We performed a comparison between Cisco Meraki Wireless and Ruckus Wireless based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Ruckus Wireless has an edge over Cisco Meraki Wireless in this comparison. It is easy to deploy and high performing. In addition, Ruckus Wireless has an impressive ROI and is less expensive than Cisco Meraki Wireless.
"The simplicity is great."
"The most useful feature of Juniper Wireless AP is the reporting Marvis."
"The solution is pretty generic and easy to use."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The visibility of the site is most useful."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward."
"The solution has worked very well in our campus environment."
"I think the IoT integration is the most valuable. I started applying IoT solutions 12 years ago on location-based services. Aruba had implemented this at the time. So I think the integration, particularly into the applications and stuff, is pretty interesting in Meraki."
"What I like best about Meraki is that I can change it from anywhere."
"Great architecturally based dashboard and the solution is accessible from anywhere."
"I have found the scalability to be very good."
"The solution is very stable. I've worked with it at a hospital before, where we deployed it all over the hospital. It worked everywhere and continuously worked flawlessly."
"They have all the features in terms of wireless technology. They have most of the features already there in the controller and their wireless system."
"It gives you the whole user session, and you can tell that the client connected at the traffic post."
"In general, all implementations are standard and pretty straightforward."
"I haven't heard any complaints about the WiFi equipment at all causing problems."
"It's easy to install, and the management is flexible."
"Ruckus Wireless is more of a plain Wi-Fi solution where it does the basic job well. Additionally, it has good conductivity, easy to use, simple to manage, and its access points can be used as standalone devices which gives flexibility in the SMB market."
"The most valuable feature is the portal."
"I need a bit more time with it before criticizing the features."
"If you want to do more specific stuff, it's a bit limited."
"Juniper Wireless AP can improve by continually improving its reporting and integration with other systems."
"The user interface needs to be improved."
"Meraki is still very much a small office type of solution. It is not a fit for large enterprise networks, as it doesn't have tunneling functionalities."
"If there are advanced features that you can have enabled, they should allow users access to that in an easier manner."
"There could be more functionality."
"The way Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN groups certain things, as far as the devices for either monitoring and or configuring them should be done better. They should be grouped a little bit differently because if I want to configure something, a different setting on an SSID, I have to go to their specific area where I would have thought it should be clumped as a dropdown menu in another area."
"I would like to see integration with sensors."
"It is expensive. Juniper seems to have a lot more to offer for future expansion. Juniper has some features that are not there in this solution."
"We're are not fully utilizing the features of Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN to know a more in-depth analysis of what areas need to be improved. However, the security could improve. It would be a benefit to be able to lock out particular clients that are trying to connect from outside the building."
"They need to be able to allow us to keep some of the older products on our cloud controllers or any of their controllers longer and just start supporting the new controllers. They force you into an upgrade unnecessarily."
"The cost could be slightly improved. It's not on the low end, and it's not in the high end. It's in that middle area, which can be a deciding factor between someone going with this solution versus another one."
"The solution needs to have some sort of security offering, like a firewall, for example."
"What would be interesting to see is if they had more of an ability for their customers to capture revenue. They should offer some sort of gateway functionality that you could tie through radius authentication, so you can bill the customers. That way, when you go in, you could just have a device and set up a hotspot, and it's a totally billable tool at that point."
"It would be nice if there was a way to compare access points and hardware so you can always get the same level of performance."
"The pricing needs to be more clear and licensing could be less expensive."
"I would like to see more location-based services on the Smart Cell Insight on access points."
"I have not got any major problem using Ruckus, but the price and technical support could be better."
More Juniper Wireless Access Points (AP Series) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is ranked 2nd in Wireless LAN with 62 reviews while Ruckus Wireless is ranked 4th in Wireless LAN with 52 reviews. Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is rated 8.0, while Ruckus Wireless is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN writes "Highly reliable, effective site blocking, and beneficial reports". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ruckus Wireless writes "Great performance, easy to set up and simple to configure". Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is most compared with Aruba Wireless, Ubiquiti Wireless, Cisco Wireless, Mist AI and Cloud and Aruba Instant, whereas Ruckus Wireless is most compared with Aruba Wireless, Cisco Wireless, Fortinet FortiWLM, Aruba Instant and ExtremeWireless. See our Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN vs. Ruckus Wireless report.
See our list of best Wireless LAN vendors.
We monitor all Wireless LAN 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.
