Ubiquiti Wireless Reviews

Ubiquiti is the primary wireless solution for my workplace, and we'll likely continue to use it for a while. With a few exceptions, Ubiquiti is the wireless hardware for the vast majority of our campuses.

Ubiquiti is intuitive. The management interface is user-friendly. You can easily make changes and do the things that need to be done. 

Ubiquiti isn't as good for larger networks as any of the other wireless solutions. It lacks performance, coverage, and some of the advanced capabilities other solutions have. 

Take, for example, integration with FortiNAC. Cisco, HP, and the other big names can move devices from one wireless subnet to another with FortiNAC on the fly, but Ubiquiti cannot. When we connect them to this special network, I have to turn them off and on, disconnect them from the wireless, and then reconnect. Then, it can be put into the correct location, but that's it. It's a small thing, but it's noticeable,

It's hard to describe it in terms an end user would understand, but on the back end, it lacks some of those capabilities. It's not a true large enterprise solution. They're fantastic for small and medium-sized businesses, especially for the price, and they perform well when needed. For my part, I would actually like to move to something more appropriate for the size of our network, but again, Ubiquiti is so cheap.

I have used Ubiquiti for nearly two years. 

The stability is pretty good for the most part. Occasionally, I need to restart access points, and one might periodically forget how to pick up an IP address, so I have to fiddle with it. It isn't something that happens often, but it does come up. 

There are some limitations on scalability. It's a great solution for smaller networks. On larger networks, little things start stacking up after a little while. They haven't been terrible, but I don't feel like Ubiquiti is a true enterprise-level wireless solution.

The most valuable aspect of Ubiquiti is the price. Compared to competing solutions like Cisco Aironet, HP Aruba, ExtremeWireless, or Ruckus, Ubiquiti is the cheapest by far. It's not even close. That's their biggest selling point.

Their latest model is the Enterprise 6, which can do Wifi 6. You can get that access point for $300, whereas the equivalent from Fortinet is closer to $800 or $900.

Also, Ubiquiti access points are more readily available than other ones due to supply chain issues. Problems with the supply chain have forced me to make several different product changes because it might take six to eight months to procure some products.

That's a challenge we're facing with other access points, such as Fortinet. If I were to buy a Fortinet access point, it might be half a year before I get it. Ubiquiti is available within a couple of weeks.

I rate Ubiquiti Wireless seven out of 10. If you're considering Ubiquity, you should look at the scale and the scope of your deployment. Ubiquiti is a great solution for a small or medium-sized company if you're not trying to do really sophisticated networking. 

I've consulted for small clients where I think it would make sense. You actually see them a lot in hotel rooms. If you are looking to do more advanced wireless stuff or like network access control or wireless containment, and you're trying to control a larger network, you probably should go with one of the high-end solutions.

In the school area, we have deployed Ubiquiti Wireless. Each floor has four Ubiquiti Wireless solutions. We have indoor and outdoor solutions and it is used for long-distance communication. Indoors, the students rely on Ubiquiti Wireless for day-to-day academic activities, like classes, attending seminars, everything. We have deployed Ubiquiti Wireless in their applied building, and it has a controller also, a virtual machine controller.

Before the deployment of Ubiquiti, we were running local authentication mechanisms like WPA2 personal with the local wireless routers. We were not able to implement WPA2 enterprise authentication methods. After the implementation of Ubiquiti Wireless, we were able to implement this WPA2 model authentication with a username and password. It becomes more secure and students and staff can easily rely on it to meet their daily needs.

It has a radius authentication mechanism. In our enterprise authentication, our authentication type is radius 8.2.1X authentication. Ubiquiti is readily supporting that. We have a separate SSID with 8.2.1X authentication, and with Ubiquiti Wireless, we can spread it across all our buildings with the SSID network.

The initial setup is simple. 

It is stable. Ubiquiti outdoor access points in particular, are really stable, and if there are no obstructions, Ubiquiti works well.

Ubiquiti requires more improvement in wireless penetration. It has significantly less penetration in indoor devices. When it comes to indoor devices, Ubiquiti Wireless does not have penetration power, so when we deploy it in closed rooms, it fails to connect. This is one drawback that has to improve.

When indoor access points failed to penetrate into rooms, we had to deploy single access points in each room, which seemed to be really costly. Still, when compared to Fortinet, it has an outdoor access point model also. The outdoor access point is relatively stable in comparison.

The solution needs to offer more scalability.

It does not have traffic shaping or traffic policies in its wireless requirements. We have to completely depend on an additional firewall for traffic shaping and policies. 

We've been using the solution for six years. 

It is a stable solution. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. 

It is not very scalable. 

