We performed a comparison between Cambium 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."The initial setup is easy to handle. It's quite simple."
"It excels in challenging environments and adverse weather conditions, maintaining high performance without any impact on the link quality."
"It is a stable solution."
"The claim management feature is exceedingly simple."
"It eliminates the need for additional controllers, reducing costs."
"Cambium Networks' PowerMax feature has been particularly beneficial for WAN connectivity, offering superior coverage compared to other solutions. The standout feature of Cambium Networks for me is its extensive coverage area."
"The most valuable features of Cambium Networks Wireless WAN are cloud management and links."
"The initial setup of Cambium is straightforward."
"The security and the capabilities of the platform are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable features are user and handling capacity, indoor and outdoor access points and antennas, and the inbuilt intrusion prevention system."
"The network management is good. We use it to control access, channels, and phones and limit bandwidth."
"We used everything Cisco, not just wireless. It works great with other Cisco tools."
"The most valuable feature of Cisco Wireless WAN is the ease of management."
"The most valuable features of Cisco Wireless WAN are the dashboards, security functionality, and Cisco DNA center. The way the solution has integrated within the fabric of the environment with automation is very good."
"Our university has experienced a positive return on investment, and I believe Cisco Wireless WAN will continue to benefit us for at least a decade."
"The most valuable features for me are the ease of operation and scalability."
"I think this product could be improved if It were SMS based. If I have a visitor in my office, I'd like to be able to send them the wireless password as a message via SMS, so I don't have to give it out."
"The Wifi coverage and throughput performance of Cambium could improve."
"There is room for improvement in the support."
"The solution's price could be better."
"The Cambium user interface and configuration should be improved."
"Cambium's solution is flexible for various connectivity needs, although there are limitations based on the specific equipment and metrics. The indoor coverage typically reaches up to sixty meters and may require external antennas for optimal performance and for outdoor connectivity, Cambium Networks offer excellent scalability and coverage, especially with sectorial access points."
"Cambium Networks Wireless WAN could improve by providing a better signal range."
"Cambium Networks Wireless WAN's support services could be better."
"The price could be better."
"Cisco Wireless WAN is expensive."
"The worst thing about the Cisco controllers is that they only have two ports."
"The cloud interoperability needs improvement."
"The prices are high and should be reduced in order to be more competitive."
"We have had some problems connecting to the internet with Cisco Wireless WAN, but it is not the equipment or configuration. Additionally, the integration with access control security could improve."
"Improvements can be made in the wireless fabric."
"Documentation is an area that needs review. It should be more dynamic and it should be easier."
More Cambium Networks Wireless WAN Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cambium Networks Wireless WAN is ranked 3rd in Wireless WAN with 23 reviews while Cisco Wireless WAN is ranked 4th in Wireless WAN with 61 reviews. Cambium Networks Wireless WAN is rated 8.6, while Cisco Wireless WAN is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cambium Networks Wireless WAN writes "Provides point-to-point and point-to-multipoint connectivity and user-friendly solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Wireless WAN writes "It's a reliable, user-friendly solution". Cambium Networks Wireless WAN is most compared with Ubiquiti Wireless, Ruckus Wireless WAN and Aruba Networks Wireless WAN, whereas Cisco Wireless WAN is most compared with Fortinet FortiExtender and Ubiquiti Wireless. See our Cambium 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.