Cisco Wireless Reviews

We primarily use the solution in order to provide wireless clients access to our hospital network.

The BCO is a great basic feature.

We enjoy having access to the security features and MAC filtering. 

All the files are standard and supported, which is a good thing.

The initial setup is easy. It's fairly quick to deploy.

The product scales well and expands quite easily.

The interface could be better.

It's a hospital network; we have a lot of X-ray machines and other machines which may interrupt the WiFi signals. They need to provide more stability with respect to the interference or help us can analyze what is causing the interference issues from the controller side so that we could more effectively troubleshoot.

The pricing of the product is quite high.

I've heard the WiFi 6 is in the market and I would like to explore WiFi 6 features. 

Having a single SSID and adding a personal device or an organizational device that an SSID can automatically pick and connect to would be great.

I've been working with the solution for over ten years at this point. It's been a while now. 

While the product is stable, in some areas when the user sees a disconnection, we are not able to identify whether it's an access point issue or if it is due to some interference in that area of the hospital (due to hospital equipment). We need help detecting issues via the controller.

We have around 4,000 to 5,000 users on the solution. 

It is easy to scale as it is centralized. You just need to add more access points if you would like to expand the product.

Technical support is great. One time, we had a controller issue due to a hardware failure and they replaced it within two days. They are extremely helpful and responsive. We are satisfied with the level of support they provide. 

The initial setup is very simple. It's not overly complex or difficult. A company shouldn't have any trouble implementing it. 

Initially, we need to get the hardware and put the basic configurations of network settings in order. I don't think it will take more than one hour to do the basic configuration. More complexity, however, does take time. 

The solution doesn't require too much maintenance. Our access points are very old, however, they are pretty stable. For around 10 years, we have been running on the old hardware and it is time to renew, actually, as the product is almost end of support. However, so far, the maintenance has been quite minimal.

The first time we implemented the solution, we did request vendor support.

The product is quite expensive, and it's making us reconsider staying with Cisco. 

As this solution is near its end-of-life, my company is looking into other solutions such as Aruba or Huawei. We have not decided yet on what we will do, however, the Cisco pricing is very costly. We would like to check out other options that are cheaper, and which can offer the same kind of stability and features.

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

We aren't necessarily using the latest version of the solution. Some access points, for example, are so old we cannot upgrade them any longer. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users. If you have the money and budget, Cisco is a good, stable solution.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. 

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 it for Wi-Fi at home. We'll have all devices connected to this Wi-Fi router.

As for valuable features, it is tough, has a nice speed, and is quite reliable.

I would improve the Wi-Fi range. Sometimes, in some rooms the signal could be a bit better, a little stronger.

I've been using Cisco Wireless for a couple of years.

I have had no problems at all with stability.

The installation is very easy and straightforward. I did it myself.

It's a good device, and I would recommend it. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at eight.

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.

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 use the solution for so many things. We are a Saudi customs organization, and we are using it for the mobile user inside the port and for the trucks themselves. We use it for the trucks as the trucks also need to use wireless. They're moving inside the port. We need it for providing internet to the user. We also use it for the intranet network and for the internet network.

The solution is quite stable.

The installation process is very easy.

Technical support has been mostly helpful in the past.

The coverage has given us a few issues. We have some of the wireless devices flooding. The scalability is off. It needs to be better. If they could offer better coverage, we'd be much happier.

I've been using the solution for about 15 years at this point. It's been well over a decade. It's been a while.

The solution has been quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. The performance is largely pretty good.

The scalability isn't the best. It doesn't give us the coverage we need. There isn't good mapping for the wireless and the access points.

We have about 600 people who are using our access points.

We likely will be increasing usage in the future.

We've been in touch with technical support. They're okay. We've been satisfied with their level of support.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's an easy process. It's not overly complex. A company should be able to handle the process with relative ease.

The deployment takes only a few minutes. It's pretty fast. It's not that big of a project.

We have about 40 people on staff that can handle deployment and maintenance.

We do not need to pay a licensing fee to Cisco.

We've previously used Huawei and Aruba as well for wireless.

We are just a customer and end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

We're using the latest version of the solution right now.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations looking for a wireless solution. For the most part, it's worked well for us.

I'd rate the product at a nine out of ten as it's been mostly reliable.