We have six networking people using the solution. 

We are not planning to increase Ubiquiti as we don't have good feedback regarding Ubiquiti Wireless. 

Technical support is good.

Positive

We have a mix of Ruckus Wireless, Ubiquiti Wireless, Jenkins Wireless, et cetera. We are also using Fortinet APS for Access Points.

We had a lot of issues with Fortinet regarding connectivity, stability, and everything. We tried to move to Ubiquiti, which was actually somewhat stable. We tried it out in our one building and when compared to Fortinet, it had a slightly higher advantage, however, still, we had issues with the penetration power.

We are planning to migrate more to Ruckus and Aruba.

The solution is very easy to set up. It is not overly complex. 

It's fast to deploy and only takes two to three hours. 

We have six people that handle deployment and maintenance. 

We handled the deployment in-house. 

I cannot recall the exact pricing. However, my understanding is that the pricing is very good.

We are a customer and end-user.

We're using the latest version and have updated it. 

Ubiquiti Wireless is an access point wireless solution. However, I would suggest it more for outdoor use. For outdoor devices, if you deploy Ubiquiti, then you'll get the proper signal and coverage. If you are in a building, or any other premises that have obstructions or hard walls, then I would suggest not using Ubiquiti Wireless. It has less penetrating power. It will not come inside rooms. 

I'd rate the solution six out of ten.

The platform has a valuable console providing a centralized hub for device management, enabling users to log in and access devices effortlessly. The users gain visibility into the velocity of networking to each user. However, the standout feature lies in its ability to seamlessly manage multiple access points from a single interface.

The product or service could be improved by providing round-the-clock support directly from the company. A contract solution with 24/7 support would greatly benefit users, especially in critical situations requiring immediate assistance. It would enable users to address issues promptly and ensure uninterrupted network operation. It is important for small companies like ours, where we may need more expertise to troubleshoot problems independently.

We have been using Ubiquiti Wireless for a year.

The platform is stable. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

The platform is easy to scale.

We previously used Tableau. However, we encountered challenges integrating various access points into the same networking environment.

The initial setup is simple. However, it depends on the number of shipments per month. In our scenario, with ten shipments per month, the setup took around four hours. This time frame includes finding all the necessary information on websites, considering our need for prior experience with this equipment. Despite this, we completed the setup within the allotted time frame of four hours.

I rate the process a nine out of ten.

The platform offers a one-time purchase cost. It has competitive pricing.

Ubiquiti wireless proves especially helpful in scenarios requiring mobility. Transitioning from wired to wireless connectivity facilitates flexibility for users previously tethered to Ethernet cables connected to switches.

The platform is very simple to set up and provides a lot of information in the network. It is suitable for small companies. I rate it an eight out of ten.

The solution has a user-friendly interface. It has many essential features, including encryption. 

The solution's stability and setup process could be better. Also, there could be a LAN controller feature similar to Ruckus in Ubiquiti's next release.

We have been using the solution for two years.

The solution is stable. Although, we encounter stability issues in crowded areas.

The solution is suitable for small and medium businesses. We have 20-25 users in our organization.

I refer to support documentation in the case of queries for the solution. It is good and helpful.

The solution's initial setup could be more straightforward. It takes half an hour to complete tests and finish the process after installation.

The solution's price is reasonable for a basic device.

Compared with the solution, Ruckus has a lot of software and tools for wireless functionality. It also has a LAN controller feature which is not available in Ubiquiti. I prefer using Ruckus or Cisco products while working for large companies.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is for access points for internet services for our clients and the devices they have on them.

I would say that the user experience is pretty good in this solution as well as the roaming solution part of it.

I would like to see this solution have any kind of captive portal on the tool or user accounting tool. This would be quite useful for companies.

I have been using this solution for about two years.

My impression of the stability of this solution is that it's really good as we don't have any issues with it.

My impression is that this solution is scalable. There are about 400 users of this solution in our company.

My impression is that the initial setup process is straightforward. It took about one week to complete the deployment. I think there is one person involved in the deployment and maintenance of this solution.

Our IT management team did the deployment.

I would recommend this solution to other people as it's a good solution. I would also advise them that if they have voice services and they want to have it connected everywhere in their building, this tool is for them as it's quite good on roaming and has a good quality for voice and pictures in live streams.

I would rate this solution a nine, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

Some of our customers have a user base as high as 250.

Ubiquiti devices are centrally managed, and you can log into the access points via SSH. If the GUI isn't working for some reason, you can intervene via SSH.

It's difficult to get Ubiquiti hardware in Germany, which poses a problem because I urgently need some routers and other devices that we cannot acquire right now. 

