I cannot suggest much for Ruckus Wireless, but I think all the new versions have already incorporated all the improvements that are required in this device. So I cannot suggest something which I believe is already either in process or already been given to the customer. There is something on my mind about how the product could be optimized. The number of users they claim can simultaneously connect to the system actually varies. Sometimes when there's a load of work, even within the range of the concurrent users, we feel that the system is burdened and slows down. Perhaps there is something that can make it work better when there's a high load on that. However, this does not happen frequently. Sometimes it happens when I see the number of users increasing on one access point, which slows down a little bit, especially when we are having online meetings and teams are communicating over the internet. This trouble causes a little bit of irritation to the user, wondering why data downloading or uploading or transferring takes extra time. That is my concern.
The current reporting is limited to 30 days, and it would be helpful if there was an option to extend it to one year. Additionally, we are considering upgrading to Wi-Fi 7 access points to support newer devices.
The price is one area for improvement, as it is an expensive solution. However, it is worth it. In the new models, they have improved features significantly, especially regarding more security layers and enhanced traffic handling capability. These are the areas where improvement is needed.
Assistan Manager & Team Lead Network Design Team at Comstar - Information Systems Associates Ltd.
Real User
Top 20
May 2, 2024
The vendor should expand their product line and include routers, firewalls and large switches. The vendor should focus on providing a complete solution, as when a professional is designing a network for an organization, the person might need a firewall, security solution, and routing devices, but from Ruckus, the professional is only receiving WiFi solutions.
The product is stable, which is why my company does not want any extra features, as it already provides everything that we want. In my company, we still has to do some manual calculations on where we should set the access points, which is a time-consuming process as there were no automatic setup functions provided by the tool. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement in the product.
I recommend enhancing flexibility for administrators within the Partner Domain. Currently, there are five categories with assigned features, but I'd like more granularity, such as limiting certain user actions like AP reboots. Currently, AP admin rights grant access across all APs, which could be improved for better control. One feature I'd like to integrate is the ability for self-signed users to utilize Dynamic Pre-Shared Key instead of solely relying on tokens for authentication. This enhancement would provide users with more secure and flexible authentication options.
The pricing is the biggest issue with Ruckus wireless. It's so expensive, but Ruckus are just the best. So, from my point of view, portal features are something missing in Ruckus Wireless. I want to see Ruckus Wireless integrate a Wi-Fi portal into its product. This would allow for easier user authentication for vendors.
The technology itself is good. They are always improving their technology and cloud environment. They are mostly ahead of the competition. As long as they keep updating, we will be happy. There are no new features needed. You do need to pay extra for support after one year. There's only a small amount of backup available. However, we do not need any more storage for backups. When firmware updates, you have to download and update. If the system could directly download and update, that would be much easier. It could be more automated. To update firmware, a partner account is required, and there are very few of us in the market in our region who can help the customer. Without the upgrade, there may not be recognition of access points. If you are behind a few versions, you need to download each old version until you get to the latest.
The solution is sensitive with reference to power fluctuations. This sensitivity should be improved. Additionally, the solution should have more security features integrated.
The delivery time of the hardware needs to be improved. Right now, we have to wait more than 12 weeks in India. The expected arrival dates keep getting postponed, and we don't have any idea as to why.
Ruckus should have an option to migrate existing licenses from an old controller to a new purchase; presently, this is not possible. Also, the rates are a bit higher compared to its nearest competitors - like Cisco and Aruba. The New Ruckus VM controller has an increased set of options, yet all options are scattered and is a bit complicated for even users who handle earlier hardware versions. It would have been great if Ruckus Wireless had the standalone version which they had before. Presently, it can be used only in controller-based or cloud environments.
The switching could be improved. The active component requires a data center. Cisco and HPE have a complete solution for data centers. Ruckus has a core solution, but the data center aspect needs to be improved.
The delivery device, and the warranty, need improvement. They offer a three-year warranty. It takes a long time to return the RMS delivery device. It is extremely difficult to send videos in Ruckus live sessions. Zoom streaming, or using Teams Streaming live sessions to send videos, for example, could be more effective. I would like to see Cloud Control, and Wi-Fi 6 added as new features in the next release.
Director Engineering & New Business at a comms service provider with 1-10 employees
Real User
Feb 8, 2022
I would like to see the integration of security services that you'd find in Fortinet, for example, where you have the ability to integrate the firewall with it. I'd like to see some sort of security-specific platform that you find in many other solutions where there is a security gateway or something similar. For now, we deal with this by combining additional solutions with Ruckus.
