

The solution is extremely stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The one issue we did have was with their mesh radios. I'm not sure that it was with the radio itself, the software in the radio. They run two different firmware. One is autonomous firmware, which they use with their AP line and then lightweight APs. With the autonomous one, there's no consistency there. For the indoor APs, you'll have lightweight firmware that you need on them. And then for the outdoor mesh radios, they're not fully autonomous, yet you have to have the autonomous software on them for the mesh feature to function. That's a little bit convoluted and I kind of wished that would just have it one way or the other.

The solution scales easily.

The number of users varies. Some days we have court cases and then you have jurors, lawyers, the media people. It varies widely. I would say on average, we have possibly 200 people a day on a slow day using it. And then on an extremely busy day, it could double that.

We use the solution quite extensively.

We do plan to increase usage, however, it won't necessarily be with this product. We'll probably like to go with a different product based on price and licensing.

Technical support is 10 out of 10. Cisco tech support is one of the best supports I've ever dealt with.

The initial setup was very straightforward. As we have added SSIDs, when we have had a hardware failure, the re-setup, for instance, is a bit more involved. When the controller itself was acting kind of finicky, we did an overnight request and got one in. Re-uploading that configuration was not as easy if that makes sense. If you're setting up a brand new device, it's very easy, very straightforward. If you're trying to restore from a backup configuration, it's not as easy. We ended up actually just resetting it up from scratch.

The deployment itself likely took three hours.

We had some bugs to work out after that, however, the majority of it was up and running within three hours.

For maintenance, you only need one person (a network admin) and then a backup person, just in case that person is on vacation or something.

We handled the setup all in-house. We do have their tech support. At one point, we did get tech on the phone and were working with them. It basically came down to firmware. The one they shipped us could not downgrade its firmware to the firmware we were running on. There was no good way to make it upload the config from an older firmware. They wanted the same firmware restorations. That was kind of a pain, however, we just ended up manually going through and resetting everything, which was not too terrible.

Cisco's APs are licensed and you need to buy them. Basically, for every AP, you have to have a license. Some of the other devices do it so that they support X amount and you can buy the licenses for zero to 20, 20 to 40, et cetera, and it's a little bit more affordable. That's kind of why I was trending towards Ruckus. They handle their licensing a little bit differently. 

Every time somebody asks "How much is a wireless access point? We need wireless in this room." Well, then you tell them the cost and mention "Oh yeah, and there's a license." It's expensive.

Users purchase each AP, and that's until the end of that product's life. If you break it down over a year, it's fairly affordable. However, nobody replaces one AP, we replace them all typically at the same time. Unless one dies or they need one expanded, as far as specific costs go, it's different for indoor and outdoor ones. It might be around $100 for a license. The internal ones are far cheaper than that. 

We had looked at Meraki before, however, the cost is just astronomical. We're a local government, so there's no money. The cost of Cisco wireless controllers has always been kind of clunky. I had heard a lot of good things about Aruba, and then I heard they were bought out by HP, however, it seems like it's still good. I was leaning more towards Ruckus based on just how it handles traffic and handles the guest VLANs and that it can do SSI de-scheduling. I still need to go back and do an in-depth read on the Ruckus option. I am leaning towards that one, even though it seems like it's a close tie.

I also looked at Ubiquity, however, from what I've read, their hardware is not really up to par when you hit saturation, and on certain days of the week here, we definitely have saturated APs due to the fact that we have court cases. You can go from the usual 10 people on an AP to possibly 40 plus people, all trying to check their internet over the wireless. It gets kind of crazy on those days.

We're just a customer and an end-user.

We use the 2500 wireless controller and all the APs that go with it. 

We have Cisco switches and routers as well. We were using Cisco firewalls up until about three years ago. And then we switched to Palo Alto. As far as switching goes, still happy with their switches. They're extremely pricey, however, they last forever, and they meet a lot of government requirements that we have.

I'd recommend the solution I wouldn't hesitate to do install it if the company can afford it.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten for its ease of setup, ease of scalability, and robustness.

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.

We primarily use the solution for connecting to our WiFi network. We use it to communicate with our internal network. It connects everything - telephones, tablets, et cetera. It's our company network.

This is a very solid product. It is very powerful.

