Ruckus Wireless WAN Reviews

The major use case for the product in my case is Wi-Fi.

Ruckus Wireless WAN appears to perform better in less than optimal situations. The BeamFlex+ adaptive antenna technology may help with less than optimal installation, although I have not made extensive investigations into it.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is overpriced. Compared to others at the moment, Ruckus Wireless WAN does not have many valuable features.

Compared to everyone else, everyone else comes self-hosted, either with a license or without a license, and at much lower price points, so Ruckus Wireless WAN is not very competitive in the market.

Ruckus Wireless WAN could add a full stack to their product to make it more competitive, as they do not have security and they do not have their own cloud.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is fairly stable.

I cannot speak to scalability as we do not do large scale deployments.

I dealt with their technical support. I would rate support at a seven out of ten, where ten is the best. Response time could be better, mainly.

Positive

I have worked with something similar to Ruckus Wireless WAN for the similar use case extensively.

I do not track ROI for Ruckus Wireless WAN.

Many of the other network manufacturers have a much better offering than Ruckus Wireless WAN.

I work more extensively with some other wireless products. I am partners with Ruckus Wireless WAN and have some partnership with them. I do not work with SmartMesh technology within the product.

I use only on-premise management options. Real-time insights and predictive analytics do not help to manage my network more efficiently. The intelligence is very low. I do not prefer cloud deployment as you have to provide your own host for cloud deployment.

I would recommend looking at something else if you are considering purchasing Ruckus Wireless WAN. I do not have data points or metrics to share. I am a Networks Manager in the company and prefer to stay anonymous. My overall review rating for Ruckus Wireless WAN is five out of ten.

It is the same as the first deployment where we moved to a company that had a wireless solution in their warehouse. In warehouses, you need to accommodate for heat. They had a lot of problems with access points dying and communicating, and they couldn't operate in the heat. The solution was to buy access points capable of being deployed outside, which have better shielding and are designed to handle higher and lower temperatures. We deployed those in the warehouse and that fixed all the communication problems. The need was to fix a warehouse's bad Wi-Fi. In the process, I replaced all of the Wi-Fi. The building consists of 75% warehouse and 25% office. I replaced everything and put outside access points only in the warehouse. On the office side, we put the normal conventional Ruckus Wireless WAN access points.

I deployed an entire new deployment of Ruckus Wireless WAN. Because of the design of the Ruckus Wireless WAN device itself, it makes a direct connection to each endpoint. When you have a warehouse that has shelves that go all the way to the ceiling, you need to plan your layout so that you have access points in each aisle.

By implementing this layout, we increased the throughput of Wi-Fi in the warehouse dramatically. We improved the throughput and eliminated the variable where the old access points could only survive for a few short months before they would fail. This eliminates all the failure points, so you don't have to end up replacing access points. They can tolerate the extreme temperatures, making it a set it and forget it solution. You do it once, and you never have to do it again.

The only bad downside to Ruckus Wireless WAN is that the guest network is poorly conceived. This is a known issue. There are ways to make the guest network work reliably, but not as promised. That's the only downside to Ruckus Wireless WAN access points - they have a weak guest system and guest portal, but everything else is the best of the best.

If I did not have access to Ruckus Wireless WAN support, I think I would have failed. One downside they have now is that you no longer have access to the support folks without a contract. That has changed over many years. That would be really unfortunate because I remember struggling. The company was very hungry at that point and they were very willing to help. Now support requires a contract. That comes with all growing companies.

I did not use the Cloudpath.

This is set it and forget it. In a Ruckus Wireless WAN deployment, one of the devices becomes the master. The fact that you don't have one extra device in your rack that can fail is amazing, and it keeps it more reliable. Having one access point manage all of them makes life easy.

I don't update automatically because there are too many possibilities. Some of the access points are communicating through mesh and some are through wire. When I do updates, I wait until there are quite a few updates behind me. The fact that one access point can be the master console with the Unleashed models saves room in the rack, saves money, and requires no subscription unless you want to pay for their support.