The solution lacks a lot of features other solutions provide. If you are an organization that is more focused on security or you need a lot of other features, such as location tracking then Ruckus Wireless may not be the right choice. If you want a solution with more than basic security I would choose Arista or Aruba. Ruckus has gone through too many changes in their management, and in the last four or five years, they have been lacking feature sets that others provide. Additionally, the integration, network security, and BLE features need to be improved. There are key features they are still lacking.
Wireless Network Engineer at a insurance company with 51-200 employees
Reseller
Aug 9, 2021
It would be better if there were more visibility on the cloud. We have some lack of visibility because of wireless interference, and you have to do some troubleshooting for the packet capture. They have a built-in packet capture, and we can monitor the application. You can see all things over the cloud. They also provide an on-premise solution, so they need to improve the on-premise version and ensure an output with more visibility. Live monitoring in a live environment should be good. What is happening with wireless is that the wireless client is not connected due to interference, and there should be a shield zone on their wireless cloud. If they give us more features on both Ruckus Cloud or on-premises, that will be best. Nowadays, security is more important for everyone using wireless technology. If they implement a little bit of reduction and prevention features for some packets on the wireless cloud, some features like web filtering and some prevention for blocking will be good for the network.
Wireless Technician at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Jun 3, 2021
I wish that Ruckus Wireless were more affordable for customers. It works well but comes at a price. When we were using the on-premises controller some time ago, they used to have a feature which they called third party. You could have third party access points report to the Ruckus controller. However, the firmware that features this has disappeared, but I think it would be ideal to have that installed.
Team Lead at Comstar - Information Systems Associates Ltd.
Real User
Apr 14, 2021
It's not providing the bandwidth as per its particular description. In my view, in one moment, it reduced one-fourth. The controller needs improvement. Sometimes when we are doing certain operations we have trouble. It's something that needs to be looked at. We looked at APM controllers and we find them to be more difficult. The initial setup is complex.
The Ruckus platform in general could be improved — it could be more user-friendly. Ruckus should be more customizable, especially regarding KPIs and analytics.
Network Design Engineer at Comstar - Information Systems Associates Ltd.
Real User
Feb 11, 2021
Occasionally, we have found some controllers malfunctioning. However, that is rare, and largely the solution works perfectly. They should work to make their licensing more affordable.
Ing Preventa (Sales Engineer IBW) at a comms service provider with 201-500 employees
Reseller
Feb 6, 2021
Its security can be improved. It doesn't use Wireless IPS. Therefore, we have to combine WatchGuard that uses a Wireless IPS but is a separate solution. These two solutions work in conjunction. We are using the WatchGuard as a sensor and Wireless IPS, and Ruckus is like a platform that is used for the connectivity of the network.
Ruckus products, overall, have a wide range of useful features, however not all customers have the budget to buy a corporate Wi-Fi solution. Most of the time, it's far too expensive for our clients to consider going with Ruckus, and they might like to see cheaper solutions in the Ruckus range.
As far as what they can improve, that's a good question, as they're leaders in what they do in my opinion. I don't know what they can do to improve what they're doing currently. They're not the most expensive, and they're not the least expensive. They're right there in the middle. Pricing might be a deciding factor for some companies. If they were cheaper, they might land more customers. They've got a rotation or a life expectancy of about four years for the radio. Not that the radio is going to die. I've got some that are way older than that that the customers are still using. However, they take them and they end the life of them at four years. Many of their wireless products are end of life by year four. That's most of it as technology has changed so much that those old radios can't do stuff that is now available for PCs to connect or phones to connect to, etc. What they do is they force you into upgrading. We've got a couple of cloud controllers. If I've got a cloud controller that is in the same version 5.1, and I want to go to version 5.2, due to the fact that I need to support the new radios coming out, I can't if I have some older radios on that controller. They make it so I can't upgrade that controller to the latest software to support the new radios as I've got some end of life radios on there that go end of life when I upgrade the software. They need to be able to allow us to keep some of the older products on our cloud controllers or any of their controllers longer and just start supporting the new controllers. They force you into an upgrade unnecessarily. We have some customers that have just a few APs, small businesses that don't want to or don't need to upgrade their controllers. For us to be able to work with their latest access points, we've got to upgrade their controller, but we can't as it's got some older ones on it, and that bites us every year. I know the reasoning behind it. It's because it could be security features or it's something that the access points don't support that newer devices do, like your laptops and cell phones. They'll support this new Wi-Fi 6 coming out, yet I can't run the same types of radios on this particular controller software anymore. They can't have both. That kind of puts me off a little bit. But that's the only thing that the company's done that's made me mad. There's a lot of new features coming out of Wi-Fi 6 that they don't even have the chips in the phones for yet.
