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."The most valuable feature is the ease of configuration."
"Granularity of standardization and technical controls."
"The solution offers very good performance, especially for iPhones."
"Reliability and visibility in the product are most valuable. We are able to see client performance, signal strength for clients, and things like that."
"The most valuable feature of Cisco Wireless WAN is the ease of management."
"It just gives you the ability to use it around the office without being tied up to an actual physical connection."
"The most valuable features are CleanAir, Rogue Detection, and the auto-calculation of RF."
"Stability is one aspect that I find very valuable."
"This access point provides internet to every lab on campus, including the computer laboratory"
"The most valuable feature is more access points."
"Easy to set up and maintain and simple to configure."
"We had a client with a power plant. Different wireless devices from various brands caused problems. We fixed it using the Ubiquiti Wireless UDM controller and installed 75 access points and antennas."
"It has a decent portal, and it is usable."
"The most valuable features are ease of deployment, ease of use, and the interface."
"Ubiquiti Wireless is very scalable. I don't know that there's a limit to the scalability. We just add more data switches to power more access points. We haven't come across a situation where it can't handle the Ubiquiti equipment."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of setup."
"The cloud interoperability needs improvement."
"The pricing could be improved in future releases. It's quite expensive."
"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."
"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 network management system is not great."
"The solution could be more stable."
"Cisco Wireless WAN would be improved with the ability to monitor new usernames, product registrations, and flow traffic."
"It is expensive."
"The cost is on the higher side and could be lower."
"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."
"Could be more secure and the controller more user-friendly."
"Difficult to see error logs and locate the problem."
"This might not be the best solution for a very large organization."
"In Ukraine at least, it's a problem when it comes to buying the hardware. For example, I made a request for 20 switches a few months ago. The solution needs to have worldwide availability."
"My company has to wait for a response from the product's support team. From an improvement perspective, the product's support team should be quicker to respond."
"The solution should offer simpler management for guests. That would be helpful in the hospitality industry, for example."
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.