Ubiquiti UniFi Switches Reviews

Ubiquiti UniFi Switches are stable and support Layer 3. They come with a user-friendly interface. If you're not familiar with the command-line interface or you wouldn't like to configure it by using the command line, they have a user-friendly interface that you can use. They also have good documentation about how to use these switches.

They can improve the visibility of networks to match Meraki switches, which have good visibility tools to go through the network. In a Meraki device, you get a clear picture when using the bug interface. You can also see its neighbors and have a clear picture of all connected devices. Ubiquiti UniFi Switches do not have such features that Meraki switches provide.

Ubiquiti UniFi Switches are stable. If you configure them properly, and they are in a proper server room with good cooling, they work fine.

Scalability is probably possible, but it is not common to scale these. Ubiquiti UniFi Switches are more suitable if you don't need to create a really big, scalable solution at an enterprise level, and you have two or three switches with a firewall. For a big company, in terms of scalability, Cisco or F5 switches work better than Ubiquiti switches. If you have a good budget, Cisco or F5 would be better.

If you would like to scale Ubiquiti UniFi Switches, you probably can. They are probably not difficult to scale. It depends on your skills. I have not scaled them before.

They are good. In the last year, we did not have any issues with their switches.

They just give you a small card. You can scan the code on the card and go to the web page. You can also directly go to the web page to see the documents. They do not provide any documents with the box. You need to go to the internet to see how to do the initial setup, that is, how to set the login ID, password, default IP (if it exists), and other options.

As compared to Ubiquiti, Cisco provides exact communication about whether the IP address needs to be configured on the device or whether it is pre-configured.

The price of Ubiquiti UniFi Switches is really good. We have deployed a few Ubiquiti UniFi Switches in New Zealand, and they are a value for money. They are cheaper and stable, but if you have the budget, I would recommend Meraki switches. 

Ubiquiti UniFi Switches are suitable for small companies. I don't know any company that uses these at the enterprise level. If Ubiquiti wants to brand it as a big enterprise solution, it needs to advertise and promote these switches accordingly.

I would rate Ubiquiti UniFi Switches an eight out of ten.

I mainly use UniFi Switches to power access points and P2P devices. If I have a backhaul point-to-point wireless link, I forward them by using these switches because they have two voltages (24 and 48) that I can switch between according to my needs.

UniFi Switches' best feature is the ability to switch voltage from 24 to 48, and it's almost the only device on the market with this feature.

I've been using UniFi Switches for about six or seven years.

UniFi Switches are very stable.

UniFi Switches are scalable - you can extend your network easily since some switches have the fiber optic option, and you can extend your number of ports, making connections between fiber ports.

The initial setup is very easy and takes only a few minutes.

I installed UniFi Switches myself.

UniFi Switches are cost-effective compared to Cisco, but the price could be lower.

I would recommend UniFi Switches to other users and rate it nine out of ten.

We mostly use the solution for wireless. We have a lot of wireless clients. That's the big bulk of usage as we're rapidly evolving to IOT.

The solution has improved our organization in the fact that we don't take as long to configure anything. It's just plug-and-play. As far as the wireless goes, it's instantaneous for anybody who wants to get on the network. We have a lot of wireless access points deployed. It works really well. It's convenient.

The ability to deploy quickly and then having one central location for all the settings are its most valuable aspects.

They've been very aggressive as far as their feature sets as their capability.

The documentation for command lines needs to be improved.

When we do firmware updates, it usually creates problems in the devices themselves. If we do a firmware upgrade, it's for sure that there will be an issue. They need to work out the kinks in that regard.

The security of the solution could really be enhanced.

It would be ideal if you could roll back firmware. It would be ideal to have something that's built-in that you can kind of just go and push a few buttons and then it reverts back to the old firmware.

I've been using the solution for five years at this point.

The stability of the solution has room for improvement. It could be unique to us, however, there's been some instances where it's very unstable. Instabilities are something that we've been striving to reduce ever since I got here and even before that.

I believe that it has to do as much with the environment that we're putting this hardware in. When you're in a facility where the temperatures get high, the humidity sky-rockets. If you don't have hardened equipment that is designed to handle that kind of very harsh environment, you will have problems.

