We changed our name from IT Central Station: Here's why
Get our free report covering Aruba Networks, Cisco, Cisco, and other competitors of Ruckus Wireless. Updated: January 2022.
564,322 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of Ruckus Wireless alternatives and competitors

Network and Security Consultant at a insurance company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Consultant
Top 20
Overall a good product that provides role-based authentication native to the controller, but has code stability issues
Pros and Cons
  • "Aruba is an industry leader. The hardware is on par, and its performance is also on par with anybody else. The Aruba brand really only focuses on wireless, so they're not competing their R&D for switching data center products and cloud security. They're really focused on that and their underlying key pieces. They provide a role-based authentication that is native to the controller. A lot of other systems don't do that. They won't provide you the ability to basically have everybody join the network, regardless of whether or not they share the same network space, the SSID, or the wireless LAN. You can segment it down to a specific user role based on any kind of attributes that you like. That's their differentiator. If you need per user, per device, or per port segmentation, you can get that with Aruba. There isn't another vendor who does it."
  • "Currently, the stability of the code is the basic underlying problem for us. They had an 8.6 release that came out two weeks ago, but we had to migrate twice because the code wasn't stable. We can't get things to work the same way. Version 8 was a big change for them. They made a change so that it is forced to be a managed hierarchical system. It means that you make changes at the top, and it pushes them downstream. There are a lot of problems with the 8.6 version code. I ran into four bugs in one week and was informed that we should just move onto the next one because all of those fixes have taken place. The feedback loop for fixes is not always really relayed back to you. I don't have a lot of strong things to say about version 8.6. When we had version 6, the controller was pretty much rock solid. We had no problems. We made a heavy investment to migrate a lot of stuff to take advantage of things like WPA3, Wi-Fi 6, and all that kind of stuff, and we haven't been able to turn those features on because we are not confident that they are going to work just yet. So, right now, we're still very much stumbling through the version 8.6 code and just trying to make sure that it is safe before we turn on some of those features. In terms of the marketplace, they are one of the top three leaders. In some respects, one of the things that they focus on is wireless. Therefore, there are some things that should be beyond reproach, as far as I'm concerned. In terms of the stability of the code, there are always going to be bugs, but the core stability of the code needs to be there. When it is not stable, that's a real problem for me because you lose a lot of confidence in the products."

What is our primary use case?

We run a number of guest wireless networks with captive portals with layer 3 networks. We run .1x for corporate SSIDs or wireless networks for additional certificate-based and/or WPA2 security.

How has it helped my organization?

Aruba has a lot of features that work particularly well. One of the things that Aruba is trying to do in most of its product ranges to make sure that all of their products now have a fully functioning northbound set of APIs. That basically means that you can plug it into any kind of system that you have for some operational pieces. For example, if you want to have Tufin, but more in line with things like change management. We're a ServiceNow shop, so we use that for change management and orchestration.

The ability to use the APIs that are available in the Aruba Wi-Fi controller means that you can get information from the system very easily by using APIs, or you can push changes to it. So, if you want to lock administrators there and restrict the type of functions that people can do, you don't have to give them access to the systems anymore. 

This functionality has been useful for us because we have recently outsourced a lot of our lower operational tasks to an outside vendor. With that, obviously, other people need to access systems, but we don't always want to give them direct access to the system. So, we can provide them with APIs to be able to perform basic tasks without giving them access to our dashboard services.

What is most valuable?

Aruba is an industry leader. The hardware is on par, and its performance is also on par with anybody else. The Aruba brand really only focuses on wireless, so they're not competing their R&D for switching data center products and cloud security. They're really focused on that and their underlying key pieces. 

They provide a role-based authentication that is native to the controller. A lot of other systems don't do that. They won't provide you the ability to basically have everybody join the network, regardless of whether or not they share the same network space, the SSID, or the wireless LAN. You can segment it down to a specific user role based on any kind of attributes that you like. That's their differentiator. If you need per user, per device, or per port segmentation, you can get that with Aruba. There isn't another vendor who does it.

