Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

The ease of management is the solution's most valuable feature.

The user interface is much better than older versions.

We're in the phase of deploying a new system, so I can't speak to what might be lacking in the solution just yet.

I'm curious to see how Wi-Fi 6 will function. You have access points supporting Wi-Fi 6, but no clients know about it really.

Pricing is very high with Cisco products. It's something that many people complain about. They should work to make it more affordable.

The older version was very stable; I'm hoping the newest version will also be stable.

The technical support is very good.

Deployment is easy. We're doing it in stages so as to not disrupt any service and are in the process now, so I can't speak to exactly how long it will ultimately be as a process.

Cisco pricing is very expensive.

Our clients are mostly enterprise-level companies.

Our first test of the solution will be to see how the new features are implemented in Wi-Fi 6. The new access point is smaller than the previous one, and I find it's very good, very pleasant, because the 3700, and especially the 3800 were very, very weak.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. If the pricing was better, I'd rate it ten out of ten.

We use the platform to provide seamless wireless connectivity for our company's network. We use it in the oil and gas industry to ensure strong and reliable wireless connections across our locations. The deployment is managed through a wireless controller, and we rely on the solution for both authentication and connectivity.

The most valuable features of this product are its authentication capabilities and the strong signal coverage of the access points. These features ensure reliable and secure wireless connectivity essential for our operations.

The product could be improved by making installing the operating system on access points easier. This process can be cumbersome and could benefit from a more streamlined approach.

I have been working with Cisco Wireless WAN for ten years.

The product is stable. I rate the stability a nine. 

Cisco Wireless WAN users from all our offices can connect through the wireless controller, effectively meeting our network demands. 

I rate the scalability an eight. 

While the support services are generally good, the team can take time to get an engineer immediately for critical issues.

Neutral

The initial setup of this solution was easy. It took about one hour to deploy, and there were no significant difficulties.

The implementation was done in-house.

The product is highly-priced. For example, an access point can cost around $1,200, which is quite expensive.

This platform is a good technology with stable performance. However, its high cost is a significant downside. Other solutions like Aruba or Ubiquiti offer similar capabilities at a lower price point.

I rate it a seven out of ten. 

We use this solution for our campus network. I work for the university's IT team, so we use it for the faculties, administrative buildings, and labs. We're very happy with it.

The solution is deployed on-premises.

We're using the latest version.

It's a small feature, but Cisco allows me to see access points with blinking lights. This shows me which access point is which.

For example, sometimes we have more than 100 access points, and the company that did the set up unfortunately didn't document it well, so that can be a problem.

The dashboard is wonderful. It's very user friendly.

The price could be better. It's too high.

It's also hard to get the product because of climate problems.

I have been using this solution for a year and a half.

It's very stable. In comparison, Extreme's stability is not good. We do speed tests, and with Cisco, we can get 700 megabits per second.

It's very scalable. 

The solution was already set up, so we didn't need a lot of technical support.

If we need help, we can call them directly. We don't need to open a ticket.

I have dealt with Extreme Wireless, especially Extreme IQ Cloud. Compared to Extreme, Cisco is way ahead.

It's very easy to deploy. I like Cisco's dashboard. I think it's more user friendly than the Extreme dashboard.

Extreme is easy to deploy, and management is very nice, but the performance isn't good so far. We are using the essential license now, not the pilot license, which is the advanced feature license. When we get the pilot license, I don't know if my mind will change, but for now the performance is way better in Cisco.

When I'm deploying Extreme, it's hard to get information from the internet. I'm not talking about the support from the company. 

With Cisco products, there's a ton of information on YouTube, in Cisco documentation, and on Cisco's website. With Extreme, I couldn't get that information.  

With the same infrastructure, switches, logical topology, and physical topology, Extreme's performance isn't very good. It might be because of the license. When I talk with the company, they say, "If you don't have the Extreme pilot license, you can't get high balances." 

For example, you can only get 150 megabits. It's like one channel at a time. They say that when we install the license, we'll get higher balances, but we haven't experienced that yet. We are waiting for the installation to complete, and then we'll get the license.