I try and design so that we can mitigate without spending exorbitant amounts of money to do so. 

I used to sell systems to a crab fleet that fished out of Ballard Washington and go up to Alaska and we'd sell them two or three of the same systems because they'd rot. They'd throw them overboard and install new ones. It's that kind of environment that things get corroded because there's a lot of moisture. Therefore, the stability issues we face could be based on the fact that the environment is a questionable and uncontrollable factor.

We have about 60 plus switches deployed right now. We have four active sites and a fifth site is coming online. I'd say probably closer to 100 switches. We've got all sizes. I tried to standardize recently on eight ports and that's a whole different conversation, however, we use them in horticulture areas.

This solution is built more for small to medium-sized businesses. The bigger the network gets, the more instability. You have to be there going through the enterprise with the edge line. 

That said, it's very scalable. I have seen no blocks. You can build this as big as you want it. And we've done everything from basic switches to large point to point and a point to multi-point. So we pushed the envelope as much as we can.

However, then you get cases like switch age where it's way over the edge of the network, and then you see problems every day, that device old, but even before it got old, it seems like it had this issue.

We have clients that have hundreds of employees on the system, so there are probably users in the low hundreds at any given point of time. We also have about 80 cameras which make up endpoints as well. Most of the people using it are data entry (sales, administration, and procurement) and a few accountants. That said, it's all network-centric. Our security systems and our surveillance systems are all on the network. It's a busy place. We've got a fiber backbone between our main greenhouse and our administrative headquarters.

We do plan to expand. The site that we're bringing online is between 600,000 and 700,000 square feet of greenhouse with a 20,000 square foot building that will have processing, offices, and IT in it. It will double our capacity as far as production. We're going to grow big in 2021.

We're never able to get help from technical support. We don't use them due to this. You've got to be self-reliant. That is one area that I think that they're really lacking in. They need to beef up the level of support that they offer to clients.

That said, the actual factory technical support may be weak, but the forums and the available information is humongous. You could go online and you can get an answer and that's what we do.

The company was using the Ubiquiti Edge product initially, however, they transitioned to UniFi as they started to grow. The gentleman that made that decision is no longer here, therefore, I really don't know what the driving factor was, however, if I were to guess it had to do with the simplicity. 

The initial setup was mostly straightforward. 

That's one of the key features because you don't have to do any deep thinking trying to get a complex configuration. It's by the numbers. You know if you messed up in a heartbeat. You don't have to guess. Sometimes you have to do a little digging to determine what got messed up. However, even if you have to backtrack a bit, it's very easy to deploy.

Deployment takes a couple of hours typically, from design to final implementation.

We have about 13 maintenance people that cover the entire operation of the organization and this solution.

We didn't need an integrator or consultant. It was all done in-house. I've been an integrator for 40 years, and therefore I have a depth of knowledge. That is not very common in the industry. Usually, I'm the one that is out on accounts, however, I have been making smart systems talk to one another for many, many years. 

We don't have any metrics to really analyze. It's difficult to answer a question on ROI. I'm creating something right now to asset track and service track every piece of gear that goes in. That's one of my goals by Q1. I want to have something in place so that when we start hanging this stuff, it's got a QR code on it. We know when it was installed, we know what it's comprised of, and we know when somebody touches it or has anything to do with it. We plan to create a virtual service record. 

A year from now, I'd probably be able to give a lot of information about ROI, however, at this point, all I can say is, for the most part, the gear does have a good life cycle. The parts that we've had to replace have often been on us because when they get hosed down with water, they don't seem to work very well. And when they're PoE and they short out the switch we have to blame ourselves. We can't blame the hardware.

We don't have any visibility on pricing, therefore I wouldn't be able to speculate. It's my understanding that there aren't any extra costs above the standard licensing fee.

We're just customers. We like using the solution. We didn't want to change horses in midstream, even though a lot of people have attempted to convince us to do so.

We try to use the latest version of the solution. We update the firmware on a regular basis and so most of the time, it's maybe one version behind at the most.

We're going to basically start some life cycle management too. We're using the solution on-premise with a cloud key.

I would advise other users to take training before transitioning from the physical. You can get pretty lost in the process. Take any training you can on the system so that you understand it before you begin. 