What needs improvement?

Currently, the stability of the code is the basic underlying problem for us. They had an 8.6 release that came out two weeks ago, but we had to migrate twice because the code wasn't stable. We can't get things to work the same way. Version 8 was a big change for them. They made a change so that it is forced to be a managed hierarchical system. It means that you make changes at the top, and it pushes them downstream. There are a lot of problems with the 8.6 version code. I ran into four bugs in one week and was informed that we should just move onto the next one because all of those fixes have taken place. The feedback loop for fixes is not always really relayed back to you.

I don't have a lot of strong things to say about version 8.6. When we had version 6, the controller was pretty much rock solid. We had no problems. We made a heavy investment to migrate a lot of stuff to take advantage of things like WPA3, Wi-Fi 6, and all that kind of stuff, and we haven't been able to turn those features on because we are not confident that they are going to work just yet. So, right now, we're still very much stumbling through the version 8.6 code and just trying to make sure that it is safe before we turn on some of those features. 

In terms of the marketplace, they are one of the top three leaders. In some respects, one of the things that they focus on is wireless. Therefore, there are some things that should be beyond reproach, as far as I'm concerned. In terms of the stability of the code, there are always going to be bugs, but the core stability of the code needs to be there. When it is not stable, that's a real problem for me because you lose a lot of confidence in the products.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working with Aruba Wireless for about four years now.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It is pretty good. There are a lot fewer people in the office, obviously, because of COVID. Under normal situations, we were probably about 2,000 users a day. Between 40% to 50% of that would be corporate users with mobile devices, such as iPhones, as well as laptop users accessing corporate resources and the corporate LAN. We also have guest users.

They are really moving towards making it cloud-based and less attractive for you to use on-premises. There are still a number of limitations with the cloud. One of the reasons we don't use cloud controllers is that they're not able to support more than 250 access points per tenant instance. For example, you have two sites. One has 200 APs, and one has 300 APs. You could put one site in the cloud so that you wouldn't need to have on-premises wireless controllers. You could manage it all from the cloud instance, and you would have zero hardware and all that kind of stuff. 

However, you wouldn't be able to deploy the second site in the cloud because you can't put more than 250 APs. So, now you have got to go back to doing it the old-fashioned way, which is to have on-premises controllers or two management suites. You don't want to do that because the way this new code works is that it is hierarchical, meaning that you build your configuration centrally, and then you push it down to your access points or your local controllers. So, if you've got one management session in the cloud and one management session on-premises, you would have to manage them at two places.

I do understand that you can configure that local hardware. So, for the site that has 300 APs and a local controller, you could plug that controller into the cloud, but it is still for two different models. So, the companies that just want to have a very simplified setup or want to make it less complicated, they can just say that we're going to go cloud or just stay on-premises, but now you have to have a combination of both, or you just stay with on-premises. There are still some basic limitations preventing us from doing wireless deployments where controllers are based in the cloud.

How are customer service and technical support?

I use them a lot. Sometimes, I use them every day. They are pretty good. There is a problem in getting hold of people. That may be just because of COVID, but it is very much dependent on when you call and the type of issue that you have.

If it is a fairly standard issue, if you need assistance with a programming or configuration change, or if you need to know how to do something, you can normally get a very quick resolution. The meantime for resolution is pretty quick. It is within that call, half an hour, or one hour. You can generally speak to somebody. If it is some of the things that I have experienced or a bug, it can be very problematic. It could take days or weeks to get resolutions.

The basic stuff is really good. Anything past that, you probably need to have a dedicated support engineer on your camp if you're big enough, or you need to have resources that really know how to do the legwork beforehand.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I worked for a company that had Cisco for many years. Actually, towards the end of that, I switched them from Cisco to Ruckus. I did a POC and a pilot between Ruckus and Aruba, and Ruckus came out on top because of its simplified approach to wireless networking. I have also used Meraki, which is Cisco's cloud-only based AP solution. 

