We performed a comparison between Cisco Wireless WAN and Ruckus Wireless WAN 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 is stable and scalable, and the support received is good."
"The program is very stable."
"It's a small feature, but Cisco allows me to see access points with blinking lights. This shows me which access point is which."
"The solution also allows us to increase the power when it's too low."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's best feature is the integration with other Cisco products."
"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."
"We used everything Cisco, not just wireless. It works great with other Cisco tools."
"Our most valuable feature involves the 802.11ac, which operates at a very high level and has updated technology."
"One of the best features of Ruckus Wireless WAN that customers are interested in is the adaptive antenna called BeamFlex. Ruckus Wireless WAN also has the best management platform, and even if there are thousands of users of the solution, it's very easy to manage on Ruckus Wireless WAN. It can also support third-party equipment. It's an all-in-one solution and it has IoT and secure access capabilities. Upgrading the network to Ruckus Wireless WAN is also easy."
"Its build quality is good and quite robust."
"The deployment access in the local system is about 200 access points. External access points is more. The number is huge. There about 1,000 users in total."
"Ruckus Wireless WAN's best feature is its virtual controller."
"Tech support is good."
"The ratio of highest quality to value is the most valuable."
"Scalability is a valuable feature."
"The analytic solution is good and should be improving further."
"It can be complex to set up."
"Pricing is very high with Cisco products. It's something that many people complain about. They should work to make it more affordable."
"The price could be better."
"The only disadvantage of Cisco is maybe the cost."
"If there's a problem, it's usually when Cisco pushes out updates. The users don't always push the updates to their computer, and it causes some issues. It's reliable as long as everyone is doing what they're supposed to."
"In terms of improvement, there is always something that could be enhanced. For example, we can't change wireless channels in Cisco Meraki due to a recent standard update."
"We feel that Cisco is quite expensive, so we're looking for a reasonable alternative. We are considering Aruba and some other brands that are less expensive. Cisco works fine, but the issue is the annual licensing and support costs."
"We did have issues with the product that made us concerned about the overall stability."
"What needs improvement in Ruckus Wireless WAN is the initial setup. It could be easier. Availability is also another area for improvement in the product. Another huge disadvantage of Ruckus Wireless WAN is the cost you must continuously pay for the licenses."
"The captive portal should be more customizable because right now, it is very limited."
"The pricing, when compared to Ubiquiti, isn't competitive enough. If you want to have a Government or Public sector client they will ask why they should pay 200 euros if they can get something for 40 euros."
"I would like to see built-in Wi-Fi."
"They could include a firewall feature in the next release but even there it's not really necessary"
"I would not consider this solution to be stable."
"So far, I find Ruckus Wireless WAN okay in terms of the technology and existing business network, but licensing could be more flexible, especially the IoT license that was changed to adapt to the IoT Controller and sensor subscription. The previous licensing method for Ruckus Wireless WAN was better. In my opinion, it wasn't a good decision to change it because the customer prefers the previous licensing over the current licensing. It's not only about the money in terms of licensing, but also about flexibility. The latest license change isn't as flexible. I also found the cloud solution not partner-friendly, so that could also be improved. Another area for improvement in Ruckus Wireless WAN is answering partner requests because currently, it doesn't seem easy for them. What I'd like to see in the next release of the solution is the AP having its MQTT forwarder. Ruckus Wireless WAN AP supports IoT modules now and to use the IoT modules, you need all IoT data to pass through the IoT Controller. If I could forward that IoT data directly to my environment, similar to what you can do with other solutions, that would be great."
"The solution needs to offer more analytics."
Cisco Wireless WAN is ranked 4th in Wireless WAN with 61 reviews while Ruckus Wireless WAN is ranked 2nd in Wireless WAN with 45 reviews. Cisco Wireless WAN is rated 8.2, while Ruckus Wireless WAN 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 Ruckus Wireless WAN writes " Offers robust outdoor connectivity, but signal strength and support need improvement". Cisco Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium Networks Wireless WAN, Fortinet FortiExtender and Ubiquiti Wireless, whereas Ruckus Wireless WAN is most compared with Ubiquiti Wireless, Cambium Networks Wireless WAN and HPE Wireless WAN. See our Cisco Wireless WAN vs. Ruckus Wireless WAN 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.