Cisco Wireless Reviews

We primarily use the solution for our handheld devices. We have about 30 most likely that are medical hand-held devices. We do have a lot of wireless devices out there, including carts. We've got Vocera Badges that we use.

The support offered by Cisco is excellent. They are very responsive and knowledgeable.

The functionality of the solution is very good.

The most difficult part of the solution is us juggling everything. There are eight access points that we have to deal with. They have a tendency to age out. After five years, they go off sale. Then, five years after that, that they're out of support. Usually, when you get a new access point, we have to get to a certain version to get everything to work. However, on top of that, the ones we had 10 years ago are no longer functioning. They make it a complicated battle to try to keep your equipment at proper revisions, all at the time. They kind of force you to upgrade now. 

Apple is definitely causing a lot of issues by turning on more security features on its equipment. It is causing more problems on the business side. One is what they call a randomized Mac address that Apple has put out. As far as I know, Cisco doesn't have a fix for that. In other words, it's there to protect the end-user when they're on a guest network or they use randomized Mac addresses. We were trying to implement an employee group that would track the individual via the Mac. Now that it's rotating, we don't have a way to configure that.

I need to figure out how to handle security features that product lines have that offer a non-standard type of security feature that is being turned on constantly by different vendors. iPad also gives us isses. They have it set up so that you don't see the Mac address and the wireless at all. You can't even track your device anymore. I just discovered that last week.

We've been using the solution for about 15 years at this point It's been a good long while.

The solution is pretty solid in terms of stability. Out of a rating of ten, I would give them a nine. It's reliable and doesn't crash or freeze. It's not buggy at all.

I would describe the solution as scalable. If a company needs to grow it out they can do so pretty easily.

We're big fans of technical support. It's one of the solution's big selling features. We've very satisfied with the level of support they provide us.

I also have experience with Aruba. I'd say that Cisco is a bit more complicated to set up.

That said, we went to Cisco from day one - even before they had wireless controllers. Cisco is our go-to solution.

The initial setup is probably a little bit more complex than Aruba from what I've seen so far. It's not simple per se.

I don't handle the pricing. I don't have it in front of me. I'm not sure what the monthly costs are for our organization.

We're just a customer.

The solution is fairly up-to-date, however, we aren't using the most recent version of the solution right now.

Overall, I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. We've used it for years and it's worked quite well for us with very little issues to speak of.

We are customers of Cisco and I'm an enterprise architect. 

I like the connectivity of this solution. We have a pretty good team working on the product. They are quick and the solution is fairly easy to configure. Customization is not a problem because all products can be customized or cross-customized. 

I would like to see an improvement in the controllers of the solution. I would ideally like to have software defined WiFi as an additional feature, everything connected with LVMs, so basically to define networking; ADPs which would define the perimeter and a combination of PSDN and WAN, etc. I would also like to see the use of the PE market and functions. Authentication and authorization processes for guest users would also be a good additional feature. 

I've been working with Cisco for over five years. 

This solution is extremely scalable. If we're talking about any solution that has a cloud-based infrastructure, I assume it's scalable and as a network architect I don't need to worry. If the solution is on-prem, like we have now, I have to worry about a potentially slow infrastructure, network, interfaces, capacity. On cloud, the only concern is internet connectivity. We have over 30,000 employees and they are all end users. 

We use a third-party company that we cooperate with for our technical support, WiFi and for our network.

In general, the setup is quite straightforward although with our factory site configuration, it was more complex. The setup took some time as we're a website company so everything here takes time! It's not a one day implementation, probably closer to a week for the end-to-end installation. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We use it to provide wireless access to our students, faculty, and non-teaching staff because we are a university, an educational institution. I am one of the non-teaching staff who takes care of the networking side.

The feature that I have found most valuable is its durability because we can rely on this solution. It is also easy to configure. Lastly, if something happens, we get good support from Cisco.

One thing which we really don't like about Cisco is that it is very expensive. If we compare it to other brands like Ruckus or Aruba, it seems to be almost double in price. So that is a major concern. Recently, I have been looking for something comparable to Cisco which is a lower price.

Cost is a major area because if you look at the technical features with other solutions, they seem to be the same in every feature, with no big differences. For example, if you support a 1.5k ACL with two parallel lines, others are supporting 2,000. It's not a major difference, but it is there. I think you can show that it as at par with the competitors.