Networking Engineer at a comms service provider with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Dec 18, 2020
I would like to see more reports for the Unleashed feature, as my bosses require these and it would be best if I could include more. There are times when I have trouble connecting and I would like to view the logs, but when I shut down Ruckus, the logs are deleted. Once the AP comes back up, the information will be gone. I would like the option to not have my logs deleted when I shut down the device so that I will be able to troubleshoot.
They're leaders in what they're doing. I don't know what they can do to improve what they're doing currently. The cost could be slightly improved. It's not on the low end, and it's not in the high end. It's in that middle area, which can be a deciding factor between someone going with this solution versus another one. They've got a rotation or a life expectancy of about four years for the radio. Not that radio is going to die right hten. I've got some that are way older than that, that the customers are still using. However, they take them and they end the life of them at four years. Any of their wireless products are end of life by year four. Most of it's because technology has changed so much that those old videos can't do stuff that is now available for PCs to connect or phones to connect to that kind of stuff. What they do is they force you into a Cloud controller. We've got a couple of them. If I've got a Cloud controller there and it's on version 5.1, and I want to go to version 5.2, bdue to the fact that I need to support the new radios coming out, I can't if I have some older radios on that controller. I can't upgrade that controller to the latest software to support the new radios as I've got some end of life radios on there that go into life when I upgrade the software. They need to be able to allow us to keep some of the older products on the Cloud controllers or any of their controllers longer, and just start supporting the new controllers. They force you into an upgrade unnecessarily. We have some customers that have just a few APs. There are some small businesses that don't want to, or don't need to upgrade their controllers and they're crushing their access points. For us to be able to work with the latest access points, we've got to upgrade our controller, however, we can't. That bites us every year. We'll have customers that have APs that are going end of life that still work fine, but we can't manage them anymore. I know the reasoning behind it is it could be security features or it's something that the access points don't support that newer devices do. They'll support this new Wi-Fi 6 coming out, however, I can't run the same types of radios on this particular controller software anymore. That kind of puts me off a little bit, however, that's the only thing that the company has done that's made me mad.
In both cases in terms of the latest deployments we initiated, we implemented a new version, which means that in both cases the client deployed a new Wi-Fi infrastructure. As we deployed the solution, it meant that the users had to connect to the network via a patch cord. The solution needs to have some sort of security offering, like a firewall, for example. Fortinet offers access to security via Wi-Fi controls and a management console. Ruckus does not do this.
Asst. Manager Technical at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Reseller
Dec 10, 2020
They lack in some hardware stratification. They do no have a complete product line with respect to customer requirements. Their product line is limited and does not have the options which the end customer is actually looking for. For example, if a customer is looking for some redundant power supply switches, they have that option available in their mid-range or high-end switches. They don't have that option in their low-end or entry-level switches. That is the main problem we are facing when we are proposing a Ruckus solution to an end customer. That customer actually wants redundant power. If the customer wants the redundant power supplies in their entry levels switches, Ruckus doesn't have that option for them. The same problem exists with its wireless platform. Some hardware limitations are there, which definitely need to be addressed. They need more controller options and more hardware options. They just have two models, ZoneDirector and SmartZone. They need to put some other hardware options on the market to fulfill the customer requirements.
Vice President at a comms service provider with 51-200 employees
Reseller
Dec 6, 2020
The management software is cloud-based and they're constantly revising their cloud software, so there's always room for improvement. I would like to see this product made a little more economical because it's very expensive. If I look at the percentage of my customers that I can sell it to, it's under 5%.
I really don't need anything faster right now. However, if I would like to get a faster speed eventually. I have a gigabit at my townhome. I'd like to be able to get an APX to add a whole gig on. What would be interesting to see is if they had more of an ability for their customers to capture revenue. They should offer some sort of gateway functionality that you could tie through radius authentication, so you can bill the customers. That way, when you go in, you could just have a device and set up a hotspot, and it's a totally billable tool at that point.
Whilst vendors are always working to improve the features of their products and make them more attractive than the competition, I cannot identify any core features which are missing. Of course, today the product offers all kinds of features, many more than our specific requirements demand. The solution isn't the cheapest option on the market. However, you are getting a quality product. Cheap is not always best. Cheap can come back and bite you.
Director of Product Management at a comms service provider with 5,001-10,000 employees
Reseller
Oct 28, 2020
The price is an area that requires improvement. The pricing could be better. In the next release, I would like to understand more where presence analytics is going and IoT support. Is it going to be multi-way for IoT support? I would like to see IoT presence analytics.