Cisco is like the other de facto. A lot of shops are all Cisco. Their hardware is probably on par with Aruba in terms of processing and handling capabilities. Features are also probably the same. It is more like a Ford-GM question. If you were brought up in a Ford household, you are probably going to buy a Ford sort of thing. I don't think there is much to them, to be honest.

The differentiator for me is that Cisco has a product, which is its network access control system, called ISE or identity services engine. That's a terrible product. It really is an awful product. It is very cumbersome, and it makes adding network access control to your wireless and wired networks very problematic. Aruba's product is called ClearPass, and it is a very flexible tool and easy tool. It is a much more reliable tool. While it doesn't have all the features that you can use with Cisco, it is a standard network application system, which means it will work with any vendor for any system. So, you can do 90% to 95% of the stuff you want, and it is a much more stable and capable system. This difference and the price are differentiators for me. 

From a purely wireless perspective, I think that Aruba is number one. Cisco is a very close number two, and then Ruckus is actually a distant third. Ruckus doesn't have all of the advanced capabilities, but what it does, it does very well. If you want a very basic entry-level wireless that is cheap for K-12 schools or a lot of environments like that, you can use Ruckus. If you need some of the advanced stuff, then you're going to have to pick one of the other solutions.

How was the initial setup?

I would say it is straightforward. It is just that it is a backward way of doing it. They had a fundamental shift in the way you deploy configurations in version 6 to version 8. So, basically, you would do one way in version 6, and then they completely reversed it in version 8. When you come into the product for the first time, it is easy and fairly straightforward. It is an easy adoption process. If you have got lots of experience with the previous version of code, such as version 6, and then you move to version 8, it is very confusing.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Aruba is probably cheaper than Cisco, and yet you get all the things that you want.

What other advice do I have?

I would recommend Aruba Wireless, but it depends on the size and the scope. If you are a large-scale enterprise, you are going to need to deploy something large. If you are a big university or something, you are going to have to pick one of the big three, which, in this case, is going to be Cisco, Aruba, or Juniper. Juniper's Mist is a recent addition that is hugely popular right now because of a lot of the stuff it does in the cloud. They are all cloud-based controllers, and they integrate machine learning into all of your analytics to give you data. 

I think that Aruba Wireless is a good product overall. They have some code issues with this change as most vendors do when they go through a major change. The product hardware is really good, and they have additional capabilities that Cisco doesn't have, like being able to do per-port tunneling so that you can keep isolation on. They are building features, and you could only make use of these if you extend out and use all the Aruba products like Aruba switches, Aruba ClearPass, etc. 

I've had a couple of conversations with them about the next release, which is actually pending. I don't think it is happening this year. It will happen next year. Version 10 is their next step of code, and it is geared more towards automating a lot of the setup. There are still a lot of manual tasks that you have to do. The automation piece has been something that has really garnered a lot of interest from the wireless community in terms of being able to set networks up. You can just buy access points and just throw them up, and once they're powered on, they communicate with zero-touch provisioning and all that kind of stuff. A lot of the automated processes are coming along, such as the ability to tie in cloud-based analytics to look at your reports, training, or data, like Juniper Mist is doing.

There will also be a change in the user interface. They have now brought in things like COVID tracking. It is not like they are adding features that the market wants. They will add the ability for you to be able to write things that you want to see so that you can basically do your own SDK, if you like, and more easily be able to tie that into what you're doing. I'm not sure whether they'll offer that within the version 10 code.

I would rate Aruba Wireless a seven out of ten. The negatives are the instability with the specific versions of code. These could be specific versions of code, but the newer features, such as WPA, WiFi 6, require some of the newer code. The newer code isn't really very stable yet. The high point would be that it is still an industry leader with on par hardware and performance like anybody else.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Network Engineer at County of victoria
Real User
Top 20
Robust with a good level of performance and very helpful technical support
Pros and Cons
  • "It always runs, and it's very reliable in terms of performance."
  • "Their software's really clunky."

What is our primary use case?

