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. 

I've worked with system integrators and I have deployed the product on multiple types of environments. I've worked at the corporate offices. I've worked on 3G, 4G offloading, public Wi-Fi networks, et cetera.

You don't have to manage or deploy multiple types of Wi-Fi networks for different use cases. With something like Cisco, your one Wi-Fi solution can cover most or all of your use cases.

It is a good fit for large enterprises or even service providers.

Overall, it's a good solution.

The product is very scalable. 

It's configured well and it supports a lot of configuration options such as the proper corporate SSIDs, tunneling features, and integration with Cisco NACs, or other third-party NACs.

The stability of the solution is good.

The technical support has been helpful.

The third-party integration capabilities could be better. It still works within Cisco-related products, however, third-party integration is still something that needs some relaxing.

The new licensing model isn't as good as what they had before.

I've been dealing with the solution for more than a decade. It's been 10 or 11 years at this point.

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

It can scale into whatever level I want to go to. The actual wireless is quite scalable. Scalability is not any trouble.

I've been satisfied with technical support. They are helpful and responsive.

I've also used Aruba. I actually prefer Aruba to Cisco.

The solution has a moderate level of complexity when it comes to the initial setup. It's not too difficult. However, it's not as straightforward as one would hope, either. 

Depending on what type of network the customer wants, the deployment time varies. It can be either one SSID or a proper BYOD case with a corporate SSID, depending on the solution. 

With the new licensing model, the DNA licensing model, it's a bit on the expensive side. It used to have an option for the perpetual and subscription-based models, however, now they've started pushing you to the subscription models.

I'm a Cisco partner.

I'd rate the product at a nine out of ten. Overall, we've been happy with the capabilities of the product.

That said, if I had to choose between Cisco and Aruba, I'd probably choose Aruba.

I implement this solution in restaurants with an external aerial or near the beach. I also deployed this solution in big warehouses.

Managing a large warehouse requires the use of advanced technology that facilitates work in the warehouse, usually through tablets, laptops, and mobile phones, all of which are connected to the management system via the wireless network. Mobility in a large warehouse requires continuous connection to the computer system.

The CISCO wireless network allows all end units to be managed as a single network with a security code. The transition from one access point to another is done smoothly and according to the intensity of absorption.

The most important thing for me is 0 disconnections while working, and that all access points are in one group and will use one access code. The units are easy to install and set up

Guidelines and recommendations on where and how to install the units for perfect coverage.

Any utility to test the signal strength. Today every time we install equipment, certain times are forced to change its location due to poor reception.

And seamlessly integrate with products from other suppliers. It will also help if they include a device diagnostic feature in the next release.

I have been dealing with Cisco Wireless for three or four years.

I have a problem with the small device. Product from Series 300. Sometimes you have to reset this device. Maybe the buffer is overflowing, But after I reset the devices, it's work okay.

I have used TP-Link Solution but the Devices hung every 1-2 days

The initial setup and deployment for small businesses are very simple. But for the one with the controller, you have to set up a controller which is not a GUI utility. You have to type a lot in the command line. If you have this with GUIs instead, it will be better. The deployment time depends on the size of the customer's project. This product doesn't require maintenance, just updates to the firmware. 

I install this solution for my customers. 

I think it's affordable. Maybe there are little differences, but it's not very expensive. But with all Cisco products, you have to pay more for the power supply. You'll have to pay for the PoE converter.

I would recommend this product to new users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Wireless a nine.

We use this solution to provide network access and to manages wireless network devices.

The LAN network conductivity is good.

I have been using this solution for approximately two years.

The solution is stable but it could be improved. However, this could be because there are not enough APs.

The solution is scalable and we have 1,000 users using this solution in my organization.

The support is good.

The implementation and maintenance are done by our five-person technical team.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco Wireless seven out of ten.

We use it for all kinds of equipment including, laptops, mobile devices, and guest access. We are just using the basic features and just the wireless connection.

If I take it away, that would be a nightmare because we have a lot of devices working through wireless.

The capacity, security, downloading, and exporting data are all very good. It's user-friendly, but if I look at Meraki versus normal Cisco equipment, then I think that Meraki will be much more user-friendly.

The price could be better. The configuration is also complex. It would be better if there's an NEC solution. That's one of the things we really want to have. It should also be as fast as possible.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for a couple of years.

It's stable, but it's expensive.

We got in touch with technical support once, and that was good.

The initial setup is complex. We currently have a complex configuration.

It's expensive. The pricing is an obstacle.

I would advise new users not to underestimate the complexity of the configuration.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Wireless an eight.

Before Cisco bought Meraki, we used internal private clouds and offer them to all our customers about five years ago. We wanted a solution that has a centralized core in order to have control, instead of having to install controllers in each customer that you have. We were able to utilize the elements of the core and provide a solution to our customers similar to that of Cisco Meraki. Once the customer's contracts ended, we changed the solution to Aruba or Cisco Meraki.

