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."Provides good visibility and insights into what is happening."
"The program is very stable."
"I like that it's a very stable solution."
"Mobile anchoring and graphic user interface are helpful features."
"The most valuable features are CleanAir, Rogue Detection, and the auto-calculation of RF."
"The network management is good. We use it to control access, channels, and phones and limit bandwidth."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's best features are simple management, the cloud base, dashboards, and reliability."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's most valuable feature is it is robust."
"Their hardware is very good."
"I like that it's cheaper and inexpensive. It's also easy to use."
"It is very stable and the equipment lasts quite a long time."
"We have not had an issue with Ubiquiti Wireless since we have been using it. The solution is highly reliable."
"The solution is easy to use and flexible."
"It functions properly and includes centralized management for access points and switches."
"Easy to set up and maintain and simple to configure."
"It has a decent portal, and it is usable."
"Documentation is an area that needs review. It should be more dynamic and it should be easier."
"The pricing of the solution could always be better."
"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."
"The initial setup and deployment should be easier."
"A lot of the time, for users, it comes down to pricing. Many would like to see it be a bit less costly."
"We have had some problems connecting to the internet with Cisco Wireless WAN, but it is not the equipment or configuration. Additionally, the integration with access control security could improve."
"The price could be better."
"It can be complicated to configure the solution."
"This solution should be more robust when it comes to connectivity and improve wireless technology."
"Difficult to see error logs and locate the problem."
"I would like to see more cloud features that some of the other competitors such as Cisco Meraki have that are very nice."
"Ubiquiti could develop a more elaborate firewall solution. Their firewall solutions at the moment are entry-level. Maybe they don't want to bring those products in because many people prefer putting a third-party firewall into a solution like that. We usually do."
"They should make more advanced features for the power users. I am a technician and I am functional, but I do need some features that I find only in Microsoft."
"There's one feature missing and that is automatic channel assignment."
"The production is not very stable in our experience."
"There isn't any technical support."
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.