It would be helpful if the wizard when you are setting up a new access point or a wireless guest network. Could have more sugestion on default. There are too many checkboxes to get it to work. There should be some ? you could klick on to get a short explanation what it means.
Store Associate at a engineering company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Oct 19, 2020
The pricing needs to be more competitive. They need to re-examine their business model and see if there is a way to provide their service at a cheaper cost.
I'd like to see the solution become a little more user friendly. For additional features to the product, it would be helpful if they would introduce a self-healing mechanism and configuration.
I feel that the vendor needs to have better control of who is selling the product online, especially when the reseller doesn't know anything about the product. It is frustrating when customers tell me that they have found it on Amazon for a cheaper price. I would like to see newer on-premises controller-type models, similar to the 3000.
I have had trouble with signal strength and coverage in the school setting, which is in part due to the construction. I have an access point in the hallway and in every classroom. Having support available that is more compatible with time zones in the United States would be helpful.
Engineer - Network Security Operations at SLT Visioncom Pvt Ltd
Real User
Jul 22, 2020
Previously, we would need to purchase appliances every time but it caused our data centers to get filled. Ruckus now has cloud-based controllers. They resolved the issue we were having.
Analyst Programmer at a comms service provider with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Jul 6, 2020
The captive portal for guest access on the controller is an additional detail that could be enhanced. Currently the captive portal allows only choice of logo. additional enhancement include : Different color schemes, customized html pages, pior login & post login pages, CP designs, Social media login, advertising, survey pages , captive portal Configurator etc.. As such we get all in a box solution, no need for third party captive portal solution.
Project Manager at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Reseller
Jul 5, 2020
The failure spots need to be improved, as sometimes I have trouble reaching them. I would like to see better mapping capability because it can be really difficult, especially if you are deploying on a remote island.
The physical device itself is lacking. They're made with plastic and seem a little cheap in construction, especially when compared to other manufacturers and providers. The company itself has had its time in the sun and may be past peak after so many mergers and acquisitions. They were originally a router and switch company. Then they were bought by one of their distributors. The company is floundering after so many changes to the organization. The product is great, but the problem is there are other players in the market now. In 2004 when they were founded, they had the market and they were the big name for wireless within an enterprise. The company was also expanding out between buildings and everything. Then all of a sudden, after 2017, you don't really hear their name anymore. They have so many products that there are so many different part numbers for the US and other countries. That means it's easy to make a mistake with the licensing. You have to have somebody knowledgeable on the other end with the licensing. If you make one mistake, it can be a $2,000 mistake. I'd like to see them do some licensed frequency stuff on the 365 gigahertz band, more for service providers, and then on an enterprise level. I'd like to see them do something with LTE.
The cloud solution is not mature and needs to be improved. The pricing of the high-end access points should be lowered to make them more competitive. In the next release of this solution, I would like to see a more detailed spectrum analysis.
Managing Director at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees
Real User
Feb 5, 2019
From the user point of view, sometimes we face a little bit of a challenge in terms of the channels selection for Ruckus. When we have installed all of the APs outdoors, those channels are actually empty in different numbers, so sometimes we found this challenging for getting paired between these point to point communications. If there is any way we can get some proprietary channels or some IT this interruption will not be there. That would be really fantastic for more reliable connectivity.
The biggest adjustment improvement will come from a price adjustment because the price is quite high; it feels like premium pricing. I suggest shaving off 10 percent to 20 percent. That would help grow users and increase the number of clients. I'd also like to see some sort of product costing and billing ability. Because not all of the users have their own producer version. We can take care of this on our end. Once we are able to bill clients for this service I think deployment will potentially go smoother.
Network Services Coordinator at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Jan 31, 2019
It's always good to have more analytics and reporting right on the controller when possible. However, Ruckus already has pretty good capabilities in that area as well as an excellent big data analytics engine with SmartCell Insight.
Director of IT at a manufacturing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Jun 20, 2018
The only complaint I have about Ruckus is the price, but considering other enterprise WiFi products are similarly priced, I feel Ruckus is a superior product I don’t have much to complain about. The latest ZoneDirector firmware addressed all of the tiny issues I hated in older releases.
District Technology at INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 196
User
Mar 5, 2018
Sometimes doing mass changes on their products can be challenging. Ruckus should spend more time developing methods to give enterprises more control over making needed changes quickly and easily. Their documentation also needs to be improved.
