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."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."
"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."
"This stability is one of the major reasons to stick with this product."
"Cisco wireless is stable, easy to use, and simple to configure. They have an outstanding GUI."
"Cisco Wireless WAN is stable and scalable, and the support received is good."
"The program is very stable."
"The most valuable features are coverage and reliability."
"I like that it's a very stable solution."
"Their hardware is very good."
"Having dual-band is important. Having compatibility with very old equipment on certain frequencies, for example on 2.4 and 5.8."
"Ubiquiti Wireless is extremely easy to set up."
"We have found the product to be scalable."
"Easy to set up and maintain and simple to configure."
"The scalability of Ubiquiti Wireless is very good. We can add and transfer access points, it is highly scalable."
"It offers very good pricing."
"The solution is easy to use and flexible."
"The price of Cisco Wireless WAN could improve, it is expensive."
"The support of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"I hope Cisco can improve the capacity to service a high density of users in a small area, as currently we have difficulties with this."
"We did have issues with the product that made us concerned about the overall stability."
"The price could be better."
"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 DNA space is a separate license cost, which should be included in the license."
"Technical support could be more helpful."
"The technical support is less than stellar."
"We have an issue with Ubiquiti Wireless every three to five months for one of the access points."
"The solution has very good product lines. However, it feels like some models overlap. For example, a new model is announced after three months, and another new model is announced shortly after. So, the release cycle feels too short, and some features overlap. Overall, the products are very good and reliable."
"This might not be the best solution for a very large organization."
"The Unifi controller software has a small issue."
"This solution should be more robust when it comes to connectivity and improve wireless technology."
"Some of our customers have reported problems with their outdoor WiFi connections."
"The technical support services need improvement."
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.