Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

The solution is primarily used for wireless connectivity.

The solution is stable and reliable.

It scales well. 

We found the initial setup to be straightforward. 

The support has proven itself to be helpful. 

We would like to have the lead times improved. Right now, when you create a design and want to provide it to the customer, they are very late to cosign everything.

The solution is pretty expensive. We'd like to see lower pricing in the future. 

I've used the solution for a while. I'm not sure how long I've used it. 

The solution is stable. We find it to be reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We can scale the solution as needed. It's not a problem.

We have more than 1,000 users on the solution.

We've contacted support, yet not necessarily for technical issues. We have used them for other things, and they were rather helpful. 

Positive

the initial setup is quite simple and straightforward. I'd rate the experience a four out of five in terms of ease of implementation. It's not difficult. 

The cost of the licensing depends on the access point.

On the low end, the solution costs probably around $1200 to $1300 for five years. It's an expensive product.

I'd rate the product a three out of five in terms of affordability.

We are Cisco partners.

I'd advise new users to check the documentation and go over it pretty thoroughly at the outset. It's important to read everything before you start. If you miss something, it may cause you to troubleshoot and spend more time than you need to figure things out. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I'm a solution architect and consultant in my company (a Cisco partner and system integrator) and our standard use case for Cisco Wireless LAN is providing WiFi coverage throughout our client organizations' buildings. These organizations include banks, airports, and universities. We also use other networking products from Cisco, including Cisco Meraki for cloud-based wireless networking in smaller environments.

I have seen that many people are using a lot of the features directly available on the wireless controller. Recently, the most valuable and in-demand feature that users are enjoying is WiFi 6 support on the access points. The other good thing about Cisco Wireless LAN is how easily it provides clean access to the WiFi network.

The coverage area on some of the low-end access points isn't the best. The high-end ones are fine, but we've had bad experiences on the other ones. Compared to some of the non-Cisco access points we use, the low-end access points from Cisco have shown to give only very minimal coverage.

I am currently wondering how Cisco is going to handle the connections between 5G and the WiFi 6. These new technologies have similar features and I would expect, in the future, that there will be some integration between them.

The stability is fine. Cisco Wireless solutions are generally more stable than others, there is no doubt about that in my mind. Even our customers have experienced the same thing. The only problem is the different models. The range of models of Cisco access points is very limited compared to other vendors. And there are some challenges on the antenna configuration.

It is scalable. Right now, it has only one series of controllers for all the numbers of access points, so in terms of scaling, we can always increase the controllers even if we have thousands of access points.

The tech support for Cisco Wireless is fine. It's not usually myself that deals with them, but rather our technical deployment and support engineers. If they can't resolve any issues on their own, they simply raise a technical ticket with Cisco support.

We are also selling Cisco Meraki products along with the standard Cisco portfolio. I don't have a lot of experience with Meraki, because we mainly recommend those products to small and medium environments, especially if the customer doesn't have a lot of networking staff and they simply want to bring WiFi services up quickly. 

It is easy to set up the access points. Regarding how many people are needed for deployments, it really depends on the size of the project. We will have different scenarios ranging from only 10 to 15 access points, all the way up to 1,000 access points. All of this requires staff to physically mount the access points, and then we'll have the cabling technicians who connect all the cabling.

After that, once they all connect back to the controller, all the integrations will be done on the controller. So the wireless engineer requirement is very minimal compared to how many people are needed for the physical installation. If you've got a two-person team, they should be able to install 10 to 20 access points per day.

If you have a two-person team doing the physical access point installations, they should be able to set up 10 to 20 access points per day. 

For the Cisco Wireless implementation, the most important advice I would like to give is regarding the planning of the access points. The planning is very important because if you do not do proper planning based on the requirements, then the project might well turn out to be a big mess. That's because once you install an access point in one location, it's very hard to move around. Keep this in mind from the beginning. 

I would rate Cisco Wireless LAN an eight out of ten. I won't say it's the best there is, but it is definitely a leading solution.

The solution's most valuable feature is its user-friendly interface. For now, my company is testing the tool on Cisco's IoT solutions. The tool is very simple to use.

The support of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for seven years. I am not only a user of the product since I also sell it. It is important for me to know how the product works along with what new features get introduced in the tool. I am a distributor of the tool.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Sometimes, there are some bug-related problems in the product, but they are not critical issues. The reason that my company is impacted by some bug-related issues in the product is that our company might not know something we should be aware of during the configuration phase. If my company faces any problems with the product, then we can connect with Cisco's support team.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

My company caters to the needs of small, medium, and enterprise-sized companies.

