Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cisco Wireless WAN vs Ruckus Wireless WAN comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 4, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
7.9
Cisco Wireless WAN is valued for reliability, centralized control, and significant ROI despite higher licensing costs, enhancing productivity.
Sentiment score
7.1
Users achieved significant ROI with Ruckus Wireless WAN over several years, noting cost savings and extended replacement cycles.
Cisco's licensing structure is more expensive than FortiNet, as it requires different tiers of licenses to access advanced features.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.8
Cisco Wireless WAN's customer service is praised despite some delays, with high satisfaction in RMA services and comprehensive support.
Sentiment score
6.6
Ruckus Wireless WAN support is responsive and efficient, though initial contact expertise and escalation process need improvement.
If an engineer's shift ends, I have to re-explain everything to a new engineer, which is challenging.
When we seek support, the service we expect is not promptly delivered, which can be time-consuming.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.8
Cisco Wireless WAN is highly scalable, easily integrates, and supports diverse networks, though licensing and hardware constraints may impact decisions.
Sentiment score
7.8
Ruckus Wireless WAN offers scalable, flexible solutions for diverse deployment sizes, with manageable costs and extensive industry applications.
There isn't a limit to scalability, but for deployments exceeding five thousand equipment, it requires opening a case with Meraki support to increase capacity.
I find the scalability quite good, with a rating of eight out of ten.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.8
Cisco Wireless WAN is praised for its strong stability, reliability, minimal issues, and quick support, receiving high user ratings.
Sentiment score
8.3
Ruckus Wireless WAN is praised for stability and reliability, despite occasional hardware issues needing cautious complex environment deployment.
 

Room For Improvement

Cisco Wireless WAN requires enhancements in compatibility, pricing, setup ease, integration, management, automation, UI, troubleshooting, and support.
Ruckus Wireless WAN requires pricing, documentation, support improvements, expanded features, better usability, and adaptation to market demands.
Walmart is interested in using electronic tags instead of paper labels for easier price changes on products.
There seems to be no visible improvement in the Gartner positioning, which is crucial even as companies like Huawei are also entering the wireless sector.
 

Setup Cost

Enterprises find Cisco Wireless WAN pricing high due to mandatory licenses and seek alternatives despite strong features.
Ruckus Wireless WAN pricing varies, seen as valuable yet expensive compared to alternatives, with cost differences by region and packages.
The cost is one of the higher in the industry.
The price is always on the higher side, which impacts the perception of return on investment.
 

Valuable Features

Cisco Wireless WAN offers high-speed, secure performance with easy management, advanced QoS, WiFi 6 support, and seamless Cisco integration.
Ruckus Wireless WAN offers high performance, easy management, excellent coverage, and unique features, competing effectively with Cisco and Aruba.
The main value of using Cisco Wireless WAN with Meraki is that the technology is cloud-based, making it more accessible for the customer to troubleshoot and implement changes remotely.
The most valuable features are the advanced technologies like BeamFlex, which make a significant difference.
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Wireless WAN
Ranking in Wireless WAN
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
74
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Ruckus Wireless WAN
Ranking in Wireless WAN
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
56
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Wireless WAN category, the mindshare of Cisco Wireless WAN is 3.6%, up from 3.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ruckus Wireless WAN is 36.6%, down from 37.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Wireless WAN
 

Featured Reviews

LalanChowdhury - PeerSpot reviewer
Enhances network reliability, offers device longevity and offers open authentication
The device longevity is a factor. enhances network reliability. Specifically, the handoff feature for WAN, when a customer moves from one access point to another in a building or office, is much easier and more reliable if it's controller-based. So, in those cases, we recommend the traditional controller-based solution. Cisco is adding AI features; they've already started in SD-WAN. But in Bangladesh, people are still new to AI. Cisco is including AI capabilities in their devices, so people are gradually adopting them. If they need AI-driven devices for industrial purposes, they can use them. So, Cisco is forward-thinking with these features. Even though they're not being used extensively now, they may be used in the future for things like RFID or automation. That's why Cisco's solution is logical and adaptable.
Udit Narayan - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers robust outdoor connectivity, but signal strength and support need improvement
In Cisco, there is a configuration where it automatically switches from the 2.4 GHz to 5.2 GHz frequency. But with Ruckus, usually, we need to manually define whether we want to use the 2.4 GHz or 5.2 GHz. Another point is that its penetration power is low when we are using it in any location with more walls, as the signal strength diminishes. So, the signal strength and the penetration power of the signal should be improved. It is not like Cisco. We are using Cisco APs also, but Cisco APs perform better when we compare them with Ruckus. In future releases, I would like to see automatic switching between 2.4 GHz and 5.2 GHz frequencies. We should not have to set it manually. It should automatically change its frequency based on the load. For example, if the number of users increases, then its frequency should change automatically, switching to the less congested band.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Wireless WAN solutions are best for your needs.
849,963 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Real Estate/Law Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Comms Service Provider
15%
Computer Software Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Educational Organization
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cisco Wireless WAN?
Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.
What needs improvement with Cisco Wireless WAN?
We are conducting proof of concepts with VOIP and electronic tags. Walmart is interested in using electronic tags instead of paper labels for easier price changes on products. We are still testing ...
Is Ubiquiti Wireless better than Ruckus Wireless WAN?
Ubiquiti Wireless is extremely easy to set up and is an excellent option for small businesses, offering enterprise features for a one-time fee and no ongoing licensing fees. Ubiquiti Wireless is ve...
What do you like most about Ruckus Wireless WAN?
Ruckus Wireless WAN is an easy-to-use solution.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Ruckus Wireless WAN?
The price is always on the higher side, which impacts the perception of return on investment.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Aegean Motorway, Baylor Scott & White Health, Beachbody, Bellevue, Brunel University London, Bucks County Intermediate Unit , Chartwell School, Children's Hospital Colorado, Cisco Live Milan, City of Biel, City of Mississauga, Dundee Precious Metals, Electricity Authority of Cyprus, Erickson Living, Goldcorp, Great Ormond Street Hospital, Grupo Industrial Saltillo (GIS)
American University of Sharjah, Dordt College, Drew University, Lamar University, Raroa School
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Wireless WAN vs. Ruckus Wireless WAN and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
849,963 professionals have used our research since 2012.