Ruckus Wireless is part of Ruckus Networks/Commscope and provides reliable wireless network solutions and services to large venues, schools, hotels, hospitals, malls, and public spaces (and more) worldwide.
Wireless access is an integral necessary part of today’s modern, fast-paced lifestyle. It is essential that dependable, safe wireless capabilities be available in most of today’s largely populated public spaces. Ruckus Wireless is the trusted industry leader in assisting organizations of...
I cannot suggest much for Ruckus Wireless, but I think all the new versions have already incorporated all the improvements that are required in this device. So I cannot suggest something which I believe is already either in process or already been given to the customer. There is something on my mind about how the product could be optimized. The number of users they claim can simultaneously connect to the system actually varies. Sometimes when there's a load of work, even within the range of the concurrent users, we feel that the system is burdened and slows down. Perhaps there is something that can make it work better when there's a high load on that. However, this does not happen frequently. Sometimes it happens when I see the number of users increasing on one access point, which slows down a little bit, especially when we are having online meetings and teams are communicating over the internet. This trouble causes a little bit of irritation to the user, wondering why data downloading or uploading or transferring takes extra time. That is my concern.
The current reporting is limited to 30 days, and it would be helpful if there was an option to extend it to one year. Additionally, we are considering upgrading to Wi-Fi 7 access points to support newer devices.
The price is one area for improvement, as it is an expensive solution. However, it is worth it. In the new models, they have improved features significantly, especially regarding more security layers and enhanced traffic handling capability. These are the areas where improvement is needed.
The cloud solution is not mature enough.
The tool is expensive.
The vendor should expand their product line and include routers, firewalls and large switches. The vendor should focus on providing a complete solution, as when a professional is designing a network for an organization, the person might need a firewall, security solution, and routing devices, but from Ruckus, the professional is only receiving WiFi solutions.
The product is stable, which is why my company does not want any extra features, as it already provides everything that we want. In my company, we still has to do some manual calculations on where we should set the access points, which is a time-consuming process as there were no automatic setup functions provided by the tool. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement in the product.
I recommend enhancing flexibility for administrators within the Partner Domain. Currently, there are five categories with assigned features, but I'd like more granularity, such as limiting certain user actions like AP reboots. Currently, AP admin rights grant access across all APs, which could be improved for better control. One feature I'd like to integrate is the ability for self-signed users to utilize Dynamic Pre-Shared Key instead of solely relying on tokens for authentication. This enhancement would provide users with more secure and flexible authentication options.
Pricing is the main barrier to hardware upgrades. It is too expensive. The cost must be reduced.
We would like to see a better licensing model for our customers.
There is room for improvement in the pricing. It could be improved.
The pricing is the biggest issue with Ruckus wireless. It's so expensive, but Ruckus are just the best. So, from my point of view, portal features are something missing in Ruckus Wireless. I want to see Ruckus Wireless integrate a Wi-Fi portal into its product. This would allow for easier user authentication for vendors.
The technology itself is good. They are always improving their technology and cloud environment. They are mostly ahead of the competition. As long as they keep updating, we will be happy. There are no new features needed. You do need to pay extra for support after one year. There's only a small amount of backup available. However, we do not need any more storage for backups. When firmware updates, you have to download and update. If the system could directly download and update, that would be much easier. It could be more automated. To update firmware, a partner account is required, and there are very few of us in the market in our region who can help the customer. Without the upgrade, there may not be recognition of access points. If you are behind a few versions, you need to download each old version until you get to the latest.
The price has room for improvement.
The tool needs to incorporate training. Also, it needs to improve the range of coverage.
I'd like to see some analytics features in the control itself.
The cost could be improved.
The solution is sensitive with reference to power fluctuations. This sensitivity should be improved. Additionally, the solution should have more security features integrated.
For the most part, we haven't had any complaints about its capabilities. It could be cheaper. The setup can be quite complex.
The delivery time of the hardware needs to be improved. Right now, we have to wait more than 12 weeks in India. The expected arrival dates keep getting postponed, and we don't have any idea as to why.
Ruckus should have an option to migrate existing licenses from an old controller to a new purchase; presently, this is not possible. Also, the rates are a bit higher compared to its nearest competitors - like Cisco and Aruba. The New Ruckus VM controller has an increased set of options, yet all options are scattered and is a bit complicated for even users who handle earlier hardware versions. It would have been great if Ruckus Wireless had the standalone version which they had before. Presently, it can be used only in controller-based or cloud environments.
The switching could be improved. The active component requires a data center. Cisco and HPE have a complete solution for data centers. Ruckus has a core solution, but the data center aspect needs to be improved.