I would say that the product is best-in-class. The only thing is the price because whether you're a government institution or a private organization, everyone looks for the best price. If we just compare to the competitors on the financial side and we have to pay twice, then it's very difficult for us to go for something even if we know it is very good. So the price should be much less.

Another improvement Cisco Wireless could make is if they provided a calculation document or study on requirements for wall thickness, signal range, switch location, etc.

Additionally, I think it is already very advanced and potentially supports 5G. That is perfectly fine, but it would be good if they could increase their signal strength, because sometimes we face difficulty getting signals, even from a wifi access point in the next room. This goes hand-in-hand with the document I mentioned calculating the range area of the product, etc. There are international standards and/or limitations on that. 

I personally have been using Cisco for a only few years, since I was hired, but my institution has been using it for around seven or eight years.

The stability is good. 

For wireless, I would say it is good. But when we were using the Cisco firewall we found some difficulties setting up and our internet was breaking up or something like that. But from a wireless point of view, it is fine.

Also, one point which just came to my mind about Cisco is if we could have some kind of calculation for the access points because then maybe we could make a web off of all of them. "How much of that access point is required. This access point is covering this much area." If we can have that kind of information it would be easier for us to calculate the capacity. 

It is scalable. We are currently looking at the scalability so that we can provide the infrastructure to some other blocks, as well. I haven't tried it yet or discovered what problems I'm going to face, but I think that it should be able to scale. I think we will be able to do that, but I'm not sure right now.

During peak time, there are around 5,000 or 6,000 users. Now, in COVID-19-like situations, there are maybe a hundred or 200.

We don't have any plans to just switch to another product because we don't have that flexibility. We will just go for open tendering. We will make some generic technical aspects of the product and throw it in the market. Everyone will be invited. We can't just ask for Cisco only. That's why I was worried about their price because if they are the most expensive we will not pay them if they qualify.

The initial setup is not that difficult, it is just technical. For example, if I am looking to set up Cisco, then I should have the skills required to install it. So I would say that the setup is fine. It does not need to be changed. In fact, the product which we have has a controller on our premise that Cisco is now offering to our controllers for switches. So I think this concern is handled over there because controlling through the cloud is a little easier than this centralized controller product, particularly for an institution or organization.

I would say that it's a good solution. Everything is there and I have nothing to point out. 

I would definitely recommend this product, but at the same time, I would say that they should bring their price down. 

Like every solution, it has pros and cons. It's just part of the process.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco Wireless a nine. From the product side, I would rate it nine, but if you ask me about the return on investment, I would probably say a six or seven because the investment is huge here.

We use Cisco Wireless for mobile WiFi connectivity to the end-users. It provides mobile device connectivity. They don't need any LAN connectivity to access the network. They can connect any mobile device or wireless device to access the network.

Cisco is one of the leading vendors and is at the top of many lists. The access software is robust, and the performance of the devices is excellent.

Cisco Wireless could improve if they had some kind of social media integration. There is some limitation with social media integration and wireless interaction. They need to add some additional components to their wireless devices to complete the solution or requirements.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for approximately 17 years.

Cisco Wireless solutions are highly reliable.

The solution is scalable.

Cisco technical support is excellent. Cisco is well known for its superior support.

I'm taking care of the Cisco Wireless designs. I'm not into the implementation right now. I work designing suitable solutions for our customers. I provide consultancy to our customers and design the solution based on the customer's requirements. I used to work on the implementation, but for the last six years, I'm not into this field of implementation.

Pricing is a little higher for Cisco Wireless than all other vendors. Cisco should work on improving the pricing because there are some other vendors out there in the market which may have the same features or equivalent features that Cisco has at a lesser price.

Cisco Wireless has a large portfolio and is used in many places, such as school campuses. They have many types of deployments, such as on the cloud. Most of the features are available and they're supporting the latest technology.

I rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

Our client is a manufacturer that uses Cisco Wireless to provide WiFi coverage for the entire factory. 

We implemented Cisco Wireless two years ago.

Cisco Wireless is stable.

Cisco Wireless is scalable.

Setting up Cisco Wireless isn't easy, but it's not that difficult, either.

