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."Cisco Wireless WAN's best features are simple management, the cloud base, dashboards, and reliability."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The access points and controllers are good."
"Cisco Wireless WAN is stable and scalable, and the support received is good."
"I also like that now you can add a cellular connection to the Cisco router. So, if your operator is down, you can now still have one connection in the office with the cellular module."
"It just gives you the ability to use it around the office without being tied up to an actual physical connection."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of configuration."
"The most valuable features of Cisco Wireless WAN are the dashboards, security functionality, and Cisco DNA center. The way the solution has integrated within the fabric of the environment with automation is very good."
"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."
"The product is easy to use and easy to integrate."
"The most valuable feature will be that it works."
"The solution is extremely user-friendly."
"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."
"We appreciate that this solution can be used as an active secondary link as well as a backup."
"The initial setup was was just beautiful. It was straightforward."
"The new platform of Cisco Wireless WAN I did not like, there weren't many features available. The online platform has more options."
"Cisco Wireless WAN would be improved with the ability to monitor new usernames, product registrations, and flow traffic."
"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."
"The only thing I would like to see is better high availability if you're using the embedded wireless controller."
"The product must be made more user-friendly."
"It can be complex to set up."
"The support of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The setup of Cisco Wireless WAN needs an expert. You need someone with experience to be able to work with Cisco Wireless solutions. It took approximately one to two weeks to implement the solution."
"I would like to see them make it smaller in the next release so that it has a smaller footprint for mobile clients."
"What most of my clients are telling me is the price is a problem."
"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."
"We would like to see some improvement in the price for 5G models, as they are currently very expensive."
"The support could be faster and more responsive."
"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."
"There is a huge downside because we need to remove and insert the SIM to get it working."
"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."
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.