The delivery device, and the warranty, need improvement. They offer a three-year warranty. It takes a long time to return the RMS delivery device. It is extremely difficult to send videos in Ruckus live sessions. Zoom streaming, or using Teams Streaming live sessions to send videos, for example, could be more effective. I would like to see Cloud Control, and Wi-Fi 6 added as new features in the next release.
I would like to see the integration of security services that you'd find in Fortinet, for example, where you have the ability to integrate the firewall with it. I'd like to see some sort of security-specific platform that you find in many other solutions where there is a security gateway or something similar. For now, we deal with this by combining additional solutions with Ruckus.
There is some strain with Ruckus because of various buyouts involving the company used for data centers and the cluster.
The pricing of the product can be a bit expensive. They should work on making pricing more competitive.
The solution lacks a lot of features other solutions provide. If you are an organization that is more focused on security or you need a lot of other features, such as location tracking then Ruckus Wireless may not be the right choice. If you want a solution with more than basic security I would choose Arista or Aruba. Ruckus has gone through too many changes in their management, and in the last four or five years, they have been lacking feature sets that others provide. Additionally, the integration, network security, and BLE features need to be improved. There are key features they are still lacking.
It would be ideal if the solution offered more features. The product could use more integration capabilities.
The price could be improved.
It would be better if there were more visibility on the cloud. We have some lack of visibility because of wireless interference, and you have to do some troubleshooting for the packet capture. They have a built-in packet capture, and we can monitor the application. You can see all things over the cloud. They also provide an on-premise solution, so they need to improve the on-premise version and ensure an output with more visibility. Live monitoring in a live environment should be good. What is happening with wireless is that the wireless client is not connected due to interference, and there should be a shield zone on their wireless cloud. If they give us more features on both Ruckus Cloud or on-premises, that will be best. Nowadays, security is more important for everyone using wireless technology. If they implement a little bit of reduction and prevention features for some packets on the wireless cloud, some features like web filtering and some prevention for blocking will be good for the network.
I would like to see more location-based services on the Smart Cell Insight on access points.
I cannot say that I have had any issues so far. I cannot recall missing any major features. The pricing is okay, however, it could be a bit lower.
I wish that Ruckus Wireless were more affordable for customers. It works well but comes at a price. When we were using the on-premises controller some time ago, they used to have a feature which they called third party. You could have third party access points report to the Ruckus controller. However, the firmware that features this has disappeared, but I think it would be ideal to have that installed.
It's not providing the bandwidth as per its particular description. In my view, in one moment, it reduced one-fourth. The controller needs improvement. Sometimes when we are doing certain operations we have trouble. It's something that needs to be looked at. We looked at APM controllers and we find them to be more difficult. The initial setup is complex.
It could be more stable.
The Ruckus platform in general could be improved — it could be more user-friendly. Ruckus should be more customizable, especially regarding KPIs and analytics.
Occasionally, we have found some controllers malfunctioning. However, that is rare, and largely the solution works perfectly. They should work to make their licensing more affordable.
Its security can be improved. It doesn't use Wireless IPS. Therefore, we have to combine WatchGuard that uses a Wireless IPS but is a separate solution. These two solutions work in conjunction. We are using the WatchGuard as a sensor and Wireless IPS, and Ruckus is like a platform that is used for the connectivity of the network.
Ruckus products, overall, have a wide range of useful features, however not all customers have the budget to buy a corporate Wi-Fi solution. Most of the time, it's far too expensive for our clients to consider going with Ruckus, and they might like to see cheaper solutions in the Ruckus range.
As far as what they can improve, that's a good question, as they're leaders in what they do in my opinion. I don't know what they can do to improve what they're doing currently. They're not the most expensive, and they're not the least expensive. They're right there in the middle. Pricing might be a deciding factor for some companies. If they were cheaper, they might land more customers. They've got a rotation or a life expectancy of about four years for the radio. Not that the radio is going to die. I've got some that are way older than that that the customers are still using. However, they take them and they end the life of them at four years. Many of their wireless products are end of life by year four. That's most of it as technology has changed so much that those old radios can't do stuff that is now available for PCs to connect or phones to connect to, etc. What they do is they force you into upgrading. We've got a couple of cloud controllers. If I've got a cloud controller that is in the same version 5.1, and I want to go to version 5.2, due to the fact that I need to support the new radios coming out, I can't if I have some older radios on that controller. They make it so I can't upgrade that controller to the latest software to support the new radios as I've got some end of life radios on there that go end of life when I upgrade the software. They need to be able to allow us to keep some of the older products on our cloud controllers or any of their controllers longer and just start supporting the new controllers. They force you into an upgrade unnecessarily. We have some customers that have just a few APs, small businesses that don't want to or don't need to upgrade their controllers. For us to be able to work with their latest access points, we've got to upgrade their controller, but we can't as it's got some older ones on it, and that bites us every year. I know the reasoning behind it. It's because it could be security features or it's something that the access points don't support that newer devices do, like your laptops and cell phones. They'll support this new Wi-Fi 6 coming out, yet I can't run the same types of radios on this particular controller software anymore. They can't have both. That kind of puts me off a little bit. But that's the only thing that the company's done that's made me mad. There's a lot of new features coming out of Wi-Fi 6 that they don't even have the chips in the phones for yet.