The range is significant. In warehouses, you can put them really high, while with Ubiquiti, you have to get them lower. This changes the angles of everything. Ubiquiti needs a controller, and I have personally had four controllers fail. Without the controller, the system can't continue to function. Ubiquiti started with no support, though now you can buy support. The amount of updates they have is extensive - at least triple the amount compared to Ruckus Wireless WAN.

We are talking about 40 access points, which is a pretty decent sized deployment.

I don't have their support because I know how reliable the hardware and software are, but when I had the support, it was excellent. They would thoroughly troubleshoot issues. Some access points couldn't get the same throughput, and it ended up being related to their location and the angles they were facing. They helped with resolving these issues.

A new customer could struggle if they didn't pay for the support. It could easily happen without the familiarity I have now.

These are not cheap access points. If you want to go cheap, Ubiquiti is an option. I knew they were worth it because once deployed, they wouldn't require additional attention. They're not at Cisco prices, but they're definitely at the upper end of the price scale, especially the models I was looking for.

You could probably get three Ubiquiti access points for the price of one Ruckus Wireless WAN outdoor access point, but I was willing to pay that because I knew exactly what I would get - never having to worry about Wi-Fi.

It's a wireless solution using all APs, though I didn't use their designing tool. The warehouse is approximately 90,000 square feet, making it quite large.

I don't directly interact with Ruckus Wireless WAN as I don't have a support contract with them. I just buy the access points as needed because I have familiarity with the system. I purchase from various sources including Amazon and resellers. With current tariffs and supply chain issues, you have to hunt for available stock.

When buying a Lenovo laptop now, there's a 90-day wait if purchased directly from Lenovo, due to shipping from China to Vietnam and mandatory waiting periods. This adds significant time to every major purchase, and no single vendor can provide everything needed in one transaction.

I rate Ruckus Wireless WAN 9 out of 10.

We use it for WiFi connectivity at our outdoor locations. We are using it as an access point database as well.

Its build quality is good and quite robust. So, that's why we are using it at our outdoor location.

The main feature is that it is an outdoor AP with ADAB (Adaptive Antenna Beamforming). So, that is quite robust. We are using the T310 series.

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.

I have been working with Ruckus Wireless WAN for two years. 

Actually, for Ruckus Wireless WAN, we use only two to three models. Overall, we have around ten or twelve access points.

The solution is quite stable.

I would rate the scalability of this stability an eight out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of this solution a seven out of ten.

We are using it at two to three locations. At a single location, we have around 50 users, and overall around 150 to 200 users.

Right now, we are using the record devices in one of our applications, which is DLMS. So, basically, they are the users who used to access our internal network. They are the transporters, and some of the internal manpower are also using it. Basically, miners, surveyors, and geologists are using it.

We do not plan to increase the usage. We are searching for something else and will most probably be going with Cambium Networks. The model we are planning to implement is Cambium Outdoor AP. Currently, we are planning to deploy XV2-2T1, which has WiFi 6 support.

The technical support is poor. It is not that great. I will give it a rating of less than five. We don’t have any support. Ruckus should improve its support.

Neutral

Before Ruckus, we were using HPE, Aruba, and Cisco.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a seven out of ten, where one being difficult and ten being easy. 

The configuration takes around two to three hours, and deployment takes another two to three hours.

For deployment, we need some manpower who are trained enough to deploy. Right now, we are using it at our outdoor mines location. So, we need to install that particular device on the pole or anything where we can install it. 

Basically, we are mounting it on the outdoor pole, which is available at our outdoor location. We deploy it at a certain height of around three meters. Therefore we need manpower of one or two people. One holds the ladder and gives support, and the other climbs on the pole and deploys the device.

Pricing is quite high. Support is not that good as well. Pricing should reduce. It's around 35,000 rupees. In US dollars, that would be about 500 to 600 dollars. That's per device. So for each device, the cost would be around 500 to 600 dollars.

