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

Cisco Wireless WAN vs Ubiquiti Wireless 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
7.5
Cisco Wireless WAN is reliable and cost-effective, offering strong ROI despite high costs, with significant productivity and efficiency gains.
Sentiment score
6.3
Ubiquiti Wireless users report long-lasting equipment with minimal maintenance, though some suggest improvements and additional user controls.
Cisco's licensing structure is more expensive than FortiNet, as it requires different tiers of licenses to access advanced features.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.6
Cisco Wireless WAN support is praised for expertise and RMA services, though response times and engineer consistency vary.
Sentiment score
5.2
Ubiquiti Wireless support varies, relying on email and forums; lacks phone support, leading to mixed user experiences.
If an engineer's shift ends, I have to re-explain everything to a new engineer, which is challenging.
The main concern is about response time rather than technical expertise or experience.
I didn't have any issues with Ubiquiti support.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
Cisco Wireless WAN is scalable and adaptable, efficiently managing users across various sectors despite some licensing challenges.
Sentiment score
7.5
Ubiquiti Wireless excels in scalability and centralized management, ideal for small to medium businesses expanding their network infrastructure.
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.
Ubiquiti Wireless offers large scalability, which is very important for our company as we have multiple sites that need to be interconnected and managed effectively.
We primarily use them for switching and Wi-Fi solutions.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
Cisco Wireless WAN is stable and reliable, with minor configuration issues and responsive support, rated 8-10 by users.
Sentiment score
7.3
Ubiquiti Wireless is praised for its stable, reliable performance, with occasional connectivity issues noted in crowded areas.
Ubiquiti Wireless is rated ten out of ten for stability.
 

Room For Improvement

Cisco Wireless WAN needs enhanced compatibility, affordability, user-friendliness, and improved security, support, and management features.
Ubiquiti Wireless lacks advanced features, scalability, and support, facing issues with usability, integration, durability, and supply chain.
Walmart is interested in using electronic tags instead of paper labels for easier price changes on products.
The user interface could be made more intuitive.
When implementing Wi-Fi for a campus, we use Cisco for the core backbone infrastructure, while implementing Ubiquiti Wireless for the Wi-Fi and controller.
Enterprise users require more details and options.
 

Setup Cost

Cisco Wireless WAN is seen as costly due to licensing, with some seeking cheaper alternatives like Aruba and Ruckus.
Ubiquiti Wireless is praised for its affordability and no licensing fees, making it ideal for small to medium businesses.
The cost is one of the higher in the industry.
Ubiquiti Wireless is cheaper.
The equipment is priced relatively high, though the value it provides makes it worth the cost.
Ubiquiti Wireless is quite affordable, making it accessible for smaller companies.
 

Valuable Features

Cisco Wireless WAN provides high-speed connectivity, strong security, scalability, and reliability with easy management and comprehensive integration features.
Ubiquiti Wireless excels in setup, management, performance, and security, offering scalable, affordable solutions with robust coverage and intuitive use.
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 integration of Ubiquiti Wireless with other Ubiquiti products in the setup is seamless and perfect.
All the access points provide good connectivity and are reliable.
Since implementing Ubiquiti Wireless, I have seen improvements in connection security, wireless speed, and overall network stability.
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Wireless WAN
Ranking in Wireless WAN
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
75
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Ubiquiti Wireless
Ranking in Wireless WAN
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
77
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Wireless WAN category, the mindshare of Cisco Wireless WAN is 4.5%, up from 3.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ubiquiti Wireless is 38.3%, down from 39.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Wireless WAN Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Ubiquiti Wireless38.3%
Cisco Wireless WAN4.5%
Other57.2%
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.
Donald Ochanda - PeerSpot reviewer
Seamless coverage amplifies connectivity while enhanced responsiveness strengthens potential
We do not prefer Ubiquiti Wireless switches for more complex environments, not because they lack scalability, but because we haven't explored their products extensively. We are strong on their Wi-Fi solution. When implementing Wi-Fi for a campus, we use Cisco for the core backbone infrastructure, while implementing Ubiquiti Wireless for the Wi-Fi and controller. Perhaps we haven't discovered switches that would match our requirements, or maybe they exist but we haven't explored their capabilities fully. Regarding improvements to Ubiquiti Wireless, I cannot provide specific suggestions as I'm not an expert on Wi-Fi, as there is a dedicated team that handles Wi-Fi solutions.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Wireless WAN solutions are best for your needs.
867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
14%
Government
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Retailer
7%
Computer Software Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Government
6%
Educational Organization
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business26
Midsize Enterprise16
Large Enterprise35
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business48
Midsize Enterprise10
Large Enterprise18
 

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco Wireless WAN?
Initially, Cisco comes up with high prices, but when competition starts with Huawei or HP Aruba, they provide good prices. Initially, they try to come up with large prices and huge numbers.
What needs improvement with Cisco Wireless WAN?
Cisco Wireless WAN has room for improvement in WiFi coverage. Sometimes, their coverage is normally good, but at the same area where the access points are deployed, people face continuous disconnec...
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...
Which is better - Cambium or Ubiquiti Wireless?
For me, Ubiquiti was easy to install, configure, set up, and maintain, while also providing solid coverage and better handoffs between APs. This is especially relevant if you are using Apple produc...
Which is better - Ubiquiti Wireless or Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN?
Ubiquiti Wireless offers a wide range of WLAN products. We tested their devices before ultimately choosing Cisco Meraki. Ubiquiti devices have good outdoor performance and the connection is very st...
 

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)
NASCAR Grand-AM, Maritime Parc, Outdoor Music Festival, British Armed Forces, Arcadia School District, Moscow - Enforta
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Wireless WAN vs. Ubiquiti Wireless and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.