What is the biggest difference between Cisco Wireless and Ruckus Wireless?

I'll comment on one of the responses first, which is that Ruckus is not only APs! Ruckus Networks carries a full suite of wireless products for Wi-Fi, now LTE (unlicensed CBRS) as well as switching and routing for small to very large enterprise. Not to mention a single management console for all the network elements both wired and wireless - this can be on-prem (physical/virtual) or Ruckus Cloud. Ruckus also has a software suite for secure access and onboarding (CloudPath vs ISE), analytics and location services. It is definitely not just APs. There are certainly more integration points with Cisco with firewalls, IPS, and more but an all Cisco network is complex and expensive - though I'm sure that everything works exceptionally well together and the integration between them all is seamless!

Now other than a full portfolio to meet many needs centered around connectivity, Ruckus also has some patented technology that makes the RF perform much better than the big competitors (lookup Ruckus BeamFlex+). On the switching side, everything is line-rate, wire-speed and switches are not built with over-subscription. It's also a much simpler architecture with deeper stacking using non-proprietary optics, and campus fabric options to build virtual chassis. There can be significant cost savings as well due to less infrastructure being required to provide coverage with Ruckus, especially with high-density. Support costs are also significantly less. And the fact that you can move between on-prem vs cloud without refreshing the equipment gives ultimate choice on how to operate, and change how you operate.

The biggest differences between Ruckus Networks and Cisco are the performance, cost, and choice. Cisco is the brand and market leader and has a wide array of great products. Ruckus Networks is the underdog and has to show that things can be done differently and maybe even better in some cases. Try it and decide for yourself! I have lots of testimonials that have switched and wouldn't go back.

The main difference between both solutions is, as I can think and determine is that with Cisco, you as a customer are acquiring an entire architecture with the possibility to integrate a variety of other features that can improve and enrich your business outcomes; how is that? Integrating, for example, visibility, access control, analytics, deep security, and many other options given by solutions like ISE, Stealthwatch, Talos, pxGrid, DNA, etc. Furthermore, you also can opt for on-premise or cloud options. As I understand, on the other hand, we have the Ruckus solution, but that is all, I mean, you buy an AP and maybe with cloud management, but if you want or need more than this, you must buy a third parties vendors in order to build a real architecture that helps you to have a solid and secure network, with the eyes and thougths focused on the future.

Ease of management is the biggest factor so far. Ruckus is much easier to manage. This should improve even more when the cloud solution comes out later this year. There are several technical issues that, depending on which RF camp you're in, could be argued either way. Ruckus touts one radio every other classroom. Most other vendors think one per classroom with lower power settings is better. We started with one radio per classroom because that is the camp I agreed with. After installing six schools we tried the Ruckus solution of one radio every other classroom and it worked much better. The lesson learned here is that if installing Ruckus rely on Ruckus engineering, it just works. Remember Cisco has two solutions, Cisco wifi, and Meraki wifi. The answers above apply to both.