I would like to see more reports for the Unleashed feature, as my bosses require these and it would be best if I could include more. There are times when I have trouble connecting and I would like to view the logs, but when I shut down Ruckus, the logs are deleted. Once the AP comes back up, the information will be gone. I would like the option to not have my logs deleted when I shut down the device so that I will be able to troubleshoot.
They're leaders in what they're doing. I don't know what they can do to improve what they're doing currently. The cost could be slightly improved. It's not on the low end, and it's not in the high end. It's in that middle area, which can be a deciding factor between someone going with this solution versus another one. They've got a rotation or a life expectancy of about four years for the radio. Not that radio is going to die right hten. I've got some that are way older than that, that the customers are still using. However, they take them and they end the life of them at four years. Any of their wireless products are end of life by year four. Most of it's because technology has changed so much that those old videos can't do stuff that is now available for PCs to connect or phones to connect to that kind of stuff. What they do is they force you into a Cloud controller. We've got a couple of them. If I've got a Cloud controller there and it's on version 5.1, and I want to go to version 5.2, bdue to the fact that I need to support the new radios coming out, I can't if I have some older radios on that controller. I can't upgrade that controller to the latest software to support the new radios as I've got some end of life radios on there that go into life when I upgrade the software. They need to be able to allow us to keep some of the older products on the Cloud controllers or any of their controllers longer, and just start supporting the new controllers. They force you into an upgrade unnecessarily. We have some customers that have just a few APs. There are some small businesses that don't want to, or don't need to upgrade their controllers and they're crushing their access points. For us to be able to work with the latest access points, we've got to upgrade our controller, however, we can't. That bites us every year. We'll have customers that have APs that are going end of life that still work fine, but we can't manage them anymore. I know the reasoning behind it is it could be security features or it's something that the access points don't support that newer devices do. They'll support this new Wi-Fi 6 coming out, however, I can't run the same types of radios on this particular controller software anymore. That kind of puts me off a little bit, however, that's the only thing that the company has done that's made me mad.
In both cases in terms of the latest deployments we initiated, we implemented a new version, which means that in both cases the client deployed a new Wi-Fi infrastructure. As we deployed the solution, it meant that the users had to connect to the network via a patch cord. The solution needs to have some sort of security offering, like a firewall, for example. Fortinet offers access to security via Wi-Fi controls and a management console. Ruckus does not do this.
They lack in some hardware stratification. They do no have a complete product line with respect to customer requirements. Their product line is limited and does not have the options which the end customer is actually looking for. For example, if a customer is looking for some redundant power supply switches, they have that option available in their mid-range or high-end switches. They don't have that option in their low-end or entry-level switches. That is the main problem we are facing when we are proposing a Ruckus solution to an end customer. That customer actually wants redundant power. If the customer wants the redundant power supplies in their entry levels switches, Ruckus doesn't have that option for them. The same problem exists with its wireless platform. Some hardware limitations are there, which definitely need to be addressed. They need more controller options and more hardware options. They just have two models, ZoneDirector and SmartZone. They need to put some other hardware options on the market to fulfill the customer requirements.
Our only complaint about Ruckus is that the support is slow. This is the only area where they could be a little bit better.
The management software is cloud-based and they're constantly revising their cloud software, so there's always room for improvement. I would like to see this product made a little more economical because it's very expensive. If I look at the percentage of my customers that I can sell it to, it's under 5%.
I really don't need anything faster right now. However, if I would like to get a faster speed eventually. I have a gigabit at my townhome. I'd like to be able to get an APX to add a whole gig on. What would be interesting to see is if they had more of an ability for their customers to capture revenue. They should offer some sort of gateway functionality that you could tie through radius authentication, so you can bill the customers. That way, when you go in, you could just have a device and set up a hotspot, and it's a totally billable tool at that point.
