We performed a comparison between Cisco Wireless WAN and Ubiquiti Wireless based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Wireless WAN solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Cisco Wireless access points are highly stable with a wide coverage area."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"The product can scale well."
"The most valuable feature of Cisco Wireless WAN is the ease of management."
"The most valuable features for me are the ease of operation and scalability."
"I use Cisco because of its reliability."
"I like that it's a very stable solution."
"The performance of the solution is valuable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is a simple and useful tool that offers good performance."
"This access point provides internet to every lab on campus, including the computer laboratory"
"I would say that the user experience is pretty good in this solution as well as the roaming solution part of it."
"It's very easy to deploy."
"I have found the most valuable features to be the ability to use the main centralized administration process and the internet."
"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."
"The scalability of Ubiquiti Wireless is very good. We can add and transfer access points, it is highly scalable."
"It is very stable and the equipment lasts quite a long time."
"The price could be better."
"If there's a problem, it's usually when Cisco pushes out updates. The users don't always push the updates to their computer, and it causes some issues. It's reliable as long as everyone is doing what they're supposed to."
"The new platform of Cisco Wireless WAN I did not like, there weren't many features available. The online platform has more options."
"Technical support could be more helpful."
"In terms of improvement, there is always something that could be enhanced. For example, we can't change wireless channels in Cisco Meraki due to a recent standard update."
"We did have issues with the product that made us concerned about the overall stability."
"The worst thing about the Cisco controllers is that they only have two ports."
"We feel that Cisco is quite expensive, so we're looking for a reasonable alternative. We are considering Aruba and some other brands that are less expensive. Cisco works fine, but the issue is the annual licensing and support costs."
"The product lacks to offer reliability to users."
"The network setup could be a little easier and more straightforward."
"Could be more secure and the controller more user-friendly."
"They should make more advanced features for the power users. I am a technician and I am functional, but I do need some features that I find only in Microsoft."
"I would like a better explanation or better documentation on how to use the onboard spectrum analyzer."
"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."
"The technical support services need improvement."
"I would like local support from the parent company."
Cisco Wireless WAN is ranked 4th in Wireless WAN with 61 reviews while Ubiquiti Wireless is ranked 1st in Wireless WAN with 68 reviews. Cisco Wireless WAN is rated 8.2, while Ubiquiti Wireless is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Wireless WAN writes "Widely available and has a straightforward setup". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ubiquiti Wireless writes "It's cheap and easy to use but isn't suitable for large deployments or complex use cases ". Cisco Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium Networks Wireless WAN and Fortinet FortiExtender, whereas Ubiquiti Wireless is most compared with Ruckus Wireless WAN, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, Cambium Networks Wireless WAN and Aruba Wireless. See our Cisco Wireless WAN vs. Ubiquiti Wireless report.
See our list of best Wireless WAN vendors.
We monitor all Wireless WAN reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.