I had a friend who was Cisco certified. He taught IT and he wasn't aware of Ubiquiti and I showed it to him and he said, ''Wow, this is easy.'' It is also very powerful, they didn't skim. The only thing that I have concerns about and everyone does is cybersecurity. Especially since the pandemic hit, there's a lot of activity on the web and there's a lot of malicious stuff going on, and people are looking for the antidote.

For me, the biggest lesson I took from working with this solution has to do with understanding the product and planning. Don't go in cold and try and, you know, find the fit for a job. If it's an emergency that's one thing, however, the better you plan, the better result you're going to have. 

On a scale from one to ten, it's a high 8. I don't really see any major glaring issues other than the support. They do make made a hardened version of the product for harsh environments. It's been all-around a pretty positive experience. 

The solution helps me manage the network far better than before. I can also manage VLANs and decide how much bandwidth the users should get.

The product is seamless and robust. We only had issues when there were power outages. The user interface is the most valuable feature. The tool is easy to use. I rate the ease of use an eight out of ten.

The initial deployment was a bit complex.

I have been using the solution for a year and three months.

The tool has been rock solid. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

I have used Cisco’s switches and routers. We switched to Ubiquiti because it enabled us to manage the network.

The initial deployment was a bit complex, but we figured it out.

I have seen an ROI on the product. We can manage our users far better now.

The price should be improved.

We have consultants. We did not need to call the support team. With Ubiquiti, we get what we pay for. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a bridge to extend our LAN.

The solution is very good for expanding our LAN.

The product has proven itself to be stable.

The scalability is very good.

The installation itself is very easy.

I haven't found the cost of the solution to be too high.

Given that it has a portal, which is online, if it can be accessed remotely that would be ideal. If they can add that feature or if there is that feature, they need to make it public.

I'd like there to be better reporting for the solution.

I've used the solution for a couple of years at this point.

The stability is very good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable in terms of the performance on offer.

The product is scalable. There are no issues if a company needs to expand it.

We have 30 people using Ubiquiti Switches in our organization.

We do plan to continue to use them.

I've never directly dealt with technical support. There hasn't been an issue that has required us to reach out. Therefore, I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are in general.

The installation process is pretty straightforward. it's not overly complex or difficult.

Our local supplier in Zimbabwe is the one who has been doing all these configurations for me, however, the implementation is not that difficult. You can just use a manual to configure it. It's not much of a hassle. It's more like a plug-and-play solution. I am also using the wifi distribution access point. They are not a challenge at all. It took me less than five minutes.

We have a local supplier that has done our configurations. However, at this point, I have acquired enough knowledge to be able to do it by myself.

For what I'm using Ubiquiti for, there hasn't been any need for licenses as it's more like a plug-and-play setup. I'm just using a portal, which is free as well. There hasn't been much cost involved in using the solution.

We are a customer and end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Ubiquiti.

I'm using the latest version of the solution at this time. I cannot speak to the exact version number.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten overall.

I would definitely recommend the product to other users and companies.

One of the definite immediate benefits is something like the Spanning Tree Protocol, which prevents loops on the network. So, that's a definite advantage for our clients.

It also makes troubleshooting a lot quicker. If we're trying to find a port or a device, we can see which port it's connected to based on IP address, so that makes troubleshooting a lot quicker and easier.

So, all the features in Ubiquiti UniFi Switches increase our ability to troubleshoot and deploy.

I would rate the user interface a nine out of ten, with ten being the best. 

We like the centralized management of the switches. We like the fact that we can do all the management remotely on the cloud, without having to do a VPN into the client's infrastructure.

And, we found that the best solution for our typical clients, who are small to medium-sized, typically don't need the more expensive Aruba or Forti Switches, and those switches are just overkill for their environment. 

So, we find that UniFi is a happy medium between consumer-type switches and enterprise switches.

UniFi switches improved our client's network management for multiple devices.

Ubiquiti do has quite a rapid development team. For instance, up until recently, it was really frustrating because you couldn't resize a column to see the full name of a device. But that was addressed quickly. So, things get addressed with the regular new versions that roll out. 

However, one area for improvement would be having a web interface directly on the device itself. That's the one thing that makes them more difficult for less experienced technicians to configure.  Ubiquiti UniFi Switches don't have a web interface that you can use to configure them directly.