We work at a courthouse, however, we manage the data for the entire county. We have them at the Sheriff's office. They use them in commissary purchases, which is a separate SSI and separate VLAN. That's to segregate wireless traffic for different groups of people per their needs. 

We have lawyers that maybe need to reach back into the network and access their documents when they take a laptop to the courtroom with them. And so through that, we've done some radius authentication. Therefore, it's not just an SSI ID. They actually have to log in with credentials as well. 

Then, we have a guest SSID just for general public access, and that's basically running wide open. We do have a simple password audit, however, everybody knows it, and that's separated by VLAN as well and run through Palo Alto. We also have a whole different SSID for patrol units for the Sheriff's office, where they upload car videos and update their car computers wirelessly. We use it broadly. 

How has it helped my organization?

The solution has let us get network access to more people in different locations where wires aren't feasible - like in a garage or for the Sheriff's office uploads in courtrooms. In some of these courtrooms, you can't run additional wire due to the fact that they're historical buildings. You have to have wireless. Also, you have lawyers walking around and you don't want them tripping over stuff. It's useful in every aspect of getting public access - even for when there are events in the square, across from the courthouse. It's basically helped us better serve everybody and provided them with network access.

What is most valuable?

It always runs, and it's very reliable in terms of performance. They are very, very robust, very rugged, and can handle indoor or outdoor coverage. We typically don't have too many problems with the hardware.

What needs improvement?

The wireless LAN controllers at the time when we started rolling out, we went with it simply due to the fact that everything else worked that was Cisco. We figured, if everything else works and we're satisfied with it, let's go that route. However, now people want more access points and more spots. And if you give everybody coverage, the cost is crazy high. You can either say, "No, we can't," or you can go with the cheaper product, even slightly cheaper, plus you get more APs out there for more coverage.

At least with the WLC 2500 that we've been using, you can't take just the stock AP from them. You have to use lightweight firmware. You turn it into a lightweight AP and then you can join it to, or provision it to, the wireless controller, which should be automatic. In most cases, it works pretty well, however, it's still not there yet, as far as plugging it into this network that's going to tunnel back to the controller. I would say it works 7 out of 10 times. For the price, it should be a 10 out of 10. Especially with Cisco running an entire Cisco network with CDP all over the place, there should be no reason it doesn't tunnel back every single time. And yet, there are a few times where it doesn't.

It got to the point where, when I prevent in APs, I just take them directly to the switch that the controller is plugged into and provision them there instead of just plugging them in like you should be able to. 

The software on offer is not great. Cisco lacks in software updates, surprisingly. They don't update their firmware too much for the controller. This is not something you want to be done constantly as it does make downtime, however, I would like to see them more than once a year. Unless there's a critical flaw, or you're running an early release. They're their main releases, I want to say year after year, it's been maybe once a year, and then you have to push it out to all your APs. 

Their software's really clunky. It's not very user-friendly, which you can see that as a good thing and a bad thing. We should learn this stuff, but at the same time, it shouldn't be overly difficult. You shouldn't have your options hidden in menus. You shouldn't have to go 25 minutes deep to get to some security options for a specific SSID. 

Also the way the group their security settings is a little bit backward to me. It's not done by SSID. There's just a security tab. Then, you have to link back and forth through that. However, that's something that you're going to fight with through every controller, every different type of device. We all wish they were organized differently. 

For how long have I used the solution?

We originally started using the solution in 2014.

We had one before then as well. Since we've gone wireless, or implemented wireless throughout the buildings here, we've always used Cisco. This is just a Cisco shop. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is extremely stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The one issue we did have was with their mesh radios. I'm not sure that it was with the radio itself, the software in the radio. They run two different firmware. One is autonomous firmware, which they use with their AP line and then lightweight APs. With the autonomous one, there's no consistency there. For the indoor APs, you'll have lightweight firmware that you need on them. And then for the outdoor mesh radios, they're not fully autonomous, yet you have to have the autonomous software on them for the mesh feature to function. That's a little bit convoluted and I kind of wished that would just have it one way or the other.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution scales easily.