Ubiquiti is also slow to adopt new technologies. We are transitioning to Wi-Fi 6, and there aren't many products. They have mostly Wi-Fi 5 products, but there are only two Wi-Fi 6 products. It's okay for places we have already equipped, but it's a bit hard for new places.

Their gateway is good for people who lack an IT background and need to rely on a GUI. For example, they have a special gateway for that product group within the wireless devices. However, I find it to be restrictive. It's a dedicated gateway from the wireless to the internet. While the approach is clever, it would be helpful if it were more like their Edge devices.

The product group known as Edge has two GUIs: one for the people without a technical background and another for advanced users. You can also use the command line interface. These devices don't have that approach. You only have the GUI. While the GUI has broad functionality, it still lacks the flexibility IT professionals need.

I have been using Ubiquiti for six or seven years.

We haven't had any problems. You even can handle a large number of access point users. You get good quality for the price. 

Scalability is one reason we use Ubiquiti. It's easy to scale up because of the centralized administration approach. 

Ubiquiti has excellent internet forums, but there's hardly any support. You can email them, and they will respond quickly but you might not get the solution you need. However, it's relatively easy to get quick information about an issue because the open-source community supports Ubiquiti very well.

The problem with their call centers is that they sometimes even don't know what they're talking about, and they are costly. You go to the internet if you have an issue, and you'll usually get your answer. Cisco has service plans that you don't get with Ubiquiti, but you pay a fair price for the hardware. 

I've worked with Cisco. Cisco products always have issues you need to patch, and it's an old brand. Cisco can do everything, but you'll need to spend lots of money educating your staff. Anyone who can use Linux can handle Ubiquiti. While Cisco solutions are powerful, you need a Cisco-certified expert, and these guys are very expensive. You need to hire them or train your staff. Either way, it costs you a lot of money For me, Ubiquiti is the product of choice because of the flexibility it provides us.

Setting up Ubiquity Wireless is simple, and when something doesn't work, you can intervene via SSH. 

I rate Ubiquiti eight out of 10 for affordability. The hardware prices are the easy part. However, the costs of maintaining and operating the infrastructure can be expensive. 

By comparison, Netgear isn't as flexible as Ubiquiti. I can automate Ubiquiti on a large infrastructure because Ubiquiti devices run on Linux. I can write a Linux script that is executed on the devices, and quickly automate it. This is also possible with Cisco, but not Netgear. Netgear devices are common, but I always call them hobby devices. If you're just an ambitious hobby user, these devices are fine, but they are not for professionals.

I rate Ubiquiti Wireless seven out of 10. These devices are suitable for small and medium-sized enterprises. If you use the Edge line of products, you need to understand protocols or networks, architectures, etc. They're perfect because you can almost do everything with Cisco products for a much better price with a significantly lower learning curve.

The most valuable aspect of Ubiquiti is the ease of setup. It's easy to set up, secure, and use. It works on an adoption basis. I can pull the system up, design a network, and pull 20 different Ubiquiti units into it.

It depends on whether you're setting up separate VLANs or whatever, but let's assume a normal scenario with a standard network. You pull all the systems into it and adopt them all, then Ubiquiti incorporates the system into whatever structure you want.

Ubiquiti could develop a more elaborate firewall solution. Their firewall solutions at the moment are entry-level. Maybe they don't want to bring those products in because many people prefer putting a third-party firewall into a solution like that. We usually do. 

We use Untangle, but the big question at the end of the day is which market they want to target.  They're offering an entry-level firewall product, but if they improved, they could aspire to the higher end and maybe take on the likes of FortiGate and Untangle. Sophos has a complete end-to-end solution with a high-end firewall and AP.

Ubiquiti should approach things like Sophos and make a more comprehensive product. It would be so nice to integrate an end-to-end solution that gives you control over your network. I could set everything up and see it all on the same protocol, roll-out, setup, etc.

They could maybe also make their setup software a little more user-friendly. I don't know if they can improve it much, but they could make it more accessible specifically to first-time users. When you're just starting out, you might not understand you need to download the software and have certain configurations in your web browser to link to it. They could do away with that, but I'm not sure how much of a security impact it's going to have.

I've used Ubiquiti for five or six years.

Ubiquiti is extremely stable. Aside from maybe user issues and that kind of thing, I've never had any of my Ubiquiti installations go down due to product failure. I've never had an AP or switch fail on me.

Ubiquiti is highly scalable.  I've seen Ubiquiti rolled out in massive setups and huge buildings. I know companies that run large warehouses, manufacturing, etc., and their whole backend infrastructure is Ubiquiti. They are pleased with it.