I have been with this product for ten years. 

It's stable.

UniFi switches' scalability features are useful.

Finding a device by IP address is very helpful for troubleshooting. The Spanning Tree Protocol is a definite step above managed switches.

I work with small and medium-sized business customers.

We get good support from our reseller, but I find Ubiquiti's technical support not great at all.

I've only dealt with Ubiquiti's technical support once or twice in ten years. It's difficult to get in touch and get feedback from them.

I have experience with Cisco and Fortinet switches. The advantage of Cisco and Fortinet switches is that they have a web interface for configuration.

It is very easy to deploy. The deployment time depends on the environment. A single device is a near instant. You just adopt it. Adding to an existing setup is quick. 

Doing a whole new network with VLANs and whatnot takes longer, but adding to a configured network is very easy because you don't have to set up VLANs on the switch again.

I would rate my experience with the configuration an eight out of ten, with ten being easy. 

We generally have to have a PoE switch when we've got VoIP phones on-site. I don't see that as a clear win. It's like we're buying a PoE switch no matter what brand they choose. 

Only one person is enough to install and configure it. Moreover, maintenance is easy. 

Ubiquiti is very reasonable. However, they don't position themselves as an enterprise solution, but rather as a professional solution. 

They offer something like a network layer switches. They're not as feature-rich as some competitors, but that's perfect for small to medium-sized businesses.

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

It's been working fine, it's been stable, and there are no interruptions. It's been there doing its job and has not required any work to keep alive, so that's been positive.

I had some initial problems with the configuration that necessitated contacting technical support.

I have been working with Ubiquiti UniFi Switches for five years.

I have not scaled since the initial setup but it seems to be fine. I think that includes what you need to scale it.

I don't fully remember my experience with them, but I think that it was relatively good.

My initial setup needed some kind of reconfiguration to work, which is why it took some time to get it set up and running. The support was deferred, and I'm not sure if it was related to the skills of the technical support people. Overall, I would say that it's fair.

I have experience with NETGEAR products as well.

The initial setup is a little complex. I can't recall exactly how it was or what happened, but I contacted technical support and we tried some different configurations. On that level, it was not very easy.

The price is reasonable.

I am currently looking for a new solution and am looking at NETGEAR as well as Ubiquiti, but there is nothing that has been decided yet. One of the things that I've been looking at is the combined switch and firewall in one. From the reviews I have read, it seems like people have had initial issues with it that dwell on the configuration.

My advice for anybody who is looking into implementing this product is to go ahead and buy it. This is a good switch; the functionality is there and the design is nice too. I think that it's a good buy.

So far, this product has had what we've needed. Even though I'm an engineer, I have not done a deep dive into this switch. As such, I haven't paid so much attention to it or the initial setup, so I'm not sure that if I am missing anything or not.

Other than the configuration problems, I haven't had any issues.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use Ubiquiti UniFi Switches for our Wi-Fi solution to support wireless devices.

This product is very reasonably priced.

I have not found any of the technical features to be particularly valuable.

The management of this product needs to be improved.

Cloud-based management would be a helpful feature.

I would like to be able to customize the SSID.

For now, I'm not able to manage my device via the Application installed on my server. I'm not able to manage the devices (lost of connection with the devices).

The installation is more a familial installation instead of a professional installation.

Need to be improve on my company side.

My company has been using these switches for about one year, but I have only been working with them for three months.

Sometimes this solution works, and sometimes it doesn't. What I have found is that for two access points, it seems to be stable. Beyond that, with three or four access points, it doesn't work.

We have 10 sites that use these switches. In my site, we have 20 users but they are not all connected via Wi-Fi. Some are instead connected using an ethernet cable.

In some sites, they have between 20 and 30 staff, and maybe 50% or 60% of them use Wi-Fi. Most of our devices are Android tablets. Also, some of the clients connect to the Wi-Fi as well.

It works well for small companies with open space. However, it is not viable for businesses with 500 or more people.

I have not been in contact with technical support.

Prior to Ubiquiti UniFi, we did not use another Wi-Fi switch.

The implementation was completed by the IT staff before me.

I don't know for now.

The price is very low and a good approach for a smaller company, with 10 to 15 people. 

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.