Aruba Wireless and Cisco Wireless are industry leaders, offering robust solutions for building and managing wireless networks. Users prefer the robust stability of Cisco Wireless after a longer setup process, while Aruba Wireless offers quicker deployment with seamless integration and strong security features. Cisco Wireless excels in performance and customization options, but needs improvement in range and connectivity. Consider your existing network infrastructure. If you heavily rely on Cisco products, Cisco Wireless might offer smoother integration.
The summary above is based on 64 interviews we conducted recently with Cisco Wireless and Aruba Wireless users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of Juniper Mist is the Virtual Network Assistant, powered by artificial intelligence."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is Marvis, the AI-driven network management system."
"It provides private network access, helping us protect our company’s devices."
"The solution is pretty generic and easy to use."
"You can easily monitor, manage, and cover all your IT equipment."
"With Mist, every Wednesday they roll out new features."
"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."
"Aruba is an industry leader. The hardware is on par, and its performance is also on par with anybody else. The Aruba brand really only focuses on wireless, so they're not competing their R&D for switching data center products and cloud security. They're really focused on that and their underlying key pieces. They provide a role-based authentication that is native to the controller. A lot of other systems don't do that. They won't provide you the ability to basically have everybody join the network, regardless of whether or not they share the same network space, the SSID, or the wireless LAN. You can segment it down to a specific user role based on any kind of attributes that you like. That's their differentiator. If you need per user, per device, or per port segmentation, you can get that with Aruba. There isn't another vendor who does it."
"It offers an easy initial setup."
"The most valuable feature of Aruba Wireless is application monitoring."
"Stability and its ability to handle more devices has been an improvement for our organization."
"The access points support a high number of connected clients."
"The most valuable feature of Aruba Wireless is the controller. It is easy to use."
"Denies inter-user traffic: It easily blocks traffic between users."
"It is easy to install and deploy."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its security"
"We were able to utilize the elements of the core and provide a solution to our customers similar to that of Cisco Meraki."
"It is a very stable solution."
"Cisco Wireless is reliable and stable."
"I find this solution easy to configure and use."
"Support is fantastic. They are helpful and responsive."
"It gave us the ability to view wireless traffic, unwanted devices on the network, and how they affected overall network performance."
"The tool's most valuable features are security, flexibility, user activity, and high bandwidth."
"The solution is expensive."
"If you want to do more specific stuff, it's a bit limited."
"Improving third-party integration is key for Juniper Mist's next release."
"There is room for improvement in terms of support and installation."
"The pricing is very high in the Indian market."
"The price could be better."
"I need a bit more time with it before criticizing the features."
"The pricing should be made cheaper."
"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."
"I would have liked to see more manufacturer driven events and outings to drive brand recognition and familiarity."
"When we connect to Wi-Fi devices it could be easier because sometimes, it takes a lot of time to complete."
"There is a long queue whenever we reach out to support, and we have to wait for them to answer calls. Once we get in touch with them, we have to coordinate with different teams, so our engineers struggle to understand who are the correct team members. I think support is another area where Aruba needs to improve."
"The management system would be better if it were more polished, if it had a better interface like, for example, Meraki"
"We have had issues with the availability of the equipment."
"Better integration between the controller and the ClearPass portal would be a nice change."
"The Aruba Central cloud portal needs a lot of work. It is complicated to navigate."
"It was expensive. Considering the challenges faced in third-world countries like Pakistan or India, cheaper solutions are preferred."
"The web interface for Cisco controllers could be better. It could be more user-friendly. Sometimes I have to remember how to access some functionalities or how to enable or execute some functions. If it were more user-friendly it would save time."
"There are some features I would like to have in Cisco Wireless, such as Telemetry and other IoT. However, they are available in the new version of the solution."
"The reporting of the product could be improved. When I needed to troubleshoot, I couldn't get sufficient information from the controller."
"The new licensing has no added value and seems to be Cisco's effort to take advantage of customers."
"The price could be better."
"The configuration interface could be easier. They should make roaming easier and should fix it so that when you cross a building you can keep the signal."
"Improvement needed in RRM, ATF, Ortho-Polarization, AP concurrent client processing."
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 146 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.