Cisco Wireless Reviews

We are customers of Cisco and I'm the company IT advisor and manager.

We find this solution very cost effective. We are using the WAP121 model which has good manageability, and stability. 

We sometimes have issues with user load. We have close to 12 users and we have performance issues, especially when we are on video calls. There are lags and connectivity issues in those situations and the throughput is not that good. From our end, performance and connectivity could be improved.

I'd like to see features such as app control, access control, and some level of a firewall feature at the level of the access points, features that are available at the firewall level, so that we can have security and manageability at WiFi level.

I've been using this solution for three years. 

We have a local support team and whenever we face issues they are very supportive. 

The initial setup was very easy. 

I rate this solution a seven out of 10. 

These devices are being used for a large number of sites. We have around 3,000 APs.

For WLC, we are using 5508 and 7500 devices. We will be using 9800 devices soon.

Its stability is most valuable.

It is not easy to use. It should be made easier to use. They can maybe migrate it to the cloud so that we can manage the WLCs together.

I find the licensing part very hard to understand. Cisco is now moving towards smart licensing, so this issue will be addressed soon.

I have been using this solution for eight years.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable.

Their technical support is fine.

It is easy to install. The deployment duration depends on different scenarios. It depends on the site, the number of users, and the technicality of the site, but overall, it doesn't take very long.

I am a consultant. 

Its licensing is hard to understand.

I would absolutely recommend this solution. I would rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is wireless infrastructure for retail and enterprise usage.

This solution has improved our organization.

The most valuable features of this solution are the Cisco CleanAir and Cisco RRM.

I would like to see less dependency on other products such as ISE and Prime for certain implementations.

Please always keep the Spectrum Expert (SE) connect mode. I feel is useful when troubleshooting.

The primary use case is for enabling the users to connect wirelessly to the network, to give them seamless mobility if they go to a meeting room. It's always-on connectivity.

Having Cisco switches in the network also benefits the wireless. Having both in the same network has advantages in regards to compatibilities. It's also pretty easy to get it up and running in a short time, so that's a big advantage. Having the same vendor, Cisco, for switches and wireless, we can roll out more features without having to worry whether they will be supported or not.

The Guest feature is pretty good.

Sometimes I've seen some issues come up with the interference. That's an issue users face at times. It becomes very complex when you have a lot of wireless interference in the area, or in your office. It's because of the environment of Cisco. Maybe, in the future, they can work on this area, and fix this issue.

The wireless controller runs smoothly, without any issues.

For Cisco Wireless, you need to have Cisco access points and a Cisco controller to get it running, but if you want to expand your infrastructure in Wireless, you just need to buy a new AP and get it installed. It's pretty easy.

Tech support for Cisco Wireless has been pretty good. They have helped us through problems.

The setup was straightforward. It's a very complex switch, but if you have a person with the ability to follow the steps, it will be up and running.

Cisco wireless is a pretty good product. I would definitely recommend buying it. If you are looking for a wireless solution I would definitely recommend going with Cisco Wireless.

I rate Cisco Wireless at about eight out of 10. It's pretty good, it's very compatible with other Cisco products.

We use it to distribute our internet connection. We use it in some departments for accessing systems, but in the main, it is for internet access. The performance of the network, the connection and stability, are very good. Perfect.

The main features are that it's secure and it's easy to distribute the SSID and control it. I also like the controller.

There is a problem with the controller. When we have to restart the controller, it does not show the time. We have to manually configure the time when we restart it. I have read about this issue, to get some information, and all answers are about having to connect it with a time server, which is very difficult.

As a wireless solution, it's very stable.

No issues with scalability.

I tried to get support, to get a solution for this "time" problem I mentioned. We have other Cisco products and the support is perfect. But for the wireless, we haven't gotten an answer to this problem.

We were using another option. It was not professional, something like D-Link. We had to configure each router separately. That's why we use Cisco, because I like the controller.

There is a company here, a Cisco partner or distributor. They advised us to use the system, and they brought it to us.

I have also used another Cisco product but at another company, Cisco Meraki. It's easier in terms of the configuration and the cloud. I liked it.

You only have to set up the controller and everything is working; all the configuration. I like it.

It's good to compare pricing, but it's Cisco and I trust Cisco.

I would strongly advise any company, but especially in business, to use this wireless solution.

I rate Cisco Wireless at nine out of 10 because, as I said, I like the performance, stability, the easy implementation and the controller. There is just that one problem with the controller, so that's why I gave it a nine and not 10.