Whilst vendors are always working to improve the features of their products and make them more attractive than the competition, I cannot identify any core features which are missing. Of course, today the product offers all kinds of features, many more than our specific requirements demand. The solution isn't the cheapest option on the market. However, you are getting a quality product. Cheap is not always best. Cheap can come back and bite you.
The price is an area that requires improvement. The pricing could be better. In the next release, I would like to understand more where presence analytics is going and IoT support. Is it going to be multi-way for IoT support? I would like to see IoT presence analytics.
It would be helpful if the wizard when you are setting up a new access point or a wireless guest network. Could have more sugestion on default. There are too many checkboxes to get it to work. There should be some ? you could klick on to get a short explanation what it means.
The pricing needs to be more competitive. They need to re-examine their business model and see if there is a way to provide their service at a cheaper cost.
Its interface could be a little bit more user friendly.
I'd like to see the solution become a little more user friendly. For additional features to the product, it would be helpful if they would introduce a self-healing mechanism and configuration.
I feel that the vendor needs to have better control of who is selling the product online, especially when the reseller doesn't know anything about the product. It is frustrating when customers tell me that they have found it on Amazon for a cheaper price. I would like to see newer on-premises controller-type models, similar to the 3000.
I have had trouble with signal strength and coverage in the school setting, which is in part due to the construction. I have an access point in the hallway and in every classroom. Having support available that is more compatible with time zones in the United States would be helpful.
Previously, we would need to purchase appliances every time but it caused our data centers to get filled. Ruckus now has cloud-based controllers. They resolved the issue we were having.
The captive portal for guest access on the controller is an additional detail that could be enhanced. Currently the captive portal allows only choice of logo. additional enhancement include : Different color schemes, customized html pages, pior login & post login pages, CP designs, Social media login, advertising, survey pages , captive portal Configurator etc.. As such we get all in a box solution, no need for third party captive portal solution.
The failure spots need to be improved, as sometimes I have trouble reaching them. I would like to see better mapping capability because it can be really difficult, especially if you are deploying on a remote island.
The physical device itself is lacking. They're made with plastic and seem a little cheap in construction, especially when compared to other manufacturers and providers. The company itself has had its time in the sun and may be past peak after so many mergers and acquisitions. They were originally a router and switch company. Then they were bought by one of their distributors. The company is floundering after so many changes to the organization. The product is great, but the problem is there are other players in the market now. In 2004 when they were founded, they had the market and they were the big name for wireless within an enterprise. The company was also expanding out between buildings and everything. Then all of a sudden, after 2017, you don't really hear their name anymore. They have so many products that there are so many different part numbers for the US and other countries. That means it's easy to make a mistake with the licensing. You have to have somebody knowledgeable on the other end with the licensing. If you make one mistake, it can be a $2,000 mistake. I'd like to see them do some licensed frequency stuff on the 365 gigahertz band, more for service providers, and then on an enterprise level. I'd like to see them do something with LTE.
The cloud solution is not mature and needs to be improved. The pricing of the high-end access points should be lowered to make them more competitive. In the next release of this solution, I would like to see a more detailed spectrum analysis.
One complaint that we have is the lack of cloud-based management. Due to the price of a controller, renewing the solution had become expensive.
From the user point of view, sometimes we face a little bit of a challenge in terms of the channels selection for Ruckus. When we have installed all of the APs outdoors, those channels are actually empty in different numbers, so sometimes we found this challenging for getting paired between these point to point communications. If there is any way we can get some proprietary channels or some IT this interruption will not be there. That would be really fantastic for more reliable connectivity.
The biggest adjustment improvement will come from a price adjustment because the price is quite high; it feels like premium pricing. I suggest shaving off 10 percent to 20 percent. That would help grow users and increase the number of clients. I'd also like to see some sort of product costing and billing ability. Because not all of the users have their own producer version. We can take care of this on our end. Once we are able to bill clients for this service I think deployment will potentially go smoother.
It's always good to have more analytics and reporting right on the controller when possible. However, Ruckus already has pretty good capabilities in that area as well as an excellent big data analytics engine with SmartCell Insight.
I suggest more controlling features on the controller. The menu of the performance must be improved, as well.
It is too costly.
The only complaint I have about Ruckus is the price, but considering other enterprise WiFi products are similarly priced, I feel Ruckus is a superior product I don’t have much to complain about. The latest ZoneDirector firmware addressed all of the tiny issues I hated in older releases.
Sometimes doing mass changes on their products can be challenging. Ruckus should spend more time developing methods to give enterprises more control over making needed changes quickly and easily. Their documentation also needs to be improved.