We performed a comparison between HPE 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."The reliability is good."
"It's easy to use."
"The tool is easy to manage."
"The main benefit of this product is the lifetime warranty, up to 99 years. For example, if your switch card fails after 10 years, and the hardware fails, it will be replaced with the very same switch or the equivalent model available at the time."
"The performance is good."
"The most valuable features of this solution are it supports the newest virus technology, which helps with bandwidth, and is very stable."
"What's most valuable in HPE Wireless WAN is that it works fine for customers with existing HPE controllers."
"The support has been responsive and helpful."
"The stability and performance are great."
"This is a high-quality solution that allows us to provide wifi access points in challenging areas."
"It is very stable and the equipment lasts quite a long time."
"It's very easy to use. The hardware is very easy to use, compared to Microsoft. Microsoft is more complicated. It has software that is okay if you are familiar with it. In my opinion, Ubiquiti hardware is more heavy duty then Microsoft."
"It functions properly and includes centralized management for access points and switches."
"Overall, it's a straightforward solution."
"I have found the most valuable features to be how user-friendly it is and how simple it is to do the configurations."
"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 price of HPE Wireless WAN should be reduced."
"The installation is easy. However, my implementation is complicated and you would need special training to complete it."
"The scalability is good, but it could improve."
"It should be a faster device."
"The tool must warn the management about unwanted traffic."
"It's very old-fashioned, which is why we have made the decision to replace it."
"HPE should improve performance and stability."
"I would say that the integration with other vendors in areas such as management or the visibility of other vendors in the management tools could be improved."
"t does not have traffic shaping or traffic policies in its wireless requirements."
"The mesh configuration and WiFi 6 coverage should be improved."
"My company has to wait for a response from the product's support team. From an improvement perspective, the product's support team should be quicker to respond."
"We'd like the solution to be more stable and have fewer firmware upgrades."
"Central monitoring is the main functionality that should be included in the product."
"A contract solution with 24/7 support would greatly benefit users, especially in critical situations requiring immediate assistance."
"Tech support is mostly remote and could be better."
"I would like local support from the parent company."
HPE Wireless WAN is ranked 7th in Wireless WAN with 18 reviews while Ubiquiti Wireless is ranked 1st in Wireless WAN with 68 reviews. HPE Wireless WAN is rated 7.8, while Ubiquiti Wireless is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of HPE Wireless WAN writes " A tool that ensures to provide seamless connectivity to its users". 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 ". HPE Wireless WAN is most compared with , whereas Ubiquiti Wireless is most compared with Ruckus Wireless WAN, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, Cambium Networks Wireless WAN, Aruba Wireless and ExtremeCloud IQ. See our HPE 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.