There are a lot of valuable features and functions. One example is CleanAir to detect and troubleshoot interference issues. Another is RX-SOP to optimize roaming.

The web interface for Cisco controllers could be better. It could be more user-friendly. Sometimes I have to remember how to access some functionalities or how to enable or execute some functions. If it were more user-friendly it would save time.

I have not encountered any issues around the stability of this product. I'm satisfied with this aspect. It provides good functionality and hierarchy for a wireless network.

For the moment, I haven't had any issues with scalability.

As of now, I have not had to contact technical support. I generally resolve all problems by myself.

I moved to Cisco because it's a solution that many companies use. I already had experience with Cisco routers and switches, so it was easier to configure and to manage Cisco products.

I found the initial setup really easy because the facts, the documentation, explanations, and support are available on the internet. If I had any problem I could find the solution on the internet. There are a lot of facts and documentation there.

The ROI generally takes four to five years.

This product's pricing is good. It's not too expensive.

Whether the pricing is a good value depends on the product. I was looking for some Cisco products and found that some are expensive, like the Cisco Spectrum Expert Wireless adapter.

I have compared it with some other products like Aruba and Aerohive to see what the functionality and performance are like. I have seen, for example, that the Aerohive already has some access points in the new 802.11ax. It's the new transmission technology that provides wireless bandwidth to 4 or 5 Gbps. I haven't seen any Cisco products like that, so I think they are a little late in this regard.

I started first with the 1440, without a wireless controller in an autonomous access point. Two years after that, I moved to the 2504 Wireless Controller - a 40-access-point deployment. The next year I was working in a car manufacturer's warehouse. I managed three warehouses. One of them was a 5520 with 300 access points. Another site was with the 5508 with less than 200 access points.

I would rate Cisco Wireless at seven out of 10 because, when we compare it with other solutions like Aruba or Aerohive, Cisco is behind in technology and just a little more expensive. Aerohive, as I mentioned, has some access points in the new 802.11ax standard and Aruba, in many cases, is more user-friendly to configure and to manage.

In general, for the wireless LAN controller, Cisco is coming up with new solutions every day, they're improving their products. Networking is getting serious, becoming easier to be done for clients, configurations are becoming easier to be done. 

Cisco 5500 Wireless Controller, for example, has a number of features: 

• supports a lot of access points
• better GUI
• better management
• better control. 

If an issue comes up, the GUI of this particular wireless controller is well supported, very good to use.

Recently, one of our clients had a problem with their wireless connection at their location. The problem was that they were using the old series for the access points. We suggested that they use Cisco Aironet 3800 Series Access Point because, if you go to the actual data sheet of the access point, there are way more lines, the radio is better, the broadcasting system is better, the control is better.

Maybe the actual Cisco products can also be made cloud-based, though it would be competing with the Meraki. But I think that would improve the market. It would improve configuration. It would help the clients a lot, because if everything was cloud-based, we could just guide the clients through the situation, so they could do the configurations on their own. It would help the clients to save money as well.

Everything is fine. Cisco products are perhaps the most reliable on the market. While deploying, we have never faced an issue.

Different issues come up for the different companies because they need different things done in their networks, so that depends on the company. But in the deployment, hardware-wise, there isn't any problem. There is always room for the improvement but, from my perspective, no problems with stability.

I did not switch to Cisco. We suggest products based on the clients' needs. It depends on the different scenarios we come across. It depends on the clients, what their requirements are and what their budgeted is, because Cisco is more on the expensive side, as compared to Aruba, but I must say Cisco's quality is unmatched, for sure.

It’s a standard thing. For the switches it's a standard thing, for the router it's a standard thing, same with the wireless LAN controller or the access points. It's not difficult. For a person who's doing it for first time, it's going to be complicated, but once you get used to it, it’s pretty much the same thing all the time.

My suggestion would be to go with Cisco products.

Scalability

• Multiple SSID's
• Ability to offer WI-FI to guest in a secure environment

None.

Two years. (WLC 5508)

Older WAP's can be an issue as the firmware makes them problematic. Requires upgrading the WLC firmware to see units properly.

None.

None.

8 out of 10.

8 out of 10.

Several. Cisco is more scalable and actually less costly over time.

Fairly straightforward - need to understand the Cisco way of breaking things out but otherwise no issues.

We implemented it in-house.

Approximately $20,000 with no additional costs.

• Meraki
• SonicWALL

Understand your need. Let the need drive the purchase not the other way around.