Two years ago, Cisco's support was normal. For the past two years, the support has not been good. The product's support team operates worldwide.

I rate the support a five out of ten.

Neutral

I rate the implementation process an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one means that it is a difficult process, and ten means that it is an easy process.

The solution is deployed on the cloud and also on an on-premises model.

The time taken to implement the product to something depends on the network of our company's customers network. If our company's customers have a simple network, the implementation can be done very fast. If our company's customers have tools like Meraki, the implementation process can take three to four days or a week to complete.

I rate the product price a six on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price.

Speaking about whether the tool gets used in our company for backup connectivity, I would say that our company's engineers use it for testing purposes.

The security features of the product have improved our company's network safety.

The product has sometimes helped our company handle network failure, failover, or recovery areas.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

I rate the overall tool a ten out of ten.

We have around nearly 150 access points. We use Cisco access points for our business core systems for the employees. All the users connect through this wirelessly.

Stability is one aspect that I find very valuable. The signal strength is also very strong.

The connectivity is reliable, and it doesn't have many issues.

The console interface is not very user-friendly. It's a bit complex and difficult to navigate. Even some integrations can be challenging. But we can manage eventually.

Therefore, for me, some areas of improvement include integration, pricing, and console. 

Scalability is easy, it is stable, and configuring certain things like Mac filtering is also simple. However, I feel the need to enhance the security aspect, especially for guest connectivity.

I've been using it for around five years.

Stability is really good in Cisco Wireless WAN. I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

There are no restrictions on scalability. It is a scalable product. We have 150 access points, and there are 350 employees.

The support is good. They have a vendor here currently, and their support is good.

Neutral

The initial setup is not difficult. It's easy because we have been using Cisco for a long time.

Moreover, very little maintenance is required. We just perform some checks and minor tasks. There isn't much maintenance required.

It is a bit expensive compared to others. So it's a little costly.

For us, this is an all-in-one product. It doesn't have separate licenses. When purchased, the product comes with a license. It's a one-time purchase.

We were migrating from the on-prem to the cloud version. We made a comparison analysis b/w different technologies.

Cisco wireless on-prem has moved to Cisco Meraki Access, and Cisco Meraki is the better. We can use the cloud solution. The only thing is the price is a little high. Other than that, all the features and security aspects are really good with Cisco.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. The overall rating is seven due to the higher price and the need for enhancements in the console and security features. The guest Wi-Fi and non-console options are lacking in the older version, although I believe the new version might address that.

We are using Cisco Wireless WAN for wireless access to university students.

The most valuable features of Cisco Wireless WAN are its security functionality. We have a lab environment and we have to provide different authentications to the users which are easy to manage. Additionally, there is a lot of useful automation embedded into the system.

There are limitations on the SSIDs that could improve. We cannot enable two ways of authenticating users on one SSID. For a number of places, we have to provide different modes of certification for the user which requires us to create another SSID for the broadcast.

We have to enable routing from different VLANs, we have to enable DSCP for some extensions. Without it, we cannot receive a dynamic IP address for our clients. We have had to find some workaround ourselves. The problems we have been having occur when we have multiple VLANs. We are using management on the APs which have different access levels than VLANs.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for approximately two years.

The solution is highly stable.

I rate the stability of Cisco Wireless WAN a ten out of ten.

Cisco Wireless WAN is a scalable solution.

We have 50,000 students using the solution.  The solution is used often and we plan to increase our usage.

I rate the scalability of Cisco Wireless WAN a ten out of ten.

There is third-party support if needed.

I have not used other solutions other than Cisco Wireless WAN.

The initial setup of Cisco Wireless WAN was not simple. There were a lot of steps to do to complete the process. We had some challenges during the process. However, if I was going to do the initial setup again it would be simple. The full process of implementation took approximately three hours.

We install the systems in stages, our first stage was installing the switches, and the second was the APs. Additionally, we were working on the controller during the stages.

I rate the initial setup of Cisco Wireless WAN a three out of ten.

We did the implementation of the solution in-house by two at the controller level and a large team for the 700 APs in two different models we had to manage.

We have received a return on investment, it is worth the money we paid.

The price of the solution is expensive. The license is priced based on the number of APs and controllers used.

I rate the price of Cisco Wireless WAN a one out of ten.