I don't have a good experience. Moreover, I have used it less, around ten to twelve times only. But I will prefer Cisco or Cambium over Ruckus.

Overall, I would rate Ruckus Wireless WAN a six out of ten.

I recommend using Ruckus. First of all, the cost and the price are okay compared to Cisco or Huawei. Secondly, the use is easy, and we have a significant result in terms of quality and signal level. We use it as an access point to provide Internet coverage for the public.

We have a few on-site interventions because we can make everything online to apply and change parameters or consult the quality. It is easy for us to do it remotely without needing a technician or engineer to check back.

The most valuable feature is the good coverage of about 60 meters. Additionally, the outdoor coverage is better than the indoor, which is normal.

The direct support needs improvement. It would be great to have representatives in the Africa zone to support projects directly.

I have been working with Ruckus Wireless WAN for about one and a half years.

I give it an eight. We don't have experts that can help to adjust parameters, and during the project, we make some experiences. It's time we change parameters to seek stability.

The capacity supports 512 theoretically. It is sufficient for us, using three sectorial access points, to provide for approximately 1150 on each radio site.

We do not have direct support from Ruckus. We have support from an integrator who supports for addressing issues.

Neutral

We worked with Cambium and Alcatel Lucent for access points. Alcatel was bought by Nokia in 2016. After that, I called Nokia to be in freelance then. In 2021, it was a new solution, one hundred percent WAFee with transport.

I am more operational than having business parameters about ROI and benefits.

The cost and the price are okay compared to Cisco or Huawei, and I would rate the price as nine out of ten.

I recommend using Ruckus because the cost and price are okay, and it provides good quality and signal level. It is easy to use.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is primarily deployed in high-end residential environments. We handle both wireless and wired solutions, however, Ruckus is the sole manufacturer we use for Wi-Fi.

The most valuable feature is the quality of the client device experience. Ruckus' patented technology ensures the best Wi-Fi experience from any manufacturer. It supports high-density environments and maintains consistent performance across devices by focusing energy from the access point to the client device.

I would like to see Ruckus focus less on creating lower-tier solutions aimed at competing with inferior brands. Additionally, Ruckus Support is very slow and could improve response times.

I have used Ruckus for 15 years.

Ruckus is the most stable wireless solution on the market. We have no applications where it doesn't work.

It is very scalable and can be deployed in a variety of environments without any limitations.

Ruckus customer service is very slow to respond. However, we provide no-hold-time support to our dealer partners and only engage Ruckus for high-end issues or new solution development.

Neutral

I have tested all other solutions such as Cisco, Fortinet, Ubiquiti, Aruba, and Aerohive. None match Ruckus' performance, especially in Wi-Fi strength and client device experience.

The initial setup of the wireless WAN is very straightforward and easy for myself and my team.

We are an MSP or VAR that supports residential integration firms across the United States. We do the configuration and provide support after installation by the local dealers.

ROI for a residential application is hard to quantify. When you're focused on achieving the highest performance, the cost is justified by the benefits received.

The pricing is on par with the performance and benefits received from Ruckus. Although lower-priced solutions are available, they often sacrifice the quality and features of Ruckus.

I rate Ruckus ten out of ten. For high-performance wireless solutions, Ruckus offers the best client device experience and stability.

We have a lot of hotels, hotel groups, schools, hospitals, and manufacturing plants that use Ruckus Wireless WAN. The manufacturing areas use Databotics IoT and Wi-Fi to dispatch equipment. Many clients are moving away from wired LANs to Wireless LANs. For example, in hotels, it is used for guest Wi-Fi, and in hospitals, for patient Wi-Fi and IoT applications for medical machines.

This solution allows quick deployment and easy maintenance with very stable performance. For instance, a hotel group in South Africa has fifty-seven hotels with an average of eleven thousand guests per day using their Wi-Fi, and they had zero complaints in August.