Cisco's performance is much better.

I also have experience with Huawei. Cisco's deployment is much better in comparison.

The solution was set up before I started working on it, so I continue to deploy it. 

Compared to Extreme, it doesn't take a lot of time to deploy. We have more than 1,000 access points. It takes about several hours to deploy. It's quick to install.

The price is too high. The licensing is on a yearly basis. 

The price was built in with the total price of the access points. We bought other products, like cable covers, and some switches, so I don't know the exact price for the licenses.

The price of Cisco is twice as high as Extreme because of the exchange rate in Turkey. At the time, our currency decreased catastrophically against the dollar.

I would rate this solution nine out of ten.

Our primary use case for Cisco Wireless WAN is corporate guest access. We are a hospital, so it is essential for clinical users.

The solution is reliable. It is important that the infrastructure is reliable and does not encounter frequent issues.

The price point is contentious as the licensing model seems complicated and unclear. We pay a premium for features we do not use.

I have used Cisco Wireless WAN for approximately six years.

The infrastructure does not encounter frequent issues, making it stable.

I rated the scalability a ten out of ten, indicating that it is very scalable.

We require support, indicating that customer service is necessary.

Positive

The installation process was straightforward. We had help during the installation.

We had professional help during the installation process.

The price point is the main challenge as it seems complicated and unclear. We pay a premium for features we do not use.

My overall rating for the solution is eight points out of ten. 

We have it on campus. When the users try to connect to the WAN, we have to use that for this objective, or we have to make a wireless independent Wi-Fi using Cisco Umbrella for Meraki. Those are the two cases we use.

It's practical because, for example, in remote locations, we use a captive portal. We try to allow users to use authentication through a username of this company. Another thing is the firewall. In the console, we have to restrict or block traffic using the portal. It's a very useful feature. 

Another important thing is Cisco Umbrella for Meraki, that integration. But it's not too customizable. We have only three levels: default, basic, or moderate, but we want it to be possible to configure it more granularly. Users have different requirements, so we can't satisfy them because we only have three levels of restriction in trying to browse the Internet.

It's easy to deploy because using Cisco Meraki cloud makes it easier to deploy access points quickly. In one instance,  a department asked for a Wi-Fi connection, and we were able to deploy this quickly.

Recently, we integrated Cisco Meraki with Cisco SD-WAN and Cisco Umbrella. But, for example, with the integration, we don't have traffic statistics. I don't know if the provider or the partner made a mistake, but we lost the traffic statistics. 

The observability of the traffic for one client was wonderful before. But after when we implemented Cisco Umbrella in all branches, Cisco SD-WAN and Cisco Umbrella, the integration was not good because we lost the observability of the traffic. Because I think that Umbrella encrypted the traffic before ingressing it to Cisco Meraki. I think that's the reason we lost the observability.

Other things that we explained, for example, is the WAN asset to rate. For example, we can help a user that tells us that the Wi-Fi or the network was intermittent. So when we have to troubleshoot this issue, we can't see anything. So all is okay. However, the experience of the user was bad. We tried to use the dashboard, but the information wasn't useful. We worked to change the model of Cisco Meraki to try to help. And that solution worked. But the information in Cisco Meraki portal was not good, and it was sad.

I have been using it for three years. 

I don't know if it's the model of the Cisco Meraki product because we have a high density of users. Right now, I don't know if the model of the system supports a lot of users or concurrent users. So, we opted to install more access points. I think that we need more information or more help from partners to assess what model is correct for this environment.

It's very easy to scale because we can deploy other access points. I think that it's easy because the configuration, we only need the IP address. It's very easy to deploy the configuration of access points because we have to assign a profile configuration. So it's very easy.

The partner provides the support. We only call the partner to solve the issues. I think that the partner uses Cisco if the problem is severe. So, with Cisco, we don't have contacts because the partner contacts them if they need help.

For example, the panel, when we have these problems with Wi-Fi, we ask them. So, we use the site survey, the conclusion, or the accommodation. So, in this site survey, we got the majority of the average number of issues that we have. We overcome that issue. 

