Cisco Wireless Reviews

There are many valuable features including security, availability, scalability, integration With Cisco products, WEB Portal for guest users, and Cleanair.

The main improvement was the mobility of Notebooks, Tablets, SmartPhones and Warehouse functions.

Management, and Monitoring features need to be improved and the inclusion of a Cloud-based solution.

4 years

Remote APs cannot work without Main Controller when using 802.1x Authentication.

No issues encountered.

No issues were encountered.

It was OK! We had some problems and always checked them with the TAC.

We used MOTOROLA/SYMBOL. It is an solution with no innovation and less features than Cisco Wireless Solution.

No, It was simple.

I am an consultant and I implement for our clients.

Motorola and Aruba.

That is a good solution, pay attention on Compatibility Matrix with some APs.

We are using it just for connectivity.

It allows us to reduce the cost of cabling and provides mobility of users within the organization.

The speed and security are most valuable.

Its licensing model and cost should be improved. 

I have been using this solution for about seven years.

It is very stable.

It is quite scalable.

There are no issues with their technical support.

It is fairly easy.

We used an outsource partner.

It is expensive, and there are some costs in addition to the standard licensing fee. Its licensing model and cost should be improved.

At that time, Cisco was the main provider of such solutions, so we went with Cisco.

I would recommend this solution. I would advise getting it done by a professional who knows what he or she is doing so that you don't run into any issues.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

Cisco Wireless FlexConnect mode is for branches where the traffic can be switched locally. There is centralized switching for the corporate side where the wireless controller will be in the headquarters, and the branches will only have access points. We have the flexibility to use Cisco's FlexConnect for the branches and centralized switching for the corporate network. Combining these feature ensures the traffic flow for the wireless is being controlled and provides the best wireless scenario for the branches. You don’t need to go to the controller each and every time.

Cisco Wireless technology allows us to logically segregate networks, to segregate the traffic between multiple types of endpoint devices, connected to the network. For example, corporate laptops are connected to one network, corporate iPhones will go through a different network.

With Cisco Wireless we have DNA technology for the frequency in which it operates, so that in case of any frequency interference it can look for and switch to another frequency, where there no interference.

Another feature of Cisco Wireless is that we are able to operate APs in multiple frequencies by grouping the APs into multiple groups, so we can operate the wireless in one group at 2.4 gigahertz and the other group at 5 gigahertz. This allows us to group the APs based on the business case or on the bandwidth.

There are a couple of shortcomings in Cisco Wireless right now. I don't see a policy model for the wireless technology solution. If Cisco could bring the wireless architecture around with the controls, it would lead to being able to fine-tune the configuration a little better.

Cisco Wireless' stability is quite good as of now. The recent APs are coming with a backbone of up to 5 MBPS throughput, and that is quite okay.

The scalability is good.

The technical support is good.

We need to do a site survey, AP placement, and wireless configuration: Which are we going to configure, how are we going to get it authenticated, how will we go into control? So we need to have a plan. That's not only for Cisco, it's true for whichever wireless we need to deploy. We need to have a proper plan in place, but configuration-wise it is straightforward. It is simple.

The shortlist was Aruba and Cisco. The features are more or less the same, but the cost is also important.

Cisco Wireless has been around for quite some time. Cisco is a leader and its Wireless product is very reliable, so investing in it is a safe bet.

I would rate this solution at eight out of 10 because of the availability of support, and its stability.

My most important criteria when selecting a vendor are the 

• product knowledge
• support from the vendor and the availability of the technical staff to support it.

Unified management, reporting, stability, and most importantly seamless roaming

Network wide SSID’s and passkeys help the day to day function of the IT staff. Simple to have a guest network.

The cost could be improved.

2 Years

Deployment for the WLAN controllers is very simple with a proper plan of your organization’s requirements. I have deployed this across large university campuses, vpn tunnels, and small businesses.

I have had very few issues with appliances or access points dropping off.

This goes back to properly planning your deployment. The smaller WLAN controller’s don’t grow well.

