We performed a comparison between Aruba Wireless and Cisco Wireless based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: When comparing Aruba Wireless and Cisco Wireless, it is evident that Cisco Wireless is the more popular choice. While both have great features, users of Cisco Wireless seem to find fewer things lacking with it and are generally satisfied. In regards to service and support as well, Cisco users are happy with the service they receive. Users do feel that it is an expensive solution, however.
"The artificial intelligence feature is very good."
"The solution is pretty generic and easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of Juniper Wireless Access Points (AP Series) is the ability to troubleshoot ports on the network. Additionally, when there is an update on the APs they are able to reboot quickly reducing downtime. Other solutions have a longer downtime when updates are done."
"The AI capabilities of Mist Wireless are superior to other OEMs."
"You can easily monitor, manage, and cover all your IT equipment."
"With Mist, every Wednesday they roll out new features."
"In terms of reporting, in terms of all the user reports, it's very rich."
"The solution is stable."
"Aruba is easier than Juniper."
"Aruba is outstanding, especially when it comes to the hospitality sectors."
"The most valuable features of Aruba Wireless are the seamless feature and the concurrent user."
"One advantage is the built-in Zigbee-based IoT functionality. You don't need an additional dongle to enable that option."
"The solution provides a clear path to instant wireless."
"The technical support is 24/7 from the UA."
"The access points support a high number of connected clients."
"The Airwave is the best feature for a single management point for all APs in the environment."
"The product is compatible with a lot of mobile devices."
"This increased mobility has helped our organization. We can talk to one another from different locations and stay in constant contact and with employees across the enterprise. Everyone has access to up-to-the-minute communications and all documents and applications on our network."
"Cisco Wireless solutions are easy to use."
"The product has valuable features for integration and authentication."
"The most valuable features are that it is easy to install and the range is good."
"Cisco Wireless technology allows us to logically segregate networks, to segregate the traffic between multiple types of endpoint devices, connected to the network. For example, corporate laptops are connected to one network, corporate iPhones will go through a different network."
"The CleanAir features and the fast transition."
"I like that Cisco Wireless is easy to implement. If you get stuck with any issues, they have ample documentation on the internet. It's easy to implement, and Cisco documentation is easily accessible."
"I need a bit more time with it before criticizing the features."
"The pricing should be made cheaper."
"The product should include adaptive Wi-Fi to show a more accurate location."
"The solution is expensive."
"There is room for improvement in terms of support and installation."
"Juniper Mist Wireless Access Points’ support services need improvement."
"Juniper Wireless AP can improve by continually improving its reporting and integration with other systems."
"Juniper Wireless Access Points (AP Series) could improve if the MIST platform had a built-in master key. This would be an advantage."
"Our customers ask for a security portfolio, which the tool doesn't have."
"The logging is hard to read when troubleshooting issues."
"The solution could be improved on the security side."
"Better integration with equipment from other vendors would ease the deployment process in some cases."
"Currently, the stability of the code is the basic underlying problem for us. They had an 8.6 release that came out two weeks ago, but we had to migrate twice because the code wasn't stable. We can't get things to work the same way. Version 8 was a big change for them. They made a change so that it is forced to be a managed hierarchical system. It means that you make changes at the top, and it pushes them downstream. There are a lot of problems with the 8.6 version code. I ran into four bugs in one week and was informed that we should just move onto the next one because all of those fixes have taken place. The feedback loop for fixes is not always really relayed back to you. I don't have a lot of strong things to say about version 8.6. When we had version 6, the controller was pretty much rock solid. We had no problems. We made a heavy investment to migrate a lot of stuff to take advantage of things like WPA3, Wi-Fi 6, and all that kind of stuff, and we haven't been able to turn those features on because we are not confident that they are going to work just yet. So, right now, we're still very much stumbling through the version 8.6 code and just trying to make sure that it is safe before we turn on some of those features. In terms of the marketplace, they are one of the top three leaders. In some respects, one of the things that they focus on is wireless. Therefore, there are some things that should be beyond reproach, as far as I'm concerned. In terms of the stability of the code, there are always going to be bugs, but the core stability of the code needs to be there. When it is not stable, that's a real problem for me because you lose a lot of confidence in the products."
"They could work on energy consumption as this equipment needs a lot of energy."