The price of Cisco Wireless could be lower.

I rate Cisco Wireless eight out of 10. However, I wouldn't typically recommend Cisco Wireless. In this case, the clients had to implement Cisco to meet a corporate standard. If someone asked me to suggest a good WiFi solution, I would say Ruckus.

I am using Cisco Wireless for wireless networking in an office.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for approximately 10 years.

Cisco Wireless is a stable solution.

From my experience, I have found Cisco Wireless to be scalable.

The solution is good for all business sizes.

We did not have any problems with the technical support.

The initial setup is not complicated, it is simple.

The price of Cisco Wireless could be adjusted down, it is a bit expensive. The solution is worth it for the name and the brand. However, there are more products now in the market that give you the same quality, but at a cheaper price.

Cisco Wireless is one of the top solutions in the market, I would recommend them.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

I like that it's a standard wireless solution that can be rolled out throughout the campus. I also like that it is easy to manage.

It is a good end-to-end solution.

Room for improvement wise, the wireless coverage of Cisco's equipment could be better for the price position. That is, I think that the radius for the coverage could be better to make it worth the price that we pay for it.

It could be more reliable as well.

It is not a cheap solution, and the lead time can be long.

I've been using this solution for the past three years.

The stability or reliability is good. The performance is not that good.

The scalability is okay. It's limited by the controller though. If we need to expand the solution, we need to buy new controllers, which will make the solution more expensive.

At this site, we have around 2000 users. Cisco is used everyday.

Technical support is good. How you end up rating the support, whether it is good or maybe just satisfactory, depends on the type of support that you have purchased from Cisco. That is, if you want good support, then you'll have to pay more than that for normal support.

Before we chose Cisco wireless, we evaluated it based on Extreme Networks. We switched because Extreme Networks support is not good here in Malaysia.

The initial setup is quite complex and took about three months.

For deployment and maintenance, we have four staff members.

We are an integrator, and we implemented it ourselves.

Cisco is not a cheap solution. Their licensing cost is higher than that for others.

If you want to upgrade it in the future, the licensing cost will be high. I think that in the future, Cisco will be based more on software rather than hardware. This means that you will have to pay more for licensing. 

The Cisco solution has been quite reliable because it's more hardware based, but now because it's becoming more software based, the hardware might cost slightly less. However, because of COVID and the shortage of chips, this does not really apply.

Considering other solutions, I don't think Aruba is any better than Cisco. Aruba and Cisco both have a lot of range. Similarly, Ruckus also has this level of range; however, Ruckus is more specialized in wireless solutions. That's why for incoming projects, we have chosen Ruckus, which is more popular and easier to support as well.

If you are implementing a wireless solution, you can actually use any wired solution while running the wireless solution on top of it. If you are only looking at a wireless setup, then you might be better off choosing Ruckus. However, if you need an end-to-end solution, Cisco is a better option.

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

We moved to the solution after we had some hardware issues. 

We use it with laptops for wireless connection via the cloud.

The performance is very good. If you compare it to Aruba, we find the ability to roam much better.

The functionality has been very good.

The stability is very good overall.

It's easy to configure.

I've found it to be quite secure.

We've recently had hardware issues which have caused us some problems. 

There are some models that have more coverage than ours. We'd like for them to work towards providing more coverage across models. 

The solution is a bit expensive.

I've been using the solution for a year and a half. It hasn't been too long. 

We've had a good experience with the stability of this product. There are no bugs or glitches. It's reliable for the most part I don't recall it crashing or freezing. 

We have about 90 users of the solution in our office at this time. 

We don't really deal with support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

We also use Meraki as well.

I'm aware of Aruba's capabilities and find Cisco to be better. However, it costs a bit more than Aruba.

The installation process isn't too difficult.

I cannot speak to exactly how long it took to deploy. I can't remember the length of time off-hand. 

Three people worked on the implementation. They were a manager and two technicians. 

While we did have some access to information to help us, we mostly handled the implementation process on our own.

The pricing is on the high side. For example, it is more expensive to use than Aruba.

We have a license, however, I do not manage it. 

I would recommend the solution to others, however, it depends on the capabilities of the end-user. Some may find it difficult. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We are pleased with it so far.