Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

We are a hotel. We primarily use the solution for wireless access for the hotel and for accommodations. 

The stability is okay.

The product can scale well.

Technical support can be helpful.

Overall, the concept of the solution is great.

The initial setup is somewhat complex. 

I need to look deeper into the DNA of the solution before making any suggestions for the solution. I need to do more research.

Sometimes you do not get a good person helping you with technical support.

We did have issues with the product that made us concerned about the overall stability.

For us, we have some power issues, and we returned many items due to power issues. There may be some models that have some problems with the power. I'm not sure about this, however, when we used some, Cisco responded clearly and they replaced them. However, this experience made us concerned about the overall stability potential.

The scalability is okay. A company can expand it if they need to.

We have over 700 people using the solution currently. They cover all types of roles and at different levels.

We likely will increase usage in the future. I already issued a purchase order to make an incremental increase to the current wireless resolution. That will be something like 5% or 7%.

In many cases, technical support is excellent. In some cases, however, they are not confident enough. They are following a checklist more than problem-solving in some cases. They repeat the same solution many times without results. The tickets are open for a long time. That said, in many cases, they are excellent.

We found the initial setup to be a bit complex. It was not simple or straightforward. I'd rate my experience with the process, at a four out of five.

We deployed the solution over the course of two years.  

We both had a vendor assist us and had our in-house team handle some elements of the installation. We did not have a good experience with the third-party service provider.

The cost was a mix between the license, manpower, and hardware. It was different from layer to layer. The hard costs are only 45% of the actual costs.

I use two different versions of the solution. 

Would rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We use Cisco Wireless WAN for our internal and guests users. We have recently migrated to the newest version of the solution.

The Cisco solution is good, the new GUI looks good and we are seeing more telemetry from it.

The new platform of Cisco Wireless WAN I did not like, there weren't many features available. The online platform has more options.

We found ourselves needing to integrate Cisco Wireless WAN with another Cisco product, called Cisco DNA, to try and receive more assurance on the data. It's another piece of hardware that you're putting onto your network. It could have been a cloud solution. Before Cisco, we used to have Cisco Prime which used to give us more in-depth analytics, such as heat maps of someone complaining about wireless access in a specific area. You could drill down into that, but you don't receive that information from the Cisco controller. We will receive the information if we implemented the DNAC solution, but it is another solution that we're implementing from Cisco. A competitor could probably do it in a better way reducing the need for multiple solutions.

Overall Cisco Wireless WAN could improve by giving more granular reporting and alerts back on issues and not having to integrate other tools onto the same platform. However, the platform is new, the interface is continually developing. Hopefully, they can improve quickly.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for approximately 10 years.

I found the new version of Cisco Wireless WAN initially seemed to be quite buggy. However, the stability is good overall.

This model of Cisco Wireless WAN has good scalability. You can have ten of thousands of people using it.

We have approximately 4,000 users of this solution globally. The solution is used hourly.

The technical support from Cisco Wireless WAN is good. However, they were better before.

As people were transitioning to this Cisco Wireless WAN hardware, there wasn't as much available information online about different issues people might come across.

When determining if the implementation is going to be difficult it would depend on the topology of the sites. We're a global company, and on some of the sites where it was a standalone controller, it was straightforward to implement. However, on a different site when we were using the physical appliance, as a virtual wireless anchor that was in our own cloud, integrating that wasn't seamless.

We had help from the vendor when we were doing the implementation.

We have one person that does the maintenance and patching of the solution.

The price of Cisco Wireless WAN could improve upon pricing, it is expensive. We purchased the hardware through a vendor that Cisco used and we received approximately 75 percent off.

We are on a three-year license with Cisco Wireless WAN.

We evaluated the Cisco Meraki solution before we made the decision to choose the on-premise solution. One reason we choose the on-premise solution is we were already using one. When choosing which one is better, it is difficult because I did not use Cisco Meraki extensively to determine which one is best.

Since we have recently migrated to the new version of the Cisco Wireless WAN platform the interface has changed and I'm still getting used to it.

I would recommend Cisco Wireless WAN. However, that's because my exposure is to Cisco Wireless. I'm probably a little bit biased. Overall, it's a fairly good solution.

