Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

I am running a Cisco Wireless WAN environment in my organization. I don't have experience with HP or other vendors professionally. I'm a customer and basically a user of Cisco Wireless WAN.

We have a complete infrastructure network for Cisco Wireless WAN. We are running Cisco devices such as switches, and for wireless, we have deployed their wireless controllers and access points. The reason was that our whole environment was Cisco, so we didn't want to switch for wireless.

In my opinion, the most valuable features of Cisco Wireless WAN are smart roaming and the WiFi coverage, and the number of users each device can support. These are the main reasons we are working with Cisco.

Cisco Wireless WAN has room for improvement in WiFi coverage. Sometimes, their coverage is normally good, but at the same area where the access points are deployed, people face continuous disconnectivity issues. These kinds of issues come over time, and we need to do troubleshooting, but they get resolved. This is a performance-related issue, and I think they have to work on that.

I have almost four years of experience with Cisco Wireless WAN.

The initial setup of this solution was easy. It was very user-friendly in terms of the installation and configuration.

The stability of Cisco Wireless WAN is pretty good. If I have to give a number between one hundred, I would rank it eighty.

The scalability of the Cisco Wireless WAN solution is good. We can't go for a cloud solution from here, but if I want to add more access points placed in different locations across the country, I can manage them with one controller.

For the technical support from Cisco, I would rank it eight point five.

Positive

The initial setup of this solution was easy. It was very user-friendly in terms of the installation and configuration.

We got the deployment of Cisco Wireless WAN from the service integrator here, one of the partners in Pakistan.

Initially, Cisco comes up with high prices, but when competition starts with Huawei or HP Aruba, they provide good prices. Initially, they try to come up with large prices and huge numbers.

With the competition between other vendors, they reduced their prices. The price was not the only thing that we were competing on, but the technicality part and the specifications played a big role as well. They put up a very good case, both technically and financially.

I did not check how Cisco Wireless WAN integrates with AI technologies, but they have those features. I believe they released some new firmware that are capable of AI features, but from my experience, I haven't tested that. I would definitely recommend Cisco Wireless WAN to other people.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Cisco Wireless WAN a seven point three five out of ten.

We are still working with Cisco products, and I am supporting the Cisco devices. We are working with Cisco switches, routers, and we have guest Wi-Fi now.

Regarding Cisco Wireless WAN, I am not that much into hardware regarding Cisco Wireless WAN. We are working on the GUI and Prime usage, where the Wi-Fi guest access is created. Configurations and all must be done by my leads on the next-level teams. At present, we are using Cisco Wireless WAN for the WAN devices, such as Catalyst.

We usually help our customers with the implementation of Cisco products.

Cisco Wireless WAN benefits our customers' organizations because it is very easy to connect with the Wi-Fi SSIDs and regarding the password settings. It is very helpful and easy compared to others.

It is easy to integrate Cisco Wireless WAN with other Cisco products in the system.

Cisco Wireless WAN's interface could be simplified in the future. Simplification would make it more helpful to see how the user is connecting. We are able to see the connectivity details, and we also see the Mbps at which they are connecting. We sometimes see connecting and disconnecting users.

I have been working with Cisco Wireless WAN for almost six years.

I would rate the stability of Cisco Wireless WAN as nine.

I find the technical support by Cisco very supportive, and I have seen that support from Cisco and it is very helpful.

Positive

Cisco Wireless WAN's implementation process is good because we receive very good support from them when we order any versions or update operating systems.

I think the pricing of Cisco Wireless WAN must be reasonable at present.

We are not using Cisco VPN at present, so I am not that much aware of it. Presently, we are using Zscaler and Check Point.

Based on my experience, I would generally recommend Cisco Wireless WAN to others.

At present, our company is using Cisco WAN only. Based on that company, their budget and other factors will be involved in the decision.

For metrics to evaluate the efficiency of Cisco Wireless WAN, I refer to the Cisco website or sometimes YouTube to get the details through videos.

