We performed a comparison between Cisco 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."Granularity of standardization and technical controls."
"Mobile anchoring and graphic user interface are helpful features."
"Our university has experienced a positive return on investment, and I believe Cisco Wireless WAN will continue to benefit us for at least a decade."
"We have found that the product scales well."
"I like how the look and feel of the product is standardized to match other Cisco solutions."
"The network management is good. We use it to control access, channels, and phones and limit bandwidth."
"I am impressed with the tool's packet tracing so that connection with the devices is always consistent."
"The devices are all of good quality."
"The solution has an easy configuration."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of setup."
"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."
"This access point provides internet to every lab on campus, including the computer laboratory"
"I have found the most valuable features to be the ability to use the main centralized administration process and the internet."
"What I found most valuable in Ubiquiti Wireless is that it's priced competitively, compared to other brands available in the market. From a price competitiveness standpoint, it's a product I would recommend. I also find Ubiquiti Wireless quite reliable, at least for me using it as a home access point, it seems to serve its purpose. I also like that with Ubiquiti Wireless, you can build a very modular network, so you could change out your router to use a Ubiquiti router if you want to. The solution also has gateway equipment and all, so I like the modular concept of Ubiquiti Wireless. Another feature I find valuable in the solution is monitoring. It is pretty good. For example, as a home user, I have the unified app on my computer, so I'm able to watch how my APs are performing."
"Ubiquiti Wireless is extremely easy to set up."
"The range is usually pretty good, which is the most important thing to use because more or less, all wireless access points are the same."
"The reporting feature needs improvement, especially adding information with regards to availability uptime."
"We cannot use wireless for the servers due to potential performance issues. They must be connected via fiber."
"The cost and support should be improved, and there should be support for the 6E standard."
"You cannot go to different versions or different access points. 9115s cannot interact with 9120s, and 9130s can interact with 9115s. You can add or remove as many subordinates as you want."
"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 pricing is a bit high."
"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."
"Include more managing features within the product, rather than having to purchase them as extras."
"The accessibility to technical support could be better."
"Better security is important because we need to have some degree of control over who is connected and how we can restrict the level of connectivity."
"Everything needs to be professionally done."
"There should be an easier way to contact the support. If we need to do something on it, it will be easier and faster if there is a support number to call. Currently, their support is mostly through email or chat. If there is a hotline that you can call directly, that would be good. It will really help a lot. They should also include more after-sales support. They can maybe also provide more details on what's happening with the network."
"The external devices, the outdoor devices, are not so rugged. For example, for the weather that we have here in Florida, it doesn't hold up well even though it is supposed to be designed for outdoor use."
"The network setup could be a little easier and more straightforward."
"I would like to see this solution have any kind of captive portal on the tool or user accounting tool. This would be quite useful for companies."
"t does not have traffic shaping or traffic policies in its wireless requirements."
Cisco Wireless WAN is ranked 4th in Wireless WAN with 61 reviews while Ubiquiti Wireless is ranked 1st in Wireless WAN with 68 reviews. Cisco Wireless WAN is rated 8.2, while Ubiquiti Wireless is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Wireless WAN writes "It's a reliable, user-friendly solution". 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 ". Cisco Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium Networks Wireless WAN and Fortinet FortiExtender, whereas Ubiquiti Wireless is most compared with Ruckus Wireless WAN, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, Cambium Networks Wireless WAN and Aruba Wireless. See our Cisco 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.