![Aruba Airwave vs. Cisco Prime LAN Management [EOL] report](https://www.peerspot.com/assets/media/images/icons/pdf-80836ec5.svg){kind=icon}
![Cisco Prime LAN Management [EOL] Logo](https://images.peerspot.com/image/upload/c_scale,dpr_3.0,f_auto,q_100,w_64/0dra2w8zbx5vrvwmhkdswx9l90ys.jpg)
![Cisco Prime LAN Management [EOL] Logo](https://images.peerspot.com/image/upload/c_scale,dpr_3.0,f_auto,q_100,w_30/0dra2w8zbx5vrvwmhkdswx9l90ys.jpg){kind=small}
![Cisco Prime LAN Management [EOL] Logo](https://images.peerspot.com/image/upload/c_scale,dpr_3.0,f_auto,q_100,w_40/0dra2w8zbx5vrvwmhkdswx9l90ys.jpg){kind=small}
The biggest problem for not using Aruba Airwave extensively now is that HP is not upgrading this tool. They're not investing money and time into it, which is why we're not using it. I find the price of Aruba Central compared to Aruba Airwave to be more expensive. Customers start to complain and get annoyed about the license price. For example, when customers have 500 access points and features about access point licenses, moving to Central requires purchasing new licenses. This makes customers annoyed and complaining about this situation. It's hard to move from on-premises to Central because they always compare costs. If Aruba gave free licenses, they could move. But going to cloud and Central means more investment, and their budget doesn't cover the new investment. This creates problems for local partner companies.
