We performed a comparison between Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN and Ubiquiti Wireless based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN and Ubiquiti Wireless are similar to one another. Overall, PeerSpot users found that both solutions have unique features, including great scalability and stability. Users found Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN to be more expensive, but were generally happy with its service and support. Meanwhile, users of Ubiquiti Wireless are less satisfied with the customer service but happier with the price.
"The most useful feature of Juniper Wireless AP is the reporting Marvis."
"The most valuable feature of Juniper Wireless Access Points (AP Series) is the ability to troubleshoot ports on the network. Additionally, when there is an update on the APs they are able to reboot quickly reducing downtime. Other solutions have a longer downtime when updates are done."
"The simplicity is great."
"In terms of reporting, in terms of all the user reports, it's very rich."
"The solution is pretty generic and easy to use."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward."
"The solution is easy to install."
"There are many valuable features of Cisco Meraki, including the switches, stacking, and layer 3 routing."
"The solution has worked very well in our campus environment."
"The product has been very stable over the years."
"I have found the scalability to be very good."
"The most valuable feature is that the solution is friendly to manage."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the application visibility, which is one of the main features."
"It is very stable and the equipment lasts quite a long time."
"The most valuable feature of Ubiquiti Wireless is the ease of configuration."
"Ubiquiti outdoor access points in particular, are really stable, and if there are no obstructions, Ubiquiti works well."
"Ubiquiti devices are centrally managed, and you can log into the access points via SSH. If the GUI isn't working for some reason, you can intervene via SSH."
"The most valuable aspect of Ubiquiti is the ease of setup. It's easy to set up, secure, and use. It works on an adoption basis. I can pull the system up, design a network, and pull 20 different Ubiquiti units into it."
"Easy to use and flexible."
"It's very easy to deploy."
"The scalability of Ubiquiti Wireless is very good. We can add and transfer access points, it is highly scalable."
"Juniper Wireless Access Points (AP Series) could improve if the MIST platform had a built-in master key. This would be an advantage."
"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."
"The solution is expensive."
"Juniper Wireless AP can improve by continually improving its reporting and integration with other systems."
"We have used technical support for some issues but not many times."
"The initial setup was simple. However, the full deployment could be easier."
"They could also add some more controls for guest access. For example, when you have a captive portal, it would be nice to limit the amount of time users can stay connected per day. Right now, you can only configure the splash frequency. And you can set the connection for one hour, but you have to use the billing feature."
"Quality of technical support varies."
"The price could be slightly better, but then again, we negotiate deals every time so the market price isn't really relevant."
"The technical support from Cisco is good, but they can improve themselves in some areas. Sometimes it takes a while to provide a solution or an answer to our problem."
"Cisco offers pretty expensive devices."
"It is super expensive for what you get. I just wish it was less expensive."
"The network setup could be a little easier and more straightforward."
"Everything needs to be professionally done."
"Ubiquiti is also slow to adopt new technologies. We are transitioning to Wi-Fi 6, and there aren't many products. They have mostly Wi-Fi 5 products, but there are only two Wi-Fi 6 products. It's okay for places we have already equipped, but it's a bit hard for new places."
"We use different models of the solution but in some cases, the security could improve in the adaptive portal, be a little more robust, and easier to use."
"We'd like the solution to be more stable and have fewer firmware upgrades."
"This product has issues with scalability and ease of manageability at scale. Security also needs to be improved, when compared to its competitors. Ubiquiti Wireless doesn't have any support that you can call. They only have an online portal where you can access support documentation, but it's not great. You have to figure out issues and solutions for yourself."
"Their stock is a bit low compared to others, making it difficult to purchase."
"This might not be the best solution for a very large organization."
More Juniper Mist Wireless Access Points Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is ranked 2nd in Wireless LAN with 48 reviews while Ubiquiti Wireless is ranked 1st in Wireless WAN with 38 reviews. Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is rated 8.0, while Ubiquiti Wireless is rated 7.8. 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 Ubiquiti Wireless writes "Attractive pricing and good for home use and small businesses, but not easily scalable and lacks security features". Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is most compared with Aruba Wireless, Cisco Wireless, Mist AI and Cloud, Ruckus Wireless and Fortinet FortiWLM, whereas Ubiquiti Wireless is most compared with Ruckus Wireless WAN, Cambium Networks Wireless WAN, Aruba Wireless, Fortinet FortiWLM and ExtremeCloud IQ.
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.