But, after that site survey, using the current tools in Cisco Meraki, we could not solve those issues. We need a site survey to resolve everything.

The partner mostly suggests a site survey.  

Neutral

I also have experience with Cisco Wireless, but based on Catalyst. And right now, we have Cisco Meraki, we are going to upgrade to Cisco Catalyst.

It is pretty fast and easy to deploy. In one hour, we are able to deploy. Right now, we have branches. We have a campus or headquarters. 

On each floor, we have a different VLAN. The Wi-Fi is on a different VLAN as well on all floors. So that VLAN passes through the SD-WAN. We use independent VRFs. So that VLAN only passes, they use the SD-WAN channel. However, we have problems with that implementation, for example. Right now, we have a problem because the smartphones can't connect to the Wi-Fi consistently. I don't know, but before, we didn't have that issue. 

The smartphones cannot connect to the VLAN configuration that we have. But now, they can connect. So, we are trying to solve this issue right now.

The integration was hard when deploying Cisco SD-WAN and Cisco ISE. In that case, it was hard. But we tried to find alternatives to satisfy the security requirements.

There is a return on investment with the right configurations. 

Cisco Meraki is cheap. Cisco Catalyst is expensive.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We just deliver wireless coverage, general and specific, for auditoriums and stuff like that.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is its fast transition.

It’s a stable solution.

The product is scalable.

The implementations are easy.

There’s an easy onboarding process for non-native users.

When you have a question related to support, getting direct or faster access to someone technical would be ideal.

The pricing is a bit high.

I’ve used the solution for about 15 years.

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

The product can scale quite well.

Perhaps we made the right decision as we knew beforehand how much we needed to use through bandwidth, number of users, and number of VPs. We did our homework. We knew which product type/model we had to buy and deploy. That ensures that scaling is easy.

We might have 2,000 to 3,000 users on the solution, depending on the day. They are mostly students.

We likely will expand usage. We're running the next wave of installing extra eight pieces for delivering more coverage, and in a way also more bandwidth or throughput.

Technical support should be faster and more accessible.

I've also used, for example, Aruba.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It’s not difficult to set up.

I’d rate the solution a two out of five in terms of ease of use with one being the easiest and five being difficult.

The first setup was done in-house. And over the years we had some external consultancy, however, the main setup was done in-house.

The licensing costs are a bit on the high side.

I’d rate the solution a 3.5 out of five in terms of how expensive it is, with five being the most expensive. The licensing of Cisco is pretty high, especially in comparison to other options, such as Aruba.

I’d advise those considering the solution to go onto the internet and find as much documentation about the solution as you can.

I’d rate the solution an eight out of ten.

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 are using the solution for the long-term to connect our desktops and laptops. For the firewalls, however, we connect the rack network with fiber and other cables. 

It offers good connectivity.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

We find the product to be stable.

It can scale. 

The security is quite good.

We cannot use wireless for the servers due to potential performance issues. They must be connected via fiber.

The solution is a little bit expensive. 

We'd like it if they could improve the integration capabilities. More specifically, if it can be integrated with other applications or any other devices like CCTV cameras that are also running on wireless, that would be ideal. 

We've been using the solution for ten to 15 years. 

The solution has been stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

We can scale the solution. It's not difficult to do so. 

We are a global company and have between 50,000 and 90,000 users. 

There are plans to increase usage in the future.

I've never used technical support services. I don't know how helpful or responsive they are.

It's a solution that is easy to set up. It's not overly complex to implement. 

I'm not sure exactly how long it took to deploy the solution.

We have a dedicated team of 600 IT engineers. They can handle deployment and maintenance. 

I'm not sure of the exact pricing. We have 20 to 30 different premises in India. I'm not sure if they are all using Cisco like us or not. Therefore, I'm not sure what the full cost is to the company.

It could be a bit cheaper. 

We pay a license fee on a yearly basis. 

I'm not sure which version of Cisco we are using. 

I'd recommend Cisco to other users and companies. I would rate it an eight out of ten. We're mostly happy with its capabilities.