We performed a comparison between Cisco Wireless WAN and Fortinet FortiExtender 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."Mobile anchoring and graphic user interface are helpful features."
"The initial setup was really easy and straightforward."
"We don't see many troubleshooting issues. Normally, it's a user error when it comes to the JSS or the VPN. Once they log into the system or they get on the internet, then they log directly into the JSS, so they can do their work."
"I use Cisco because of its reliability."
"We have found that the product scales well."
"We find the product to be stable."
"The solution offers very good performance, especially for iPhones."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's most valuable feature is it is robust."
"The initial setup was was just beautiful. It was straightforward."
"The product is easy to use and easy to integrate."
"The solution is extremely user-friendly."
"You don't need to have two different vendors to interoperate and get into comparability issues or inter-operability issues."
"Management can be carried out from a central point."
"For me, the best feature of Fortinet FortiExtender is its integration with an external solution such as a 5G LTE broadband modem, wired modem, and cellular network. I also like that the product can be integrated into one device or a unified device, and that is one of its best features because it allows you to manage and centralize the control of every device."
"The most valuable feature will be that it works."
"We appreciate that this solution can be used as an active secondary link as well as a backup."
"The coverage area on some of the low-end access points isn't the best. The high-end ones are fine, but we've had bad experiences on the other ones."
"There are limitations on the SSIDs that could improve. We cannot enable two ways of authenticating users on one SSID. For a number of places, we have to provide different modes of certification for the user which requires us to create another SSID for the broadcast."
"Technical support could be more helpful."
"There are some limitations with scaling the on-premises version - if you want to scale, you need to change the hardware and purchase a new wireless controller at an additional cost."
"We would like to have the lead times improved."
"The pricing of the solution could always be better."
"The cost and support should be improved, and there should be support for the 6E standard."
"The solution could lower its pricing to make it more affordable."
"What most of my clients are telling me is the price is a problem."
"The support could be faster and more responsive."
"The solution would be a lot better if it was a little bit more intuitive. Additionally, the help menu would be a lot better if it was easier to identify the items that I was looking for. I find the graphical interface a little bit difficult to navigate. And I find the font that is used on the HTML interface not conducive to being able to be read in low light situations."
"The engineering of the solution has some negative points, especially in terms of troubleshooting. It's difficult to troubleshoot when we have a problem. It's not like other products like Cisco or Palo Alto which make troubleshooting much easier."
"There is a huge downside because we need to remove and insert the SIM to get it working."
"I would like to see them make it smaller in the next release so that it has a smaller footprint for mobile clients."
"We would like to see some improvement in the price for 5G models, as they are currently very expensive."
"Though Fortinet FortiExtender has some security features, the product could still be improved by adding features similar to those in FortiGuard, such as antivirus, intrusion, prevention, and detection, as well as web filtering features. The product is also not as user-friendly, so that's another area for improvement. In the FortiGate UTM solution of Fortinet, there's software-defined or SD-WAN, and in the next release of Fortinet FortiExtender, I'd like to see SD-WAN embedded in the product. Most of the communication in Fortinet FortiExtender is related to WAN and Edge, so having an SD-WAN function in the product would be useful for integrating and controlling WAN communication."
Cisco Wireless WAN is ranked 4th in Wireless WAN with 61 reviews while Fortinet FortiExtender is ranked 6th in Wireless WAN with 8 reviews. Cisco Wireless WAN is rated 8.2, while Fortinet FortiExtender is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco Wireless WAN writes "It's a reliable, user-friendly solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortinet FortiExtender writes "Seamless with excellent integration capabilities and flexibility". Cisco Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium Networks Wireless WAN and Ubiquiti Wireless, whereas Fortinet FortiExtender is most compared with . See our Cisco Wireless WAN vs. Fortinet FortiExtender 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.