Overall, I am giving Cisco Wireless WAN an eight rating out of ten. Any Cisco product is most useful and is being majorly used in the network.

I would like to see features in Cisco Wireless WAN that involve a GUI. Cisco also uses GUI mostly to configure or create any wireless SSIDs or any other things, which is fine now.

I am providing this review with an overall rating of eight out of ten for Cisco Wireless WAN.

We provide security solutions by incorporating Firepower and Cisco firewalls at the network's edge. We connect to the core firewall, then from the WLC (Wireless LAN Controller) to the APs (Access Points). To ensure security, we typically provide a separate firewall for the solution.

For secure access, we can mention WPA (Wi-Fi Protected Access) and WPA2. Open authentication is also possible, but it lacks encryption. We can also mention WEP (Wired Equivalent Privacy). These are the key security features.

The device longevity is a factor. enhances network reliability. Specifically, the handoff feature for WAN, when a customer moves from one access point to another in a building or office, is much easier and more reliable if it's controller-based. So, in those cases, we recommend the traditional controller-based solution.

Cisco is adding AI features; they've already started in SD-WAN. But in Bangladesh, people are still new to AI. Cisco is including AI capabilities in their devices, so people are gradually adopting them. If they need AI-driven devices for industrial purposes, they can use them. 

So, Cisco is forward-thinking with these features. Even though they're not being used extensively now, they may be used in the future for things like RFID or automation. That's why Cisco's solution is logical and adaptable.

As far as I can remember, there's open authentication in WLAN networks, but there might be an issue with the encryption process. Most likely, there's no encryption. If encryption could be added, that would be a feature I'd expect from the build.

I have been working with it for more than ten years. 

It is scalable. For example, with a WLC (Wireless LAN Controller), users can cover a certain number of APs (Access Points). 

For example, consider it supports 500 APs. You can initially deploy 100 or any number you need, and then purchase additional APs and licenses as your needs grow. So it's a scalable solution. 

We consider the WLC capacity based on the future requirements, like for the next three to five years, so we can scale up the solution in the future if needed.

The support is good as a partner or vendor. When we encounter any technical issues, we open a ticket and receive proper support from them. Customers are also happy with the support.

Positive

For 95% of our customers, we recommend Cisco solutions. We only recommend Huawei if the customer doesn't have the budget for Cisco or if they specifically request Huawei. Otherwise, we stick with Cisco.

Cisco is more expensive than Huawei but it's not just about price. It's the customer's mindset. We position Cisco as offering a better total solution, and they usually fit within the customer's budget. If a customer prefers Huawei, we'll go with that, but otherwise, we recommend Cisco.

The purchased devices last for 10 to 15 years without any issues. They only need to renew time-based licenses if applicable. Feature-wise, they get proper connectivity and ensure data integrity throughout the connection. It's much easier to deploy Cisco for reliable connectivity. 

Regarding ROI, customers invest in IT because the return is typically around 37 times the investment. We use this to convince customers and ensure they see a good ROI.

One challenge is that with Cisco Wireless WAN, we are talking about term-based licenses. If we compare it to Meraki solutions, also from Cisco, customers are hesitant to purchase separate licenses every year. They are obligated to renew term-based licenses. It would be better if the license cost was included in the device price.

Since this is a recurring cost, some customers are not interested in devices that require yearly license updates. They prefer a plug-and-play solution where they pay for three years upfront and then only need to purchase warranty, not subscription licenses. This is especially challenging for customers with lower budgets.

We usually focus on Cisco, as it has CBS (Cisco Business Series) models that are well-received by customers. We usually position CBS or SMDC (Small and Medium-Sized Business Distribution Center) for our clients. 

Now that they've introduced the 1200 and 1300 Catalyst switches, we are positioning those as well.

We work with Firepower 3100 and 5000 series, as well as the 3000 and 4000 series. In some cases, for customers with lower requirements, we also provide the 2000 series, like the 2100, 2110, and 2136 models. We also offer IPS (Intrusion Prevention System) as a solution if the customer wants it and their budget allows for it.