Whether this solution is suitable or not for a company depends on their deployment, if they were a Greenfield-sized company or a Brownfield-sized company I would have different tips. It does fully depend on the scenario. My key advice is with a wireless solution is for them to do a wireless survey first before purchasing.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN an eight out of ten.

We trust Cisco. It's a reliable solution. Reliability is most probably the most valuable feature for our organization.

The solution does exactly what we need it to do.

The initial setup is mostly straightforward.

The pricing of the solution could always be better. If they could work to make the costs more competitive, that would be ideal.

I've been using the solution for more than ten years at this point. It's been 12 to 13 years or so. It's been a long time.

The stability of the solution is quite good. It's reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches.

The scalability potential of the solution is very good. If a company needs to expand it, they can.

If I look just now at my area and the locations I'm responsible for, we have more than 2,000 users. However, we use the product globally, and if we look at it from that perspective, we have more than 20,000 users actively using it every day. Of course, with COVID, and people now working from home, it's likely less at the moment.

I'm pretty satisfied with the documentation as well as with the support. If we have any challenges or issues, Cisco is usually always able to help us. They are helpful, knowledgeable, and responsive to our needs.

In terms of the initial implementation, it is always dependant on what knowledge you have and the level of experience. The more you have, of course, the easier it is. For us, it's not difficult anymore. I'd describe the process as pretty straightforward and quite easy to set up on a new site.

The solution does come with a price tag. It's not the least expensive option on the market.

We are a customer and end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

We use a lot of Cisco products, including Cisco Catalyst Switches, Wireless WAN, and Cisco Nexus.

We use one of the latest access points, however, we are not up to date on the newest controller versions as our versions are still supported. We plan to replace them probably in the next one or two years. It's not the latest, let's say, controller version. However, from a software standpoint, we are still up to date.

I would recommend the solution to others. However, they have to be prepared to pay the price and have the budget for the product.

In general, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been extremely satisfied with its capabilities.

This product makes up part of our wireless network infrastructure.

The most valuable feature is the ease of configuration. Most of the questions one would have about setup are already identified in the troubleshooting guide.

The user interface is ok.

The prices are high and should be reduced in order to be more competitive.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for more than five years.

In the five years that we have used it, we haven't had any problems. It has now reached end-of-life.

The scalability is very nice and we don't have any issues with it. We have about 500 users across the entire staff. They work in HR, admin, production, operations, and other roles.

The technical support is very nice and we have no issues with it.

We have traditionally used Cisco and are finally now changing because of the price.

The initial setup is okay. It takes about three months to implement.

Our in-house team handled the deployment. No maintenance is required any longer, although we have two IT people who are able to manage it.

With the increase in the price of this product, we will instead be replacing it with another vendor. It was a one-time fee and there are no costs in addition to this.

We are evaluating other solutions that are most cost-effective. Cisco is more expensive than either Aruba or SonicWall.

Whatever they have in this product is already the best in the market, and I recommend it for people who can afford it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

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. 

I've been designing wireless solutions and have been a solutions provider for over 20 years. I spec the solution based on the client's requirements and use whichever vendor device is affordable, and fits the purpose of the company's requirements.

We mainly use the WLC 5000 series. We use other Cisco products, mainly geared to smaller markets. I use Cisco and Dell devices, but mostly Cisco, as in the switching arena. I'm most familiar with cloud management and wireless Cisco solutions such as the WMM. I'm not familiar with the Cisco CSR or Cisco Cloud Services Router 1000V. 

In terms of WLAN solutions, it all comes down to the business requirements and commercials. I would tend to use Cisco at the higher end if the commercial can afford it, but it also depends if it's fit for purpose on the NRL hive. I also use Ubiquiti and I've also started to look at Campion as well. But it really depends on the requirements. External, Ubiquiti, internal Cisco, and Aerohive.

The granularity of standardization and technical controls would be the big one in terms of valuable features. You can control everything, every technology within the wireless arena. It contrasts with Meraki which is very much macro-driven so you don't have the visibility of the complete engine. From an engineering and consultant perspective, I want full control. The Cisco WLC solution supplies that in the form they have at the moment, but I know that they changed the UI a couple of weeks ago. I haven't seen it but as it exists at the moment I'm on 8.5 or 8.6 of the code up, but they're using the code that they use on the WLCs and not what would be the new version, which I believe is different.