I evaluated D-Link and TP-Link prior to choosing Cisco Wireless WAN.

We use ten network administrators for the maintenance of the solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN a ten out of ten.

The solution is used to manage our access points in all our company branches.

I like Cisco due to the fact that it's reliable. It has worked well since 2008 without issues.

It's scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

Azure needs work. We use it as the wireless controller of Cisco. It's a bit buggy. The UI needs to be more responsive. 

Technical support could be more helpful.

The solution is expensive. 

I've been using the solution since 2008.

The solution is stable and reliable and offers good performance. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

It is very scalable. It's easy to expand.

We have about 3,000 employees that use the solution.

The setup is in an airport, and we have passengers that also need the portal for the internet. We have a lot of people using the solution.

Technical support could be improved. They are helpful. However, they could be better.

Positive

We did not previously use a different solution. 

The solution is very easy. It's straightforward and not difficult at all. 

The deployment only takes a few hours. It's not a long process. 

We have about five people that can handle any maintenance tasks. That includes maybe one engineer and four administrators. 

We handled the deployment ourselves. We didn't need the assistance of a third party.

We pay a yearly licensing fee, and it is expensive. I'm not sure of the exact amount we pay.

I'm currently looking into Aruba. 

We have a lot of equipment from Cisco. We are customers and end-users. 

I'm not on the latest version of the solution. That said, I'm renovating my wireless environment.

I'd recommend the solution to others. It is good. However, it costs a lot. I'm currently looking for something more cost-effective. 

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. There is no master controller for the controllers. When we have access points in different buildings, I need a centralized management system to achieve redundancy and operations simplicity. 

We use Cisco Wireless WAN 9115s and 9130s. Two are controllers, and the rest, subordinates.

Cisco wireless is stable, easy to use, and simple to configure. They have an outstanding GUI.

You cannot go to different versions or different access points. 9115s cannot interact with 9120s, and 9130s can interact with 9115s. You can add or remove as many subordinates as you want. It's not an issue. It's completely logical.

Cisco support is fantastic. They're knowledgeable and responsive.

Setting up Cisco Wireless is extremely easy. I'm doing one right now, and it usually takes between 15 and 20 minutes.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN nine out of 10. You need to read the documentation carefully when implementing it because you have to go through a step-by-step configuration. Upgrading can be done in two ways: HTTP from the desktop or TFTP. HTTP is extremely easy. You connect with a console cable and do it.

Our primary use case of this solution is for streaming access to the personal devices of students and staff for guest wifi and connection. So we provide corporate access to devices. They use it for media streaming, for social networking, for learning solutions. Most people don't connect through land cable anymore - they all go for wireless options.

I like that it has integrated the cost of our network access. We see identity controls solutions so we make sure it's all part of the same management console. We have the same console and the same authentication, and we use a multi-high profile defendable wireless system, access ports, and wireless access IDs. So each access ID has different kinds of people, different kinds of networks, the VLAN. Cisco controllers are now the best in this field. We end segregation on the Wi-Fi side based on the access ID.

The solution is very expensive, and I think the price should be more competitive, like with Aruba, Meraki, and other products. The price model is very high but the manageability is simple. 

We have some glitches from time to time, but the support is fast and they support us very well. This doesn't happen very often, though.

The technical scalability is easy, but the license scalability is quite tricky. It's licensing costs incurred, but technically the solution is very scalable. A total of 5,000 users are using the 3000 access points, and 2,600 users are using 800 access points. I am the architect and the rest of the users are basically university students, faculties, administration staff, and support staff who mainly use for media, social net access, corporate file access, academic system access, and learning solution access. And it used for radio-audio frequency wireless tools.

The support is good and I will rate them a seven out of ten.

As a typical Cisco solution there is a slight complexity to the setup, but because most of the engineers at Cisco are certified, it is easy for them. The integrators used a professional space on the vendor site for the deployment.

This is a very expensive solution but there are no additional costs.

We compared it to Aruba Wireless. Aruba has its own strength in the latest technology, their architects are very different, and they are more advanced. So I think Cisco is one step behind Aruba.

My advice to others is to understand the use case properly before deploying any solution. If you don't have a complex use case and if you can't afford it, don't get Cisco. But if you have a complex use case with a high frequency, high bandwidth of data usage in a wireless network, Cisco is the right product for you. The licensing strategy and the pricing could be improved, but it is a good solution. I rate it a seven out of ten.