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."I like that it has integrated the cost of our network access."
"This is the most stable product in the market."
"The security and the capabilities of the platform are the most valuable features."
"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."
"The initial setup is straightforward, and you need to spend around six to 10 weeks to set up one controller."
"Recently, the most valuable and in-demand feature that users are enjoying is WiFi 6 support on the access points. The other good thing about Cisco Wireless LAN is how easily it provides clean access to the WiFi network."
"Granularity of standardization and technical controls."
"The devices are all of good quality."
"It offers very good pricing."
"It functions properly and includes centralized management for access points and switches."
"In general, the setup process is straightforward."
"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."
"Their hardware is very good."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is a simple and useful tool that offers good performance."
"Installation is easy with seamless integration of additional APs."
"The ease of the setup is one of its most valuable aspects."
"It needs to increase its strength in capacity."
"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."
"Improvements can be made in the wireless fabric."
"We cannot use wireless for the servers due to potential performance issues. They must be connected via fiber."
"The DNA space is a separate license cost, which should be included in the license."
"The reporting feature needs improvement, especially adding information with regards to availability uptime."
"There are some limitations with scaling the on-premises version - if you want to scale, you need to change the hardware and purchase a new wireless controller at an additional cost."
"The integration support technology should be improved."
"One of the Ubiquiti access points broke down, and it can't be used. It's still down now, so overall Ubiquiti hasn't been a good experience for me."
"This solution should be more robust when it comes to connectivity and improve wireless technology."
"A contract solution with 24/7 support would greatly benefit users, especially in critical situations requiring immediate assistance."
"The strength of the routers could be improved. When it comes to serious routing, the solution doesn't measure up to the big guys like Juniper and Cisco, but we don't expect it to."
"The mesh configuration and WiFi 6 coverage should be improved."
"The documentation and support provided by the solution areas of concern where improvements are required."
"Tech support is mostly remote and could be better."
"Ubiquiti isn't as good for larger networks as any of the other wireless solutions. It lacks performance, coverage, and some of the advanced capabilities other solutions have."
Cisco Wireless WAN is ranked 4th in Wireless WAN with 60 reviews while Ubiquiti Wireless is ranked 1st in Wireless WAN with 67 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.