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