The most valuable features include the insights provided by the tool, its easy deployment, the sturdy and reliable hardware, and the quick and smooth RMA process. It is one of the top wireless vendors with very few issues to support.

The wireless access should be simplified. Network access control should not sit on the Wi-Fi device; the backend should handle it. While Ruckus allows this, the setup should be further simplified. Nevertheless, once deployed, it is easy to maintain and manage.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless for around five years.

The solution offers high stability if designed and deployed well. The hardware is sturdy and rarely faces issues. In operations, we have seen very few support calls and high stability.

The scalability is good. I would rate it an eight.

Working with their technical support is a great experience. They respond quickly to cases and RMAs, with most technical cases resolved within a day. They are one of the easiest vendors for support.

Positive

While I haven't participated in the configuration, feedback from our engineers suggests it is cost-effective and manageable by mid-level engineers once the low-level design is completed.

I would rate the pricing as a seven out of ten. It is on par with other enterprise solutions like Aruba or Arista. The pricing can be an obstacle for some businesses.

Customers also consider solutions like Cisco or Aruba.

For new users, ensure a single fabric across your network by considering integrated switches and access points for better manageability. Avoid mixing different brands for access points to prevent a complicated control plane.

I use the solution in my company for all verticals, including education, commercial buildings, and residential ones.

The most valuable feature of the solution is RUCKUS Unleashed, as my company uses a lot of it.

The product does not offer a cloud version. I am waiting for the cloud version of the product to be introduced. The functionalities that the tool provides are quite standard when compared to what the market offers, especially when it comes to the offerings from some big brands. Compared to the other products in the market, Ruckus Wireless WAN has no additional features. The tool lacks good integration capabilities with some of the IoT devices, and the progress is quite a bit slow, making it an area where improvements are required.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN for six years. My company has a partnership with Ruckus.

It is a stable solution. The coverage is good.

It is a very scalable solution.

I work with all types of customers, ranging from small to enterprise-sized businesses.

The solution's technical support is okay. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

I don't work too much with Aruba. I don't have a lot of Aruba installations.

I use Cisco, H3C which is a brand from China, and Huawei. My company is into Ruckus systems. We only propose the rest of the brands to others based on project requests. And that we we yeah. Our company is very familiar with Ruckus systems.

The product is easy to install. It has quite a standard installation process.

The time required to deploy the solution depends on the project size. If a project is big, I need to install a lot of things. The deployment time also depends on the skills of a person and how big a project is in the first place.

I have seen cost savings with the use of the tool, especially since the tool's AP coverage is quite okay. I have seen 10 to 20 percent cost savings.

Compared to big brands, the tool is quite competitively priced.

I am satisfied with the tool.

The tool is friendly to use.

As maintenance is required for the product, my company does purchase Ruckus WatchDog Support for only certain projects.

My company needs many people to maintain the tool.

I think the tool is going to RUCKUS AI, a cloud service, but we have not tried out its features. We are waiting for a project where we can try out the tool's AI features.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

Neutral

One service provider offered a managed Wi-Fi solution using Ruckus Wireless. They used Ruckus to offer managed Wi-Fi solutions. The clients install Ruckus for their clients, like hotels and offices.

Ruckus is primarily an enterprise solution. It might be suitable for remote office scenarios, but it is not typically used for home offices. Its price point and capabilities make it less practical for home use.

Ruckus Wireless WAN is highly regarded for managing network performance. They have simplified the configuration and installation processes, making it straightforward. It works out of the box; you just configure it, and there's minimal need for minor adjustments. However, if you're managing a large venue with thousands of people, such as 2,000 attendees, you might need to do some additional tweaking to optimize the network.

It is 99% reliable.