If you think back five years ago, the radios and MIMOs worked better than the other solutions that you had. For now, the Catalyst line has more capabilities to deliver more conductivity for customers for each access point. You can integrate a lot of available solutions on the core to have more enhanced information and allowing businesses to have more control. In distribution centers and in factories it is better to use this solution than Meraki systems because you have more control over the setup and information that you can achieve on those older radios.

The main problem that traditional solutions like this one have is that you need to buy packages to deliver a similar solution as a Meraki one. If there was a package that you can buy and have all control features similar to the Meraki dashboard, such as user access control. We can sell this solution more easily if you have those packages available. I do not know if it is a sale strategy for Cisco to limit the functionality.

I have previously used and I am still using the IAP model solution from Aruba. This is a solution that can merge different features. For example, we can control the access points locally and there is a cloud platform to manage everything with Meraki that you do not have in traditional Cisco solutions like this one.

I have evaluated the Cisco Catalyst line solutions in the past.

I rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is to provide enterprise wireless solutions for employees. We're a system integration provider, and we have a number of customers. Our customers deploy our wireless solutions in an active-standby mode for better network stability. We mostly have customers who have standalone wireless controllers.

I like that Cisco Wireless is easy to implement. If you get stuck with any issues, they have ample documentation on the internet. It's easy to implement, and Cisco documentation is easily accessible.

In the next release, I would like to see some AI capability deployed. Other competitors like Mist and Juniper already have it. So, AI features need to be introduced next year. Cisco is the defacto brand in wireless technology, and they're a little bit behind. They need to introduce some AI features so we can introduce the customer to these new features.

Some training will help because Cisco's new offering, 9800, requires a lot of hands-on experience. This is because the Cisco 9800 controller is new compared to the previous models, like 2504 and 3504. It requires more hands-on experience to get familiar with the terminologies used in 9800. This is because there are some AP profiles and site profiles, and all these things we aren't familiar with. It's a good tool.

I've been implementing Cisco Wireless for the last five years.

Cisco Wireless is obviously very stable, and there's no doubt about that. When you go for Airwave, it's very stable. The new IOx is going to be stable, and we're deploying it for a couple of customers.

You can deploy it for whatever your user wants and their AP count. It's very good when it comes to scalability.

Cisco technical support is great. Cisco is based in Texas and provides technical support in any manner. Cisco provides support to customers who require it for updates or break-fix IT.
Support is wonderful. We haven't had a problem.

It's easy to set up and implement this solution. For a basic implementation, you can deploy it within two or three hours. This is for a basic deployment for publishing SSID and testing. At a granular level, you may need a week to deploy this solution. This is because, in wireless scenarios, you need to do tests and try different testing scenarios. It's a very good basic solution for deploying to the cloud.

From a pricing point of view, it's a little bit expensive compared to competitors like Aruba and others. But the product is also very promising and very stable. The hardware is wonderful. As a system integrator, it's okay, but you'll probably see it as expensive as a customer.

I would advise potential users to implement Cisco wireless if they're implementing Airwaves. The old models like 2504 and 5508 work well with Airwaves. But it requires some specific knowledge to take that to the controllers and unplug the device. Some connectivity is derived from the core to the controller. You need to know what type of connectivity is required, what kind of access, and all those things. Cisco 9800 is a pure IOx, and it has a very straightforward configuration. It's very easy when compared to Airwaves.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Wireless a ten for stability and performance. I don't have any issues with that.

We've got a very large install base with Cisco Wireless. We use it for a number of situations.
We use it in warehouses, retail branches, and offices.

It is a reliable and robust solution. Access and Mobility Groups are useful. We don't use anything very fancy.

Its licensing has been very frustrating. There is also the complexity of managing the product. These are probably the two reasons why we're looking at Aruba.

The way they license this product is not simple. There are some good features in the latest version, but there are additional license costs as well, which is frustrating for us. It is not really a feature issue for us. It really comes down to cost and licensing.

They should make it a bit simpler to manage. We find the overall solution a little bit more complex than we would like to deal with. Its troubleshooting is a bit difficult, and it does require a high skill set. Comparatively, Aruba seems quite simple. One of the benefits of the Aruba product is that it is cloud-managed. We don't have to manage the management platform itself, whereas Cisco is on-premise. Its user interface could also be better.

I have been using this solution for maybe 15 years.

It is stable and reliable.

It is scalable. There are no issues with scalability. We have approximately 5,000 users.

They are very good. I am satisfied with their technical support.

Over the last 15 years, we've done so many installations, and we've had them refreshed many times. We've also done installations in the last six months. It is in the middle in terms of complexity. It is neither straightforward nor too complex.

Its licensing is not simple. There are additional license costs for features, which is frustrating for us. There are some features that are included for free in the base Aruba product, but they are available at additional costs in this solution.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a six out of ten.