The number of users varies. Some days we have court cases and then you have jurors, lawyers, the media people. It varies widely. I would say on average, we have possibly 200 people a day on a slow day using it. And then on an extremely busy day, it could double that.

We use the solution quite extensively.

We do plan to increase usage, however, it won't necessarily be with this product. We'll probably like to go with a different product based on price and licensing.

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support is 10 out of 10. Cisco tech support is one of the best supports I've ever dealt with.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was very straightforward. As we have added SSIDs, when we have had a hardware failure, the re-setup, for instance, is a bit more involved. When the controller itself was acting kind of finicky, we did an overnight request and got one in. Re-uploading that configuration was not as easy if that makes sense. If you're setting up a brand new device, it's very easy, very straightforward. If you're trying to restore from a backup configuration, it's not as easy. We ended up actually just resetting it up from scratch.

The deployment itself likely took three hours.

We had some bugs to work out after that, however, the majority of it was up and running within three hours.

For maintenance, you only need one person (a network admin) and then a backup person, just in case that person is on vacation or something.

What about the implementation team?

We handled the setup all in-house. We do have their tech support. At one point, we did get tech on the phone and were working with them. It basically came down to firmware. The one they shipped us could not downgrade its firmware to the firmware we were running on. There was no good way to make it upload the config from an older firmware. They wanted the same firmware restorations. That was kind of a pain, however, we just ended up manually going through and resetting everything, which was not too terrible.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Cisco's APs are licensed and you need to buy them. Basically, for every AP, you have to have a license. Some of the other devices do it so that they support X amount and you can buy the licenses for zero to 20, 20 to 40, et cetera, and it's a little bit more affordable. That's kind of why I was trending towards Ruckus. They handle their licensing a little bit differently. 

Every time somebody asks "How much is a wireless access point? We need wireless in this room." Well, then you tell them the cost and mention "Oh yeah, and there's a license." It's expensive.

Users purchase each AP, and that's until the end of that product's life. If you break it down over a year, it's fairly affordable. However, nobody replaces one AP, we replace them all typically at the same time. Unless one dies or they need one expanded, as far as specific costs go, it's different for indoor and outdoor ones. It might be around $100 for a license. The internal ones are far cheaper than that. 

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We had looked at Meraki before, however, the cost is just astronomical. We're a local government, so there's no money. The cost of Cisco wireless controllers has always been kind of clunky. I had heard a lot of good things about Aruba, and then I heard they were bought out by HP, however, it seems like it's still good. I was leaning more towards Ruckus based on just how it handles traffic and handles the guest VLANs and that it can do SSI de-scheduling. I still need to go back and do an in-depth read on the Ruckus option. I am leaning towards that one, even though it seems like it's a close tie.

I also looked at Ubiquity, however, from what I've read, their hardware is not really up to par when you hit saturation, and on certain days of the week here, we definitely have saturated APs due to the fact that we have court cases. You can go from the usual 10 people on an AP to possibly 40 plus people, all trying to check their internet over the wireless. It gets kind of crazy on those days.

What other advice do I have?

We're just a customer and an end-user.

We use the 2500 wireless controller and all the APs that go with it. 

We have Cisco switches and routers as well. We were using Cisco firewalls up until about three years ago. And then we switched to Palo Alto. As far as switching goes, still happy with their switches. They're extremely pricey, however, they last forever, and they meet a lot of government requirements that we have.

I'd recommend the solution I wouldn't hesitate to do install it if the company can afford it.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten for its ease of setup, ease of scalability, and robustness.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
IT & Telecommunications at BAA
Real User
Top 10
Cloud analytics has simplified our operation; easily manageable for multiple locations
Pros and Cons
  • "Cloud analytics that provide all its attributes."
  • "Inability to import a user with one click."

What is our primary use case?

I use this solution at an airport, where I work in IT and telecommunications as an end user. 

What is most valuable?

