Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

Cisco Wireless access points are highly stable with a wide coverage area. 

I have used Cisco Wireless WAN for seven years.

Cisco Wireless WAN is highly scalable. We have around 200 users. If we need more Wi-Fi coverage, we can purchase more equipment and add another access point. 

Cisco support is fast and helpful. 

It isn't complex if you have experience with Cisco equipment. You have to make room on the access point and ensure it is controlled. It might be difficult for a new user. The setup is large, and there are a lot of configuration options.  It takes about two days to configure all the access points. You need to set up the equipment, make the SSID, and configure the traffic settings for the access point.

Though Cisco Wireless is expensive, we don't need to purchase a lot of equipment. Two or three access points can cover an area of about 2,000 meters.

Cisco Wireless WAN is expensive. We have a three-year license.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN nine out of 10. I recommend it if you're looking for a stable wireless solution with a wide coverage area.

Our primary use case for this solution is setting up a wireless source for our clients to connect to the VPNs and our data centers.

We have found the ability to easily increase power valuable. The solution also allows us to increase the power when it's too low.

The firewall integration is not great and should be improved.

We have been using this solution for three years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is scalable. There are approximately 70 people using it in our organization. 

We do not have experience with customer service and support because we have not had issues.

The initial setup was straightforward, and deployment took five hours.

We implemented the solution in-house, and approximately three people are required for implementation.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. I recommend the solution to new users.

We needed a controller-based wireless solution for a medium-sized office environment that can support six to 10 APs. We have around 35 users in our office.

We have been using Cisco Wireless for four years.

Cisco Wireless is a stable product.

Cisco Wireless is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward, and you need to spend around six to 10 weeks to set up one controller. We have two managers and around six to 10 technical guys for maintenance.

We could deploy it without outside help because we have technical expertise.

We feel that Cisco is quite expensive, so we're looking for a reasonable alternative. We are considering Aruba and some other brands that are less expensive. Cisco works fine, but the issue is the annual licensing and support costs. 

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN eight out of 10. If budget weren't an issue, I would highly recommend Cisco.

We primarily use this product to provide general wireless network access.

The most valuable features are coverage and reliability.

The initial setup and deployment should be easier.

The technical support needs to be improved.

I have been working with Cisco Wireless WAN for between five and six years.

This is a fairly stable wireless solution.

This product is scalable, although we have no plans to increase our usage at the moment. We currently have 300 users.

I would rate the technical support a two out of five. It is an area that should be improved, in all aspects.

Neutral

I have used other similar products in the past, including HPE Wireless WAN and Ubiquity Wireless, but this Cisco product is one that the client already had in place.

The initial setup is complex, and I can't recall how long it took to deploy.

We installed it in-house. We have a team of three or four engineers that are responsible for maintenance.

We pay the licensing fees on a yearly basis.

In summary, this is not a product that I recommend.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

Cisco Wireless WAN is mainly used in campus networks, hotels, and other enterprise customers to provide wireless internet connectivity.

Cisco Wireless WAN's best features are simple management, the cloud base, dashboards, and reliability.

Cisco Wireless WAN could be improved by introducing a low-power wireless access point that could be installed in an outside environment. I would also like them to add an option without any licensing controller so that the customer could just purchase access points, then plug and play. In the future, Cisco Wireless WAN should include cloud control, centralized management, and branch connectivity.

I've been using Cisco Wireless WAN for around ten years.

Cisco Wireless WAN is perfectly stable. Some of our customers have been using it for eight to ten years without having to change the hardware as it continues to work perfectly.

There are some limitations with scaling the on-premises version - if you want to scale, you need to change the hardware and purchase a new wireless controller at an additional cost.

Cisco's technical support is very responsive, fast, and knowledgeable, with experienced and knowledgeable engineers.

Positive

The initial setup is very easy because so many engineers know the product, and Cisco makes a lot of technical documentation available via its online portal. I would rate the setup process as five out of five.

Cisco's licensing model includes some mandatory licenses, making it more expensive than other vendors like HP, Aruba, and Ruckus.

I would rate Cisco Wireless WAN ten out of ten.

The most valuable feature of Cisco Wireless WAN is the ease of management.

We have had some problems connecting to the internet with Cisco Wireless WAN, but it is not the equipment or configuration. Additionally, the integration with access control security could improve.

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

The support is useful and has helped us resolve issues we have had.

The setup of Cisco Wireless WAN is easy using the web interface.

I have a team that does the implementation and configuration of the solution.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN a nine out of ten.

We're a higher ed campus. So, we have Cisco Wireless prevalent throughout all of our buildings for students, faculty, and staff to access the network.

We are using its latest version.

Reliability and visibility in the product are most valuable. We are able to see client performance, signal strength for clients, and things like that.

The cost and support should be improved, and there should be support for the 6E standard.

I have about 25 years of experience. 

Its stability is good.

Its scalability is good.

It's hit and miss with tech support. If you get a good engineer, things go well. Oftentimes, you'll get a new engineer or a first-line engineer who is not so good.

It was straightforward.

The cost of licensing should be improved.

My advice would be to negotiate the price as much as you can. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for wireless access. It allows, for example, mobile users, to connect.

The solution has been very stable so far and the performance overall is quite good.

We have found that the product scales well.

The solution is easy to implement.

The solution could lower its pricing to make it more affordable. Cisco is expensive in general.

We've been using the solution for three years at this point. We've used the product for a while. 

The solution is stable. It offers very good performance. The reliability is excellent in that it doesn't crash or freeze and there are no bugs or glitches to deal with. 

The solution is scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

We have around 1,000 users on the solution currently.

We've never had the need to contact technical support from Cisco. It's been issue-free. therefore, I can't speak to helpful or responsive they would be.

I did not switch from a different solution. We've always used Cisco.

We had no issues setting up the solution. the implementation is easy and pretty straightforward. I wouldn't describe it as complex or difficult. Configuring and installation were issue-free. It doesn't take too much time.

You only need two technical people to set up and manage the product. It's not maintenance-intensive. 

The installation was pretty fast. We didn't need any help from integrators or consultants.

This is a rather expensive product.

We pay a yearly fee for the license and support services. 

We are using the latest version of the solution at this time. 

I would rate the solution a ten out of ten.