We performed a comparison between Aruba Networks Wireless WAN and Cisco Wireless WAN based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Wireless WAN solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."From the performance perspective, I'm happy with the solution. Also, from the technical side, it seems to be pretty good."
"The most valuable feature of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is centralized management capability. You don't have to have wireless LAN controllers at every location."
"Aruba Central seems to be a good way to go in cloud management. However, compared to Cisco Meraki, it's still very early days."
"There is a clustering feature, so the APs immediately switch back to the next available controller. The users will not notice any impact and will feel connected to the network. They will not notice any disconnection."
"Aruba is a very stable system."
"It integrates with the Aruba portfolio very easily, and it's a vendor-agnostic solution, and that's brilliant."
"Aruba makes use of "Direct Tunnel" as its best security feature."
"The solution is overall a great product. The stability is one of the best aspects of it. It's also useful in helping control multiple access points. You don't need to have a physical controller like other brands."
"Stability is one aspect that I find very valuable."
"It's a reliable solution."
"We have found that the product scales well."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"Reliability and visibility in the product are most valuable. We are able to see client performance, signal strength for clients, and things like that."
"Recently, the most valuable and in-demand feature that users are enjoying is WiFi 6 support on the access points. The other good thing about Cisco Wireless LAN is how easily it provides clean access to the WiFi network."
"Cisco Wireless access points are highly stable with a wide coverage area."
"We don't see many troubleshooting issues. Normally, it's a user error when it comes to the JSS or the VPN. Once they log into the system or they get on the internet, then they log directly into the JSS, so they can do their work."
"We'd like to have a bit more artificial intelligence incorporated into existing products."
"The integration, pricing, and configuration could always be improved upon."
"This solution needs different models that are more specialized for certain customers."
"The customization options could be improved."
"What needs to improve in Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is the support because it takes quite a long time for the support team to resolve issues. Whenever a new version or update is released, my company sees many bugs and issues, so that is another area for improvement as well."
"From the commercial-side the pricing side is fine but in other aspects, it could be lowered."
"The solution would be improved with a better interface."
"There’s a bit of complexity in the initial setup."
"Cisco Firewall cannot recognize some applications and that makes dealing with policies difficult. Even when we whitelist, it does not work well."
"The DNA space is a separate license cost, which should be included in the license."
"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."
"It can be complicated to configure the solution."
"There is no centralized management for multiple wireless control deployments or a user tracking feature."
"Cisco Wireless WAN would be improved with the ability to monitor new usernames, product registrations, and flow traffic."
"We cannot use wireless for the servers due to potential performance issues. They must be connected via fiber."
"Pricing is very high with Cisco products. It's something that many people complain about. They should work to make it more affordable."
Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is ranked 5th in Wireless WAN with 46 reviews while Cisco Wireless WAN is ranked 4th in Wireless WAN with 60 reviews. Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is rated 8.4, while Cisco Wireless WAN is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN writes "It's reliable, cost-effective, and easy to troubleshoot". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Wireless WAN writes "It's a reliable, user-friendly solution". Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium Networks Wireless WAN, Ubiquiti Wireless, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN and Fortinet FortiWLM, whereas Cisco Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium Networks Wireless WAN, Fortinet FortiExtender and Ubiquiti Wireless. See our Aruba Networks Wireless WAN vs. Cisco Wireless WAN report.
See our list of best Wireless WAN vendors.
We monitor all Wireless WAN reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.