The cloud analytics are a key feature of this solution. Once you create your profile, you plug the AP in and it gets all its attributes. You can reset an AP without having to pull out a ladder. If you need to push an update to it, you can do so. You can roll it back, you can see where users are in your facility and what they're having trouble trying to connect to. In addition, it puts all the users into their own VPN, which gives you security. All the security functions are built into it. You can take one AP from WatchGuard, and install it on a Cisco, Ruckus, or Aruba Networks AP, and turn it on as a WIPS and protect those clients.

It's all cloud controller based. I can have several sites and still see them all in that one pane of glass. All you have to do is take it out of the box, plug it in and you're ready to go. That's the beauty. So if you have multiple locations, it's easily managed. When you log into your console, you can sort by date and see what's coming up, you don't have to guess. If you want to check a budget report, you can see it all without having to look for it. They have an interface setting on their firewall and you can virtually plug any AP into it and be off, whereas other solutions are proprietary. 

What needs improvement?

In terms of improvement, one issue I have is that I can't import a user with one click. There are occasional times where people have a new laptop or a new phone, and they're not able to connect. I would love to just be able to click, boom, and import them all, just yank them all into the system, or take them out of the system if necessary. That would be one great feature. Secondly, I don't want to have two APs on the same channel at the same power level fighting one another. One should drop power or change channel automatically. That's something that could be included in the next update. 

The ideal would be if I would click on T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T, or TracFone Wireless and they would populate that because it would simply get the IMEI number and the carrier ID number from a phone that's on that network. Then users wouldn't even have to look for the SSID, they'd just be on WiFi and secure. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using this solution for four years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We had a few bugs in the early days. They did an update nine months ago, where we had to roll back to the previous revision so they could work out the bugs. That happens with almost anything. On a day-to-day basis, their stability is beyond acceptable. It's great. 

WatchGuard has been pushing for a trusted wireless environment, meaning that you can connect to it with competence to stop a loss of data. Right now companies are making huge profits by selling everybody a portable hotspot on 4G or 5G, which would mean you never need Wi-Fi.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

This is a scalable solution. 

How are customer service and technical support?

The technical support is awesome, really great. When I open a ticket, I either get a response back on that ticket or a call back to say, here's what we found, this is what we know, we've seen this before, or whatever. They'll do everything possible to get to the bottom of any issue. They've got some sharp people.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is easy - it's easy to monitor, and it provides you with alerts on what's going on, throughout your entire system. You just log in, and it's there.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

When I buy my APs ,it's a three-year license.

What other advice do I have?

I would say simply for most public facilities and schools there wouldn't be a budget for a Passpoint license. I would suggest taking a good look at WatchGuard, do a demo, check it out in your environment and I guarantee you'll want to keep it. With any wireless environment, you want to look at what's there already before you start applying APs. 

My system is set up to block a user. If they're using their own 4G or 5G, that's fine. But if you have a hotspot device and get on my WiFi with it instead of using your 4G and then you hook it up to your laptop on that same subnet, that's when my system sees a security violation. I need to protect my users to make sure that every client that connects is connecting to my AP on my WiFi and not connecting to a fake site. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Greg Mikkelsen
Director at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 20
Excellent graphical interface, good stability, and an easy initial setup
Pros and Cons
  • "The interface is excellent. We've been really happy with it."
  • "We haven't had any issues with the solution. We like the way it works. There isn't anything I can think of that makes me worry that it might be lacking in a certain area."

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use the solution to understand what is happening in terms of troubleshooting the performance on the network. We have pretty specific user issues. We use it to ensure both our users and devices are secure.

What is most valuable?

We like the analysis that allows us to see how our cloud applications are performing and we like the way that the solution shows where suites are coming from, including if they are coming from overseas. 

We like the way that we can map the solution against the floor of our building. We are able to see a few things from a topography perspective and can show us if certain aspects are wrong.

The interface is excellent. We've been really happy with it.

What needs improvement?

We haven't had any issues with the solution. We like the way it works. There isn't anything I can think of that makes me worry that it might be lacking in a certain area.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for two years now.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is good. We haven't had any crashes. There haven't been bugs or glitches that have interrupted us or our work.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We currently have 60-75 users on the solution. They all use it daily.