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

We work with different Cisco products including switching, routing, wireless, and security, including firewalls. In some cases, for clients who need a total solution, we provide a comprehensive package including Cisco routing, firewall for security, wireless, collaboration tools (video conferencing and IP telephony), and even Cisco UCS servers.

I'm using Catalyst, specifically the 9200 and 9400 series, and C 1000 series. This is also used in every file for WAN, Wireless, DNS, routers, access points, and AAA service. Everything is Cisco.

I have an overall good experience using it. It definitely makes our network and life much easier when using these features. We have centralized control, everything is clear, and there are good controls. It is efficient, and time is more costly than normal.

The graphical user interface is okay, however, the CLI type is not very user-friendly. The GUI is okay, yet it needs more strength in the CLI mode as well. 

Sometimes, issues are not fully addressed. At the end of a shift, staff may hurry things, giving rude answers or trying to transfer the problem to another tech. It would be better for outgoing staff to guide incoming staff properly, but normally, there is not a good link, and the next person must be informed of the problem again. This should be improved with standardized methods and documentation.

I have been using the solution for about one year.

The solution fulfills our needs above 80% to 90%.

I find technical support by Cisco to be very necessary. Compared to other vendors, they are very friendly, and their response time is excellent. In RMA cases, they are very fast. This is a main reason we choose Cisco since the technical support and RMA services are marvelous.

Positive

This is the first time I'm using Cisco.

The initial setup is very easy, which is a good part already.

It is definitely making our network and life much easier. We have centralized control, everything is clear, and there are good controls. It is efficient, and time is more costly than normal.

I checked some other vendors as well.

It is efficient, and time is more costly than normal. Cisco firewall, FDD, or ASR should be wireless. Compared to Fortinet, they are more user-friendly. I use Forticare, four hundred FCE. Cisco firewall, FDD, or ASR should be wireless. Compared to Fortinet, they are more user-friendly. 

The overall product rating is eight out of ten.

We are using Cisco Wireless WAN for our staff to access our system. They are using wireless connections with notebooks and connecting to the access points.

Cisco Wireless WAN allowed for time savings. It provides reliable connectivity for staff.

The solution is popular, and we have been using it for ten years. The scalability of the solution is okay, and we are happy with that aspect.

Cisco's complex structure was a factor that led us to consider replacing it. It is also more expensive than other alternatives. We had issues with roaming between access points, especially when moving from 2.4 GHz to 5 GHz bands.

We have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for ten years.

The solution is stable overall. However, there were issues with roaming that affected the stability of the connection for user devices.

The scalability is okay, and we are happy with it.

Support from Cisco headquarters is satisfactory, and they provide detailed reports. However, the support from Cisco Korea did not fully explain the situation to us, which led to issues in communication and understanding.

Neutral

We are migrating from Cisco Wireless WAN to Xtream due to its complex structure and cost. Xtream offers better monitoring and detailed logs, which influenced our decision.

The initial setup of Cisco Wireless WAN is not easy and requires more than one day for deployment.

One or two engineers are sufficient for setting up, although the POC did not show the full functionality.

We have experienced a twenty percent time saving with Cisco Wireless WAN.

The licensing policy of Cisco Wireless WAN is not satisfactory, similar to other vendors. Hardware prices have decreased. That said, licensing costs seem to compensate.

We compared Cisco with other vendors and decided on Xtream due to its advantages in monitoring and detailed logging.

I'd rate the solution seven 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. 

I use the solution in my company since it is a deep and developed solution. It is also reasonably priced. The tool is scalable.

Nothing is special about the solution.

The security features in Cisco Wireless WAN is nothing special and works as usual as the other tools , like, Cambium and Aruba.

The main issue associated with the product revolves around the licensing part and some support-related problems. The licensing area and support require improvements.

In my country, the technical support offered is not good enough. The technical engineers who can support us are not that good. There is a shortage of technical people in our country. It is difficult for us to find someone who can help us.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for four to five years. I am a customer of Cisco.

