We performed a comparison between Cisco Wireless WAN and HPE 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."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."
"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."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's best feature is the integration with other Cisco products."
"We have found that the product scales well."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's most valuable feature is it is robust."
"The devices are all of good quality."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's best features are simple management, the cloud base, dashboards, and reliability."
"The network management is good. We use it to control access, channels, and phones and limit bandwidth."
"The solution is easy to use."
"HPE Wireless is easy to use. Integration is not an issue. It is easy to integrate HPE Wireless with any operating system and other brands of switches."
"The reliability is good."
"It is a new product backed by HPE's expertise in networking and telecommunications. We can also work with 3Com products."
"Setting up the solution initially is very easy."
"What's most valuable in HPE Wireless WAN is that it works fine for customers with existing HPE controllers."
"It is a good and stable solution."
"The most important is that the solution is stable."
"The worst thing about the Cisco controllers is that they only have two ports."
"The solution could lower its pricing to make it more affordable."
"It is expensive."
"The interface is a little bit difficult to understand at times. It would be good if Cisco were to make it user friendly so that everyone can easily configure it without the need to do certifications and courses to learn how to use all of the devices."
"The reporting feature needs improvement, especially adding information with regards to availability uptime."
"The prices are high and should be reduced in order to be more competitive."
"You cannot go to different versions or different access points. 9115s cannot interact with 9120s, and 9130s can interact with 9115s. You can add or remove as many subordinates as you want."
"Cisco Firewall cannot recognize some applications and that makes dealing with policies difficult. Even when we whitelist, it does not work well."
"The license cost of the product is an area where the prices are neither expensive nor cheap, leaving a scope for the prices to be lowered further."
"HPE should improve performance and stability."
"The scalability is good, but it could improve."
"It should be a faster device."
"The installation is easy. However, my implementation is complicated and you would need special training to complete it."
"Scalability is an aspect of this product that should be improved."
"The HPE Wireless dashboard could be more user-friendly."
"It's very old-fashioned, which is why we have made the decision to replace it."
Cisco Wireless WAN is ranked 4th in Wireless WAN with 60 reviews while HPE Wireless WAN is ranked 8th in Wireless WAN with 16 reviews. Cisco Wireless WAN is rated 8.2, while HPE Wireless WAN is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Cisco Wireless WAN writes "It's a reliable, user-friendly solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HPE Wireless WAN writes " A tool that ensures to provide seamless connectivity to its users". Cisco Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium Networks Wireless WAN, Fortinet FortiExtender and Ubiquiti Wireless, whereas HPE Wireless WAN is most compared with Ruckus Wireless WAN. See our Cisco Wireless WAN vs. HPE 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.