Sometimes, you can't do everything you need on the GUI. Some configurations can only be done through the CLI. It would be nice if everything could be managed through the GUI. Another consideration is the price. Clients are very cautious with their budgets. A few are willing to pay for the best quality without compromising the WAN. While Ruckus Wireless offers excellent quality, the price point can be high. Special registration discounts are available, but the product can be expensive.

I have been using Ruckus Wireless WAN as a system integrator for over ten years.

I have not had any issues with Ruckus Wireless WAN's ability as long as the provisioning is done correctly. For high-volume areas with many users, such as a board room or an auditorium with around five hundred people, it's essential to use an appropriate access point model. For instance, an R350 wouldn't be suitable for such high-density environments. It remains reliable as long as the access point deployed matches the expected number of users. 

The only issue would arise if an entry-level access point is placed in a high-density area, causing latency issues and network slowdown.

There's a newer model now. You can start with ten access points with five licenses. So it's flexible. You pay as you grow. The model is quite nice because they were bundling the licenses when they started out. Now, it's one license per access point to scale slowly. The SmartZone can support up to a thousand access points, which is more than adequate for most needs. 

Scalability is a significant advantage because you don't have to spend more money changing the controller. We've not had any issues with clients because it's easy to explain: if you have ten access points, you buy ten licenses. It's straightforward. If you need to add another five, add five more licenses as you grow. 

Support is very efficient. I have no issues. The only condition is that you have to have a paid support license.

Positive

Setting up Ruckus Wireless WAN involves pulling cables and mounting the access points according to the required number. However, configuring the system is straightforward, and it takes about five minutes to set up a basic Wi-Fi network. Integrating with systems like Active Directory or other servers might take longer.

Mounting the access points requires technicians capable of climbing ladders and handling cables. One trained engineer is sufficient for the actual device configuration. 

The price could be reduced a bit. The SKUs or part numbers come with a one-year support option and a five-year support option. Depending on the budget, the client can choose the one-year option. With one year of full support, clients receive immediate assistance if anything breaks. They can renew this support every year.

IBM has a wide range of equipment. They don't only deal with Wi-Fi but also offer switches and point-to-point, point-to-multipoint solutions. However, Cisco stops at switches and offers only controllers and Wi-Fi access points.

I have handled four RMAs where something was faulty, which added about twenty bucks. I have had clients who insisted that there was no need to change the equipment I installed five years ago because it is still working. This demonstrates the reliability of Ruckus Wireless WAN.

Ruckus offers a free controller version, which sets it apart. The price point is low. For example, if you compare a Wi-Fi 6 access point to Aruba's equivalent, the price would be lower.

The most important lesson is conducting a proper WAN site survey and correctly designing the network. When these steps are done correctly, the chances of having issues are minimal. If any issues do arise, they are usually minor teething problems.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

We primarily use Ruckus solutions to provide wireless access for our colleagues at branch locations.

We have just moved to their Ruckus Jones platform, which provides a cloud-based management solution. Having all the management tools in a cloud-based solution has been valuable, eliminating the need to deploy and manage an on-premises controller. The AI, which helps diagnose and solve problems, is also beneficial.

There is a need for more flexibility in granular access control. Currently, role-based access is cumbersome and lacks flexibility.

I've been using Ruckus since about two thousand ten.

We had one issue with one venue at one site, but other than that, it has been generally pretty stable.

Scalability seems decent. Adding access points for a site is easy, so scaling is not an issue.

The customer service is generally pretty good, however, there can be delays with open cases, which sometimes take a while to resolve.

Positive

For wireless solutions, I've used Meraki among others.

The initial setup of the Ruckus Jones cloud-based controller and management system was fairly intuitive and straightforward.

I was managing the deployment on my own initially, but I have another team member who assists with network administration. So, it involves one to two people.

The pricing is reasonable for us as partners since we receive discounts. However, I believe for non-partners, it might not be considered cheap, though it isn't the most expensive either.

Good, careful planning is important. It can be helpful to test new firmware on a nonproduction site before rolling it out to other locations. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.