"What needs improvement in Aruba Wireless is its access point, in particular, it should have more flexibility. Aruba Wireless has Campus AP, Instant AP, and Unified AP, but it would be better if the product has a generic access point that you can manage over the cloud, on-premise, etc. Another area for improvement in Aruba Wireless is scalability. In terms of what additional features I'd like to see in the product, I'm unsure if it's already on the roadmap, but if possible, it would be good to have an SD-WAN functionality on the AP in Aruba Wireless."
"The enterprise controller. I'm planning on getting more information on that."
"And from an administration point of view, it is a very tedious job to check on each and every control. We have around 30 or 40 controls in our network."
"The solution is stable but it could be improved. However, this could be because there are not enough APs."
"There is a problem with the controller. When we have to restart the controller, it does not show the time. We have to manually configure the time when we restart it. I have read about this issue, to get some information, and all answers are about having to connect it with a time server, which is very difficult."
"Code stability is something that needs to be improved."
"The solution could be cheaper and have a better web interface."
"There are performance issues, particularly with video calls where throughput is not great."
"For all products on the market, the availability of the products may not be ideal. We're waiting on a lot of products simply due to the fact that there's a material shortage. We've ordered products and have had to wait three or four months for anything to get delivered. This is not just Cisco. It's a problem on the market for all components which include semiconductors."
"The technical support could be better. They aren't as helpful as they need to be when we run into issues."
More Juniper Mist Wireless Access Points Pricing and Cost Advice →
Aruba Wireless is ranked 1st in Wireless LAN with 138 reviews while Cisco Wireless is ranked 2nd in Wireless LAN with 143 reviews. Aruba Wireless is rated 8.4, while Cisco Wireless is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Aruba Wireless writes "The portal for centralized management and virtual controller for APs are very valuable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Wireless writes "Allows us to deploy a wide range of wireless products with stable WiFi". Aruba Wireless is most compared with Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, Ruckus Wireless, Ubiquiti WLAN, Huawei Wireless and Mist AI and Cloud, whereas Cisco Wireless is most compared with Ruckus Wireless, Ubiquiti WLAN, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, Mist AI and Cloud and Omada Access Points. See our Aruba Wireless vs. Cisco Wireless report.
See our list of best Wireless LAN vendors.
We monitor all Wireless LAN 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.
On the most basic level, Cisco Wireless can offer a rather straightforward initial setup. In the span of about three hours, the basic framework can be set up. Step-by-step instructions are available to ease the deployment of the Cisco wireless network. A small business will now be able to make use of this wireless product without being worried about having to make a massive investment of either time or resources. This peace of mind extends to the actual maintenance of the product as well. Cisco wireless’s network does not require very much in the way of maintenance. It does require occasional upgrades to keep it running smoothly, but other than that, a team tasked with maintaining it has very little to worry about. Organizations of all sizes will be able to benefit from both of these aspects of Cisco wireless’s design.
Cisco wireless provides a very robust service that will continue to run over long periods of time and under heavy usage. Furthermore, the teams that are responsible for assisting users and resolving any potential issues that may arise are highly professional. These are two additional features that make Cisco wireless a valuable product. The wireless service is capable of running for years without any real need for replacements to be made to the hardware.
Although no system is perfect, Cisco’s Wireless network shows that products can still be made to last. Long spans of time can pass without issues arising. When they do, Cisco’s technical support team is well-equipped to help handle it. They respond quickly to inquiries and they are extremely knowledgeable. They bring the kind of professionalism that one would hope to have in a product’s support team.
Aruba Wireless can support many devices and provide the features that one would expect for this type of product. It is relatively cheap when compared to other products like Cisco Wireless. For that relatively cheap price, Aruba offers hardware whose performance can match anything offered by its competitors. It advertises what it can do and follows through with its promises. It is also very easy to configure. However, they do not guide users in different industries through the best practices that they should be employing when using Aruba Wireless.
Conclusion
Cisco Wireless offers an effective service. In terms of cost it is more expensive than Aruba Wireless. They both have a lot to offer. The price tag might just be the deciding factor.
Aruba is our choice for our WIFI solution as Aruba has a lot of features that can do the same with Meraki.
Aruba is saving costs vs Meraki in a long time operation.