No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

HPE 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:
 

Categories and Ranking

HPE Wireless WAN
Ranking in Wireless WAN
7th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
5.8
Number of Reviews
22
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 August 2026, in the Wireless WAN category, the mindshare of HPE Wireless WAN is 6.4%, up from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ubiquiti Wireless is 22.3%, down from 39.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Wireless WAN Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Ubiquiti Wireless22.3%
HPE Wireless WAN6.4%
Other71.3%
Wireless WAN
 

Featured Reviews

DineshDas - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager - Network Services at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Centralized features have simplified deployment and improved day-to-day network management
One of the best features of HPE Wireless WAN is Wi-Fi Direct, as it provides dual-band frequency and helps to connect Bluetooth with IoT devices. I am comfortable with this feature and find it beneficial for connectivity. I use centralized management features such as WLC. They have improved operational efficiency significantly. It is one of the best tools we have for centralized management because it is easy to manage, manually delete, and create sites. This makes it easy to implement policies across the network. I see measurable benefits from this centralized solution, which is quite easy to handle as people are comfortable managing the tool. Users do not need hardcore technical expertise to operate it on a day-to-day basis, making it quite comfortable.
Donald Ochanda - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Manager at Network Security and Crypto
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is a good and stable solution."
"I like their features, such as reliability and high availability, and their network is more highly available compared to Cisco and others because they have features like Mobility Master and Mobility Conductors, and their solution is more stable compared to Cisco and others."
"Setting up the solution initially is very easy."
"The reliability is good."
"The tool is easy to manage."
"HPE Wireless offers easy approval due to its budget-friendly pricing, is scalable and user-friendly for administrators, has commendable stability with no issues in almost two years of use, and its ease of cloud-based management is a standout advantage."
"HPE Wireless WAN provides reliable connectivity."
"We've found the scalability to be good."
"It allows us to offer policy control."
"For me, Ubiquiti is the product of choice because of the flexibility it provides us."
"The pricing of the solution is excellent. It offers a great value."
"We use the solution for many of our smaller customers and the cloud management aspect of the solution is very good, because if you compare it to other vendors that have a controller, it is much easier to manage the cloud-based solution since we travel a lot and it allows us to manage everything from any place."
"Out of all my Ubiquiti installations I have not had to go back to one of them for product failure."
"They are reliable in terms of wireless connectivity."
"Ubiquiti Wireless is rated ten out of ten for stability."
"Having dual-band is important. Having compatibility with very old equipment on certain frequencies, for example on 2.4 and 5.8."
 

Cons

"Technical support is appalling."
"There are some areas that need improvement, such as connectivity issues and additional features that other products have."
"It's very old-fashioned, which is why we have made the decision to replace it."
"The scalability and the support could be better."
"The solution works smoothly unless more than twenty users connect to a single access point, at which point it becomes overloaded."
"The installation is easy. However, my implementation is complicated and you would need special training to complete it."
"The HPE Wireless dashboard could be more user-friendly."
"The tool must warn the management about unwanted traffic."
"The mesh configuration and WiFi 6 coverage should be improved."
"End point data collection. Aggregated (single screen) multi endpoint bandwidth monitor would be a big help to see which endpoints are consuming most bandwidth in real time."
"Better third-party integration would be helpful because often, Ubiquity is a product that customers choose after they already have something else from another vendor like HPE."
"The range and maybe the quality of the signal can be improved. I had a feeling that the range wasn't long enough. Unfortunately, beyond a certain range, the signal was too weak. If I'm not mistaken, it must have been something like 100 or more than 100 meters, but I'm not sure. So, one improvement I wish for this equipment is to have a longer range, but that could mainly be due to the model we're using."
"Difficult to see error logs and locate the problem."
"The product lacks to offer reliability to users."
"They're not an enterprise product. They're a home and consumer and small business product."
"The price of the solution is high and could be cheaper."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of HPE Wireless WAN is high."
"The price is perfect for me."
"There is a license for this solution and the license is normally paid annually but this depends on the contract."
"We have been satisfied with the price."
"The license cost of the product falls under the category of a moderately priced tool."
"Price wise, it is on the medium end of the scale. It could be lower."
"We don't pay a licensing fee, we purchased the product."
"I find the price to be reasonable."
"The product is expensive."
"All the vendors' prices have gone up, so Ubiquiti has gotten more expensive. In terms of price versus performance, they're still well priced, but they are more expensive than entry-level products like Tenda and TP-Link."
"The price is reasonable and there's only a one-time payment. We have had this for a long time and I haven't seen any additional fee after paying for the installation."
"Right now the product is less expensive and of higher quality than other solutions."
"This solution is cheaper compared to others."
"We mostly use Ubiquiti solutions due to their affordable price."
"I like the fact that it offers enterprise features at a cheap price. If you compare it with Cisco, it has most of the features that Cisco has been offering but at a lesser price. I am satisfied with its price."
"The price of the solution is high and could be cheaper."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Wireless WAN solutions are best for your needs.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
20%
Educational Organization
15%
Construction Company
11%
Marketing Services Firm
11%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
7%
Construction Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise9
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business48
Midsize Enterprise10
Large Enterprise18
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with HPE Wireless WAN?
I am not in a position to fully address what can be improved for HPE Wireless WAN currently. However, there are some areas that need improvement, such as connectivity issues and additional features...
What is your primary use case for HPE Wireless WAN?
I am unable to specify the exact use case for why we or our clients use HPE Wireless WAN, as we are in the service industry and work based on client requirements. I am not involved in the purchase ...
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...
 

Also Known As

Wireless WAN, HP Wireless WAN
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Bell Canada
NASCAR Grand-AM, Maritime Parc, Outdoor Music Festival, British Armed Forces, Arcadia School District, Moscow - Enforta
Find out what your peers are saying about HPE Wireless WAN vs. Ubiquiti Wireless and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.