The product offers a single management point.

Its features are excellent. 

The solution helps us to communicate internally effectively.

The administration functionality is very easy. It's very easy to configure. Plus, it has a lot of functionality in general.

The security is very good.

We have found the solution to be very user-friendly, especially compared to other products. 

It is easy to integrate with your network.

You can look into your network and see its health and usage very easily.

Troubleshooting problems is very simple.

The product is very simple to set up.

It can scale well.

The solution is stable and reliable. 

In general, they've done a very good job with the solution. 

However, we would like to see more done in the reporting. They should enhance reporting and add more features. 

We're always looking for more features and functionality. They should continue to do regular updates and continue to add to its capabilities, specifically around cloud functionality. It would help us be ready for what's next in the industry.

Technical support response times can be better.

I've been using the solution for six or seven years. 

The solution is very stable and reliable. I'd rate it nine out of ten. If you do the right setup and there are no misconfigurations, it will run for years without any problem. 

The solution can scale. I'd rate it nine out of ten for its ability to expand. 

We have around 12,000 or more end-users. We're a big company.

We've dealt with technical support and they are fine. However, response times could be faster. 

Neutral

I've had experience with Cisco. However, Aruba is more manageable. It also offers faster support.

The product is very simple to set up. It s not complex at all. If you have some prior knowledge, it is very simple to implement. 

There is very little maintenance. Often, no one needs to do anything, and it is stable for years. If you do the right setup, you don't need to worry about it. 

We have consultants that assist with the implementation process. 

The price is okay. However, it depends on the project. If you have a big project, you can get a good price. Also, you have lifetime support from Aruba, which is great. That can save a lot of money over time. 

I'm a partner with Aruba.

The solution offers a lifetime warranty.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. It is an exceptional solution. 

It is a solid, easy-to-use product with very good features. You can size it to fit your needs regardless of the size of the company. On top of that, it is simple to troubleshoot and is very fast to deploy. If you have an SLA with a two-hour support time, you will get faster support. It's good to consider SLAs at the outset.

Our clients use this solution for hotel and restaurant management, stadium management, and other forms of retail — typically for large environments. Still, for clients that don't have the resources for this type of hardware, we are looking for a cheaper solution or another enterprise-level access point.

Our clients are typically large businesses. They consist of a lot of major hotels; they all require huge deployments. We're talking hundreds, if not thousands of users. 

We have access points with EOL (end of life) — actually, they are working very well nowadays. Still, with the new technology, we need to improve these agreements because the new data rates need to be parallel with the new technology. That's the only reason the old access points are working so well.

Performance-wise, it's great. The throughput of the speed base and the capacity when it's operating in a high-density environment is outstanding. 

As an elite Ruckus partner, we get a big discount. That said, the analytics could be improved. Some of our engineers prefer the IQ platform in Extreme. They like the analytics and all of the information that they can validate from its cloud platform.

It would be nice if there was a way to compare access points and hardware so you can always get the same level of performance.

The platform that we have with version 5.12 has only just begun supporting R320. This makes things a little slow, especially in regard to the cloud menu. The analytics or maybe the kind of information that we can get about it could be better. We should be able to click on an icon for more graphics and less text.

The company I work for has been using Ruckus Wireless for roughly 12 years. Personally, I have been using this solution for six years. 

Stability-wise, Ruckus Wireless is great. 

Scalability is good. The SmartZone controllers have been working well. We know that they had a manufacturing issue with the first order as they had a lot of problems with the hard disks, but they seem to have resolved that problem. With the cloud, our clients have the capacity for a lot of systems.

We haven't had any issues with the technical support.

Personally, I think the deployment is easy. With Ruckus, there is a lot of documentation included to assist you with the initial setup. 

We are the owners of the equipment. We rent out services to our customers. We pay for all of our devices and rent them out. We have contracts from anywhere from 36 months to five years. 

Many of our customers also test and evaluate the analytics of Meraki. Analytics is very important to our customers. Ruckus has the ability to connect and get analytics, but you need to pay for that. With other platforms, we can get a lot of information for free. With Meraki, you need to pay for a license on a year-to-year basis.

With Ruckus, even if you have a big environment, you can get great performance with only one access point. 

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine.