Cisco Wireless Reviews

The support from Cisco is always excellent. It's often better than other options, including Aruba.

The product has so many features. If there are maybe a hundred features, a typical organization may only need 60 or 65 at maximum. There's a wide variety of options to choose from.  

The stability is great. It's very reliable. 

You can do multiple layers with the new OS that Cisco offers. 

The new OS streamlines the Cisco offering and it's been very good. 

The solution can scale well.

Cisco moved from the 5000 series, which was a different OS, to a newer OS, right. The 9800, for example, practically improved how a wireless switch or wireless controller should work, which was not so good in terms of Cisco in the earlier versions. It's improved a lot, however, if you are using older versions, you are on a different OS, and it's not as good as it is now. 

Older versions used to be hard to deploy. The latest OS, however, has made things a lot easier. While deployment is much better, it could always be even easier. 

The interface could be improved. 

I've been using the solution for five years or so. We used it for a while, then left it, then came back to it. 

The stability is very good. I can't find any fault. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable. 

The scalability is nice. 

We have about 10,000 to 12,000 or so users on the solution right now. 

I'm not sure if we plan to increase usage. We are already 100% covered. 

Technical support from Cisco is very good. It's always been much better than its competitors in this regard. We are quite satisfied with how helpful and responsive they continue to be. There is no equivalent on the market. They simply will not let you down.

I currently also use Aruba. I also have worked with Extreme. 

There are very similar devices and have the same features for the most part. Both are stable and excellent in terms of capabilities. Cisco, however, does offer better support.

The initial setup is now pretty straightforward. Cisco came out with a new OS that streamlined everything - including the initial setup. Where Aruba used to be easier (in terms of implementation), Cisco, with its newest updates, has very much improved and they are neck and neck in terms of ease of setup.

I can get a Cisco network up and running n 30 minutes. If someone knows how a Cisco controller works, I am sure, even with the HA, that person can build one full working controller within one hour. For me, in a lab set up with a virtual machine, in a maximum of 30 minutes, I can bring it up and make a small network work. Within one hour I can do that setup.

I can handle the initial setup myself using the GUI for the controller. 

We don't really see Cisco as a solution that provides an ROI. It's more of a required service for us. 

The licensing is usually for an average of three years, depending on what we buy.

There may be some add-ons that could cost a bit more. 

While, typically, Cisco is a little bit more costly, the costs also depend on your relationship with Cisco.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

We are using versions six and eight, a mix of both.

We tend to use the on-premises deployment model as we are in healthcare and there are restrictions on what we can do with the cloud and what we cannot do with the cloud.

For those considering the solution, I'd advise them to make sure the support is good in their area or for the solution you choose and that there are knowledgeable people around so that if there are any issues, they can be addressed. 

I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

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.

• Scalability
• Enterprise Wireless Mesh
• Number of interfaces
• High Performance Video

In our company we have employees spread across multiple floors which requires more APs than we originally have. This new WLAN Controller accommodates us very well. It also has the great feature of grouping APs to specific VLANs which gives us a lot of flexibility.

Overall i haven't had any major complaints. I have noticed though when grouping interfaces, sometimes if you need to delete a previously created interface group there can be glitches. The GUI can be improved on.

This specific model (Cisco 5508 Wireless Controller ) - 1 year

Cisco WLAN controller in general - over 10 years

No. The setup was pretty simple and straight forward.

None encountered.

None encountered.

They do just fine.

Very good. On the 2 occasions that I had to contact support I got immediate assistance and the reps were very knowledgeable and able to resolve my issues in little to no time.

We have always used Cisco.

The intial setup was very straight forward. Like most of Cisco devices the initial setup asks you some questions and you can select what you want to use as default or change. I did the preliminary setup then everything else from the GUI.

Implementation was done in-house.

The increased productivity and low downtime from the wireless network is worth every cent spent. The different teams can roam the building while staying connected.....100%

The initial set-up cost including the device was approximately $7500. There is no day-to-day cost besides the power it uses since the device just about maintains itself. Unless adding new APs or subnets to the wireless network there is no need to touch the controller really.

No, we stuck we Cisco since that's what we have been using all these years.

No, we stuck we Cisco since that's what we have been using all these years.

We use the solution for a corporate Wi-Fi network and we have another network for authentication for corporate devices, such as scales or hand scanners. These devices must have access to some internal resources and do not need accessing to the internet.

We have hardware controllers on our sites and a number of access points all over. The number is up to 25 currently.

We are using Cisco access point 2802, and they are very reliable. We have a number of those access points all over our network, approximately 550. I have been working with this company for about a year and the project was deployed a year before. The access points have been working now for two years without one failure.

In general, the solution completely meets our needs. However, the wireless controllers themselves could be more reliable. When they work in high availability mode, we have had some issues with them. Sometimes the cluster dissipates, the primary controller fails and the secondary does not completely switch on reducing functionality.

I have been using the solution for approximately one year.

The stability could improve, there are some issues. We were told the version of the software we are using on all of the controllers is best for Cisco IOS, but we might need to update our software. Doing so might fix the stability issues we are experiencing.

The solution is scalable. There are approximately 3,000 users using the solution simultaneously in the supermarket network and it can scale upwards to 100,000.

We have a partner that helps us with the solution's deployment and maintenance. In general,  we have three technicians that help with the solution but if we run into more complex situations we contact Oracle.

We are using the Wireless Controller 3504 on Wi-Fi 5.

If they work on fixing the reliability of the solution we will be fine using the product in the future.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

Right now, this is our primary connection for the network. We have all of our end devices connect to that. All workers connect to wireless, rather than a wired connection, so they all have laptops. 

The most valuable feature for us is management of the systems. We can easily access all features.

Probably more in terms of how much power it's using. Right now it just seems like it doesn't have enough power. Maybe that is all indicated, but says exactly how much power it's using.

When it comes to wireless controllers you have issues where you want to take an access point computer to a wireless controller, you have to configure the iOS for it. That's just cumbersome and it takes time. It just is not as convenient so not having to do that would be nice. I think it's a little more complicated than that to convert the iOS file when you're doing the wireless controller where you're going to have them converted.

The stability of the power was an issue for us recently. The access point seems to have enough power, but it turns out it did not have enough power.

I did not use technical support. After an hour of trouble-shooting, I figured it out on my own.

We have prior experience with Cisco Meraki, which is a powerful solution.

It's fairly straightforward. They are not always wireless, and that can cause some complications. But, otherwise it is not complicated at all.

We primarily use the solution for networking; networking - for WiFi coverage. We don't use it for anything else. 

So far, overall, it's been good.

The solution has been stable. The performance is good.

We find it easy to use. 

The product offers educational licenses that are priced very reasonably.

The installation process is very easy. It's quick to deploy and you can do it in less than a day.

The solution could be more stable.

We've been using the solution for more than one year. 

The performance of Cisco is very good. It's a stable product for the most part. That said, there is always room for improvement. 

The solution seems to be scalable and meets our needs. We have about 150 people using the product in our organization.

Technical support from Cisco is great. they are helpful and responsive and we are very satisfied with the level of support they offer. 

We used to use HP. We've used them for over ten years and we are still using them.

We have found the implementation to be simple and straightforward. It's not difficult or complex. It may take up to a day to deploy, however, usually, it takes less than that. the deployment is very fast.

You only need one person (or at a maximum, two) to handle deployment and maintenance. We have systems engineers that handle it. 

We use the product under an educational license, and therefore, we find the solution to be reasonably priced.

While I cannot recall the exact version number we are on, we are using the latest version of the solution.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations.

We have to set up the whole solution. The wireless network is a big part of the solution because of the mobility within the hospital. Doctors use their smartphones to access the system, so they need very stable and strong wireless connectivity. 

The hospital layout means a doctor might be quite far from the room, and there could potentially be a significant signal problem. With Cisco, we don't have this problem.

Cisco Wireless improves mobility and flexibility. The only case we are working on is with hospitals, focusing on the mobility of doctors within the hospital.

Everywhere, doctors need to be connected to the network, even within the operating theater, patient rooms, and even the basement, like the radiology department. As far as the solution goes, the coverage is usually very comprehensive.

I would rate the impact of the implementation of Cisco Wireless on the overall IT infrastructure and user experience a seven out of ten, with ten being very positive impact. 

It offers good security, coverage, and stability. I like these aspects.

For pricing, Cisco has to make an effort, or Cisco has to improve the distribution channel.

It means when I send an email or when I have a complaint, for example, there is a Cisco distributor, and it's in competition with others. 

I have to escalate this case to Cisco, and it will help us to improve our business with Cisco and prevent us from going to other solutions like Aruba or now Fortinet. We have some good switches and access point controllers now.

So, sometimes, when we find some problems with Cisco's distribution channel, we switch our customers to other brands.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. Within our customers, the hospital infrastructure is established from the first day, and it's still stable. 

The hospital was 100 beds and still is, for ten years. So, we didn't really experience the scalability of this kind of solution.

So, I don't have experience with the scalability of the solution. We usually have medium-sized businesses. We work ith hospitals that have 100 to 200 beds. This is our market. We have the same kind of clients. 

The initial setup was difficult the first time, but now it's easy for us.

We have to test the coverage area; the configuration will take us one day. But to test the coverage area, it will take maybe ten days to two weeks.

We set up the whole network, including the privileged network, wireless network, and security with firewalling.

It is an expensive product. I would rate the pricing a nine out of ten, with ten being expensive. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

I would recommend using it because of my good experience with it. They are stable and secure. All good experiences.

I mainly use Cisco Wireless for the core switch and access switch, the router, the firewall, and the access point.

The most valuable feature is the firewall.

This solution is very expensive, which means we often have to go for cheaper options instead.

I've been working with this solution for twenty-two years.

This solution is very stable, we don't have any problems with it.

We've had no problems with scalability - the intra-network is about 20 gigabytes on our campus without any issues.

I'm very satisfied with Cisco's technical support.

The initial setup was very, very simple and took three months and three weeks for the whole campus.

We used Jimma University as a consultant and had a good experience with them.

Because of Cisco's expense, we also use Huawei and Ruckus devices, and the interoperability between these three vendors is good. I would give this solution a score of ten out of ten.