There are some problems with the product's stability. Sometimes, it gets unstable, and I believe that it may be because of the interference from other wireless products in our environment. So, I would not say that it is Cisco's responsibility or fault.

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

Across my company, we mostly use Cisco Wireless WAN with around 300 people.

My company uses the product on a daily basis.

I rate the technical support a four out of ten.

Neutral

There are other networks here in our office, and I already had a Cambium solution.

The product's initial setup phase is difficult but not too much.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model. Cisco already has a cloud solution from Meraki, but we are not using it yet. We have plans to deploy a wireless cloud solution, Meraki.

The solution can be deployed in a few weeks to six months.

The product's benefit is good, especially since it does not hang.

Cisco is much more expensive than the other vendor solutions.

If you have a lot of money, I suggest you go for Cisco. If you have budget constraints, then I suggest you go for Cambium.

I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

Our use cases mainly involve deploying wireless access points throughout various locations in the building to ensure full coverage.

The most valuable features include checking logs and performing site surveys. These capabilities ensure that we can cover almost every location in the building and troubleshoot any errors we encounter.

Regarding Cisco Wireless WAN, the most beneficial feature for enhancing network reliability is the ability to change the frequency to prevent interference on the 2.4 GHz network. Additionally, the security capabilities of Cisco Wireless WAN support our organizational needs by allowing us to connect to Cisco tech hacks for authentication and use Cisco ISE to authenticate clients onto the wireless network.

I have been using the product for one year. 

I rate the solution's scalability as nine out of ten. 

I used a different solution at my previous company, and when I switched companies, I switched to Cisco Wireless WAN. 

I rate the deployment ease a nine out of ten. 

A third party helped us with the deployment. 

I would recommend the solution and rate it a nine out of ten. 

Negative

Mainly, our customers use this solution in industries, medical and hospitality industries. And also in educational institutes.

It's mostly the coverage. The coverage is very good. Nowadays, customers have their own security systems. In addition to Cisco, they will have a different firewall. Using that, they have a good security system in their company. So, the customer is happy with the Cisco product.

There is room for improvement in the pricing. If the product cost less, then probably there would be more customers.

In summary, the product could be slightly cheaper to attract more customers. 

I have been working with it for five years. 

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

As far as scalability is concerned, there is no problem at all. We can bring it up to whatever scalability is required as per the customer's requirement. And it's easy to implement, maintain, monitor, and manage. 

That is another advantage of Cisco. Because Cisco is a product that everybody knows, and they are aware of Cisco configuration and monitoring.

Cisco Wireless for large networks is scalable. I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. 

The customer service and support are very good. 

Positive

We have different wireless products available with us, from different vendors. We supply different vendor products to different customers as per their requirements. Some customers are using Cisco Wireless products, and we support them for any requirement.  

The initial setup is easy. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a nine out of ten, with one being difficult, and ten being easy. 

The deployment doesn't take much time; it comes with one access point or number of units. So, for one access point, it takes around 30 minutes. 

We are the system integrator. 

There is a return on investment because it is a one-time investment for the customer. Once you implement it, we'll be continuously getting the system from customers. 

Basically, once a customer is working with Cisco, they will not go with any other vendor. So, if any additional requirements come up, they will come back to us only to implement more on Cisco Wi-Fi.

I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with ten being very expensive. 

It is suitable for small and medium businesses. Not large. Large businesses are not willing to spend money. But small and medium businesses always look at the price, even though our product is world-class. They still want to get it cheap.

It's more stable, more easy to deploy, and easy to manage. Basically, everybody knows Cisco configurations. So it's very simple and easy. Anybody can manage it. Anybody can do the configuration.

Even those who don't have many technical skills, they use it because there are multiple documents available. And, generally, people are given training before they start with Cisco. So they're already used to Cisco even though they have not worked with the actual product. They have already worked with it virtually, with some training. So they are much aware of the product, so it is easy for them to deploy.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten.