Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN vs Cisco Wireless WAN comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 4, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
6.5
Aruba Networks Wireless WAN offers up to 50% cost savings, integrates well, and satisfies users with security and ROI benefits.
Sentiment score
7.9
Cisco Wireless WAN is valued for reliability, centralized control, and significant ROI despite higher licensing costs, enhancing productivity.
It delivers everything we need for our wireless network, including security, authentication, and integration with other platforms.
Cisco's licensing structure is more expensive than FortiNet, as it requires different tiers of licenses to access advanced features.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.1
Aruba Networks Wireless WAN support is competent but varies in responsiveness, with room for improvement in speed and scalability.
Sentiment score
6.8
Cisco Wireless WAN's customer service is praised despite some delays, with high satisfaction in RMA services and comprehensive support.
I would rate the direct support an eight out of ten.
If an engineer's shift ends, I have to re-explain everything to a new engineer, which is challenging.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.8
Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is scalable for businesses, supporting seamless expansion and integration for diverse environments with ease.
Sentiment score
7.8
Cisco Wireless WAN is highly scalable, easily integrates, and supports diverse networks, though licensing and hardware constraints may impact decisions.
There isn't a limit to scalability, but for deployments exceeding five thousand equipment, it requires opening a case with Meraki support to increase capacity.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.4
Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is praised for its strong stability, dependable performance, and minimal downtime, ensuring long-lasting reliability.
Sentiment score
7.8
Cisco Wireless WAN is praised for its strong stability, reliability, minimal issues, and quick support, receiving high user ratings.
 

Room For Improvement

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN needs interface improvements, cost reductions, enhanced security, scalability, better documentation, and seamless integration features.
Cisco Wireless WAN requires enhancements in compatibility, pricing, setup ease, integration, management, automation, UI, troubleshooting, and support.
The licensing scheme and price could be improved.
Walmart is interested in using electronic tags instead of paper labels for easier price changes on products.
 

Setup Cost

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN pricing is competitive, generally cheaper than Cisco, with flexible payment options and subscriptions available.
Enterprises find Cisco Wireless WAN pricing high due to mandatory licenses and seek alternatives despite strong features.
The price is a little bit expensive.
The cost is one of the higher in the industry.
 

Valuable Features

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN offers reliable, scalable connectivity with advanced security, user-friendly management, and seamless integration for enterprises.
Cisco Wireless WAN offers high-speed, secure performance with easy management, advanced QoS, WiFi 6 support, and seamless Cisco integration.
We are very satisfied with the solution as it delivers everything we need for our wireless network, including security, authentication, and integration with other platforms.
The main value of using Cisco Wireless WAN with Meraki is that the technology is cloud-based, making it more accessible for the customer to troubleshoot and implement changes remotely.
 

Categories and Ranking

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN
Ranking in Wireless WAN
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
49
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Cisco Wireless WAN
Ranking in Wireless WAN
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
74
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Wireless WAN category, the mindshare of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is 4.2%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Cisco Wireless WAN is 3.7%, up from 3.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Wireless WAN
 

Featured Reviews

Joseph Colly - PeerSpot reviewer
Reasonably priced and offers a good GUI
The product is very scalable. When it comes to some schools, they start with the solution's proof of concept in certain sections. My company aims to improve the throughputs in the schools where the product is installed. If the rest of the School wants the product, it is easy to set up the solution. My company uses Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for schools and warehouses but not in the retail sector. The product offers reliability and uptime twenty-four hours and seven days a week. My company gets notified if the reliability offered by the product goes down. My company also gets notified if we are getting hacked.
LalanChowdhury - PeerSpot reviewer
Enhances network reliability, offers device longevity and offers open authentication
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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Wireless WAN solutions are best for your needs.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Real Estate/Law Firm
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Computer Software Company
15%
Real Estate/Law Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Do you recommend Aruba Network Wireless WAN?
I recommend Aruba Networks Wireless WAN. I have been using Aruba for approximately a decade. It has a great centralized management system, which means we don’t need wireless LAN controllers at ever...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN?
The price is a little bit expensive. On a scale of one to ten, where ten is the most expensive, I would place them at seven or eight.
What do you like most about Cisco Wireless WAN?
Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.
What needs improvement with Cisco Wireless WAN?
We are conducting proof of concepts with VOIP and electronic tags. Walmart is interested in using electronic tags instead of paper labels for easier price changes on products. We are still testing ...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

The Pittsburgh Golf Club, Rio Rancho Public Schools, Amwaj Rotana - Jumeirah Beach Residence - Dubai, Trevecca Nazarene University
Aegean Motorway, Baylor Scott & White Health, Beachbody, Bellevue, Brunel University London, Bucks County Intermediate Unit , Chartwell School, Children's Hospital Colorado, Cisco Live Milan, City of Biel, City of Mississauga, Dundee Precious Metals, Electricity Authority of Cyprus, Erickson Living, Goldcorp, Great Ormond Street Hospital, Grupo Industrial Saltillo (GIS)
Find out what your peers are saying about Aruba Networks Wireless WAN vs. Cisco Wireless WAN and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.