For us, the solution seems to be pretty scalable. We haven't had any issues and haven't seen any shortcomings.

How are customer service and technical support?

I don't recall ever reaching out to technical support. That's not to say we haven't, but I can't remember any specific event or problem where I can discuss a real-life encounter with them. My understanding is that it's good as long as we log a case quickly.

If a case was logged and it's been registered with them, we find the effects in terms or response and resolution are good. We all have different customers with different firewalls and we find technical support in general pretty good. They've got a pretty good presence here in New Zealand, and the support from overseas is pretty good too.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We previously used Ruckus. Meraki is far and away much better for our needs. It was the user interface and its superiority that sold us. It's just far superior and easy to use. The ability to troubleshoot on the graphical interface is just better because the graphical information is so clear.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is quite simple. I wouldn't describe it as complex at all.

When we moved to a new building, we were able to have everything up and running in a day or so. Maybe even less than that.

Maintenance is pretty straightforward as well. We just do the updates regularly in order to make sure the server is up to date, as well as any security features.

What about the implementation team?

We're the integrator. We use the solution and also have the capabilities and know-how to bring it all together. We don't need any outside help in order to implement the solution.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I don't have any information about the pricing of the solution. I'm not sure I could estimate the costs on a yearly or monthly basis as I don't deal with finances at our organization. I do believe our company offers very good value for money, although it's my understanding that it's not exactly on the cheapest end of the spectrum.

What other advice do I have?

We have a business relationship with Cisco. We're also a partner.

I'd advise other organizations to think about the solution right through to how they manage and troubleshoot end users. I would recommend that anyone looking at a solution such as this consider that. A lot of people just think about the LAN performance, but I think the ability to understand it and save time by troubleshooting the end-users would be a more important consideration.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Private Cloud

If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

Other
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
ThanadetKanlaphat
IT Consultant at Lotus Technology
Reseller
Top 5
Good features menus and easy access with a simple cloud configuration
Pros and Cons
  • "The access it grants to wifi is the solution's most valuable feature."
  • "The reach of the solution could be improved. It could be a bit stronger."

What is our primary use case?

We've used the solution for a project with a small hotel. We primarily used the solution for five access points. We use it for wifi access around the rooms.

What is most valuable?

The access it grants to wifi is the solution's most valuable feature.

The features menus are good.

The cloud configurations are very easy. We can put it on mobile, etc. if we need to.

What needs improvement?

The reach of the solution could be improved. It could be a bit stronger.

I don't know if it would be possible, but it would be helpful if there was a social login for the layer. This would help smaller clients that I work with.

There are also some features missing in the layer - like authentification and logon capabilities.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using this solution for two months.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability of the solution is quite good. We haven't come across any bugs or glitches while using it.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability of the solution has been sufficient for our needs so far. 

How are customer service and technical support?

We've never contacted technical support so I can't speak to any experience with them. Generally, when we have questions, we look online for resources to help us if we need any knowledge or help with troubleshooting.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We've previously used Ruckus. With Ruckus, there's a controller. It's also expensive. For a mid-scale setup, you can't really compare Ruckus to Aruba.

How was the initial setup?

The solution is easy to install. Our team didn't run into any issues when we were setting up the solution for our client.

What about the implementation team?

Our team installed the solution for our hotel client.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The licensing cost is somewhere around $20,000.

What other advice do I have?

I'm a reseller of the solution.

I'd advise others considering the solution to look at the scale of the project. If it's a rather small-scale project and the client doesn't need advanced features like a controller, Aruba is very good.

If I have small projects, I find I focus on Aruba. It's better. However, if the project is more complex or complicated or has location challenges, Ruckus is better.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. I'm not an engineer, and I didn't install the device personally, so I don't know too much about the technical side of the solution. If I did, maybe I would give it full marks. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Reseller
Get our free report covering Aruba Networks, Cisco, Cisco, and other competitors of Ruckus Wireless. Updated: January 2022.
564,322 professionals have used our research since 2012.