With the WMM there are a few bits and pieces missing that some of the other vendors have. Cisco has a bad habit, although they'd probably see it as a good habit, of not applying extras. I want more managing features. Cisco would love you to go and buy Cisco Prime, which is very expensive, especially if you want to get reports active for the SME market. They generally don't add to existing products and are actually outpricing themselves. Cisco needs to realize that if they want to reach a global market, there are many markets within that. They need a price point that allies a smaller market and sometimes a specific country. I work in Northern Ireland and Ireland, which is very much SMB, and Cisco has priced themselves out of that market. From a management perspective, if I want to get good reports and good troubleshooting capabilities, I have to go and buy an additional product, Prime or another product that they facilitate. Aerohive products and the like have that under the hood and are a cheaper product. Cisco needs to be paralleling what the other vendors' devices are doing and giving what could be other markets the ability to use the product. For now, they've priced themselves out in some locations.

In terms of additional features, they need to look at the market and need to look at whether or not it includes more management features under the hood and more layers to functional troubleshooting which other vendor devices do, that would be a big improvement. But they need to be built into the product that you buy, and you shouldn't have to go and pay thousands of pounds for an additional management platform. There should be a level of management solution purchased through the standard WLAN, Cisco's WLAN solution. There isn't enough.

I would want people to be aware that Cisco Wireless WAN is a top-end product and solution. Their portfolio is superb. They have major experience and maturity and are very much in tune with their field. I work in warehousing facilities. Like most things, though, there are pros and cons. Cisco is the top end, commercially. It's going to be double the price, and I mean double the price, of everything else. Other products that I use, and I have cross-referenced the price point with many solutions for the requirements of our enterprise customers, are half the price.

They are a good product. Do they warrant the extra expense? I would have to say no, but they do have great maturity and their product portfolio is not just the access points but their other add-ons; their antennas, maturity and the information out there, which is invaluable. You pay for these from an engineering and consultative perspective. I need to research issues and other people's experiences. Cisco obviously has the world's best engineers, consultants who have that and very nicely post their experiences. That is invaluable. But unfortunately some markets, again I'm talking about Ireland here, sometimes can't afford that. And there are other products that can do the job just as well.

Commercially they are quite flawed but in terms of technology, you can't really beat Cisco, to be honest. Commercially I would rate them as a 2 but technically they would be an 8 or 9 out of ten. I'm not a fan of the Meraki product so I'm taking it out of the equation. I'm talking about Cisco WLCs, and what would be the solution. Technically it's an excellent product.

Unfortunately, their validity into other commercial markets is flawed. Majorly flawed. And they have too much competition, and Cisco being Cisco will just go "Well, that's fine, we didn't want to do that."  Then we would not use their products. So that's unfortunate. Maybe that's just a bit of pretension on their part.

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.

I am a solutions architect primarily dealing with networking and security matters. I recommend Cisco Wireless WAN to customers, particularly larger businesses.

Wireless assurance has significantly improved network reliability. Additionally, certificate-based authentication has been critical for my customers' operations.

There needs to be an adjustment in subscription licenses and their pricing. Buying the hardware and then managing Cisco renewals incurs a CapEx and also a yearly OpEx expense, which causes a struggle.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for a long time, approximately ten years.

I'd rate the product nine out of ten for stability.

The solution is scalable and adapts well to scaling needs as businesses grow.

The technical support by Cisco is very good. We have no issues with it.

Positive

Cisco Wireless WAN can be competitive in terms of pricing but may also be a bit pricey at times. The main issue is the license renewals and subscriptions, which can be expensive.

There are many competitors like HP with Aruba and Juniper. Huawei or other Chinese companies provide options, and Fortinet also has access points.

I generally recommend Cisco Wireless WAN to other businesses except for small business owners due to the cost factor. They could consider other cost-effective products. It would be beneficial to see more AI integration in troubleshooting and network visibility.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.