We performed a comparison between Cisco Wireless WAN and Ubiquiti Wireless 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 access points and controllers are good."
"I like that it has integrated the cost of our network access."
"The most valuable features are CleanAir, Rogue Detection, and the auto-calculation of RF."
"This stability is one of the major reasons to stick with this product."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's best features are simple management, the cloud base, dashboards, and reliability."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's best feature is the integration with other Cisco products."
"The initial setup is straightforward, and you need to spend around six to 10 weeks to set up one controller."
"It just gives you the ability to use it around the office without being tied up to an actual physical connection."
"It has a user-friendly interface."
"The range is usually pretty good, which is the most important thing to use because more or less, all wireless access points are the same."
"It's very easy to use. The hardware is very easy to use, compared to Microsoft. Microsoft is more complicated. It has software that is okay if you are familiar with it. In my opinion, Ubiquiti hardware is more heavy duty then Microsoft."
"I like that it's very easy and very stable. It's easy to install as well."
"Ubiquiti Wireless is extremely easy to set up."
"Ubiquiti is easier to install than Mikrotik."
"This is a high-quality solution that allows us to provide wifi access points in challenging areas."
"Ubiquiti Wireless is a reasonably priced, easy to use, stable and reliable product."
"The prices are high and should be reduced in order to be more competitive."
"The price of Cisco Wireless WAN could improve, it is expensive."
"The pricing could be improved in future releases. It's quite expensive."
"The technical scalability is easy, but the license scalability is quite tricky."
"We feel that Cisco is quite expensive, so we're looking for a reasonable alternative. We are considering Aruba and some other brands that are less expensive. Cisco works fine, but the issue is the annual licensing and support costs."
"We cannot use wireless for the servers due to potential performance issues. They must be connected via fiber."
"The pricing of the solution could always be better."
"The only thing I would like to see is better high availability if you're using the embedded wireless controller."
"I would like a better explanation or better documentation on how to use the onboard spectrum analyzer."
"Its stability could be better."
"Could be more secure and the controller more user-friendly."
"The strength of the routers could be improved. When it comes to serious routing, the solution doesn't measure up to the big guys like Juniper and Cisco, but we don't expect it to."
"This solution should be more robust when it comes to connectivity and improve wireless technology."
"I would like local support from the parent company."
"I would prefer if the solution offered more integration capabilities."
"Ubiquiti Wireless could improve stability."
Cisco Wireless WAN is ranked 4th in Wireless WAN with 61 reviews while Ubiquiti Wireless is ranked 1st in Wireless WAN with 68 reviews. Cisco Wireless WAN is rated 8.2, while Ubiquiti Wireless is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Wireless WAN writes "It's a reliable, user-friendly solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ubiquiti Wireless writes "It's cheap and easy to use but isn't suitable for large deployments or complex use cases ". Cisco Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium Networks Wireless WAN and Fortinet FortiExtender, whereas Ubiquiti Wireless is most compared with Ruckus Wireless WAN, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, Cambium Networks Wireless WAN and Aruba Wireless. See our Cisco Wireless WAN vs. Ubiquiti Wireless 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.