They function as well as Cisco core switching. Sometimes it just depends on the scenario, but from a scalability point of view, all Ubiquiti products work together. 

I can mix old Ubiquiti access points, LR units, etc., with new Ubiquiti products. More recently, they've done things like Nano and Wifi 6. You can't mix the Wifi setups, but that's a technology issue, not a product issue. That allows a lot of scalability. Most of them don't reach layer 3 level on their standard switches, but most are layer 2. You have edge switching and layer 2. It's rudimentary networking.

We work with local Ubiquiti support, which has been excellent. I would rate them eight out of 10. 

It's a fairly easy setup even if you don't know Ubiquiti and it's your first time. You follow the instructions. Compared to something like NewCitrix, Ubiquiti is a million times easier to set up. So I think Ubiquity would be for a normal IT guy and whatever, Ubiquiti would be an easy setup where, specifically guys like that, that have to set up NewCitrix, you have to learn how NewCitrix works and then run with it like that. But from initial setup, I find Ubiquiti extremely easy to set up.

Ubiquiti is on-prem, but it has a cloud-based deployment and management system. You connect it to the system and do your setup as soon as you've done your setup, and you basically finalize your system, then you can take that cloud link away. Your system runs without it.

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. 

At the same time, it's still affordable enough for a home user. We do a lot of homes sometimes. So, a home user that has the money, that wants the reliability and whatever, I would put UniFi in their house before I would put in Tenda or a lower end product. In that respect, I definitely think Ubiquiti is very well priced, so I would give them easily a four out of five on pricing.

From a price perspective, compared to Cisco, where you could put one AP down for Cisco, and get a lot of users, a lot of security and everything like that. For the same price, you can put down three Ubiquiti's and those three Ubiquiti's can do what the one Cisco unit could do.

I rate Ubiquiti Wireless eight out of 10. I would definitely recommend Ubiquiti to others unless it's a scenario where you have a massive deployment or the client has an existing Netgear, HPE, or Aruba setup. 

Their products are durable and easy to use. Ubiquiti fits into that mid-market segment. Ubiquiti slots in below Aruba, Cisco, and all those heavy-duty systems, but it's still a robust product. In most cases, I'd suggest Ubiquiti over and above your bigger names like Cisco, Netgear, etc. It's definitely a cut above things like TP-Link and Tenda. It has its own market share right there in the middle

When you're managing more units, it helps to have handover and the capacity to switch between multiple inputs and outputs. Ubiquiti handles that well. Obviously, when you have hectic layer 3 networks and huge roll-outs, HPE and all of those other big names are more appropriate products. However, Ubquiti is the most reliable product in 80 percent of general use cases.

We use the tool internally and for client portfolios.

We had a client with a power plant. Different wireless devices from various brands caused problems. We fixed it using the Ubiquiti Wireless UDM controller and installed 75 access points and antennas.

The tool's most valuable feature is SD-WAN. It is easy to use and manage. In terms of reliability, we don't get many tickets or a service request after the installation. It's like installing and forgetting the device. In one railway construction project where we installed Ubiquiti three years ago, we've only received two inquiries since then. We provide remote support.

The solution has very good product lines. However, it feels like some models overlap. For example, a new model is announced after three months, and another new model is announced shortly after. So, the release cycle feels too short, and some features overlap. Overall, the products are very good and reliable.

I have been using the product for five years.

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten.

Combining internal users within our organization and clients in our existing managed service, we have approximately 3,000-3,500 users using Ubiquiti Wireless. I rate its scalability a nine out of ten.

I rated technical support as an eight out of ten because we rarely need to call them. Instead, we usually email the community or local distributors for support, and they assist us. However, in terms of implementation, we don't rely on technical support.

Positive

I used Aruba, Meraki, D-Link, and Cisco before Ubiquiti Wireless. We chose to switch from Cisco, Aruba, and Meraki to Ubiquiti Wireless mainly because most clients prefer cost-effective solutions. While brands like Aruba and Cisco are expensive. Ubiquiti is a US brand.

Our organization handles Ubiquiti Wireless maintenance and troubleshooting internally. We also provide managed services for some clients, managing all the day-to-day transactions and monitoring their wireless networks. We have about eight wireless engineers responsible for all technical aspects, including deployment and maintenance of Ubiquiti Wireless and other technical tasks.

The tool doesn't have any licensing costs.

We don't solely rely on built-in firewall features for enterprise-level security. Instead, we often use another brand or third-party firewall the client prefers as the primary defense. For clients with less sensitive data transactions or those running via the cloud, we trust the firewall features of Ubiquiti's UDM Pro.

I rate the solution overall as a nine out of ten. There's always room for improvement, and we anticipate future developments and innovations.