10 out of 10

10 out of 10

I haven’t switched anyone but we do often deploy Ubiquiti Unifi equipment for our smaller clients

Like all things Cisco, this can be as simple or complex as you want it. Most implementations are very simple to start.

It is done in-house.

We evaluated Aruba, Ruckus, and Ubiquiti.

Do your research! Make sure this product fits your needs.

The mobility that it provides is really helpful. It's one full network of about 15 APs and they're all connected together; the users can move seamlessly between them.

Overall, it's a pretty good solution; however, it's end-of-life, it will be end-of-support in the next two years. The APs are also end-of-life. I was considering upgrading this year, however, we're planning to move to a new office and I don't want to buy new equipment just to install it in our current office, and then have to dismantle everything and move it to the new office. We just want to buy something that is useful for us.

The model that we have is about eight or ten years old; I'm sure the marketplace has changed a lot since then. It's good but outdated, there are other features that could be better.

The latest models, of course, have better WiFi capabilities. Our access points support 2.4 and 5 GHz. We're looking for the new AX or AC models for WiFi. I believe there is more speed with those kinds of connections.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for about three years.

It's stable. It's working fine. There are some issues regarding moving the equipment. Otherwise, every three months or so we have an AP that hangs and we just restart it, that's it. Otherwise, everything's working fine.

We haven't contacted support from Cisco.

We have some other access points, but they are normal, standard APs. For our branch office, we use fat APs, just normal wireless outlets from off-the-shelf, like D-Link and so on. 

I haven't set them up myself. There was an IT team before I started administering this network and they set up everything before me. I just received the network as it is. I just added the APs and moved them from one area to another.

Cisco Wireless is good. On a scale from one to ten, I would give them a rating of seven, although to give a more accurate rating, I would need to experience something else to compare it to. I'm considering sticking with Cisco, unless I find other models that can give better performance. Cisco has a few types of models: the standard Cisco, the normal Cisco, and the Meraki one. I'm not sure if Meraki would be a better solution for us, or if the standard Cisco Wireless controller would be better. That's why I went to your website — to find other solutions and read comparisons about them.

We use it for WiFi for Internet, Intranet access, and VOIP in a high density area campus environment.

Wireless Voice over IP (VOIP) on a diversity of VOIP phones along with Cisco Jabber, Cisco phones, and Ascom.

Device profiling allows us to have different policies applied by ISE to wireless clients.

Many wireless controllers' firmware have bugs in their new releases, which are not stable, especially in an environment with many wireless AP (WAP) types.

Cisco Wireless has improved in terms of the Tri-Band and the Two-Band, those types of two antennas. We've been happy with the architecture and the solution for some time. 

Obviously there are new requirements around WPA-3 and Wi-Fi 6, more wireless assurance, and those types of things. So we're looking at all of those options in terms of their next product suite.

I'm not a wireless engineer but we've had Cisco Wireless at the company for a long time, about 20 odd years. We're now looking at replacing the Wireless architecture.

Cisco Wireless is stable.

From a scalability point of view, there is a cost component which needs to be looked at and reviewed, but from a technical scalability point of view I think it ticks all the boxes.

Cisco's technical support is very good, I've never had an issue with their technical support.

Cisco has several pricing models. I think things have gotten more expensive due to the economic climate around COVID and things like that for most vendors now.

Everybody is price-sensitive. I'm just the partner, so I'm looking at the solutions for the client. I'm not the customer. The customer, obviously, would say cheap is better and because a lot of people are price sensitive now they're trying to get as much value as they can at a good price.

I'm not a wireless expert, but we've been running Cisco Wireless for a long time. On a scale of one to ten, I would definitely give them an eight.

I think the licensing models need to be reviewed in some instances. Obviously Cisco's licensing models are quite challenging, and it can be costly. Those are the two things to check.

Our customers use Cisco Wireless for networking and WiFi.

It is a stable solution.

Installation is complex and should be easier. 

I've been dealing with Cisco Wireless for two years. We have two customers who use it.

It is a stable solution.

Technical support is average.

The initial setup is complex and took about one day.

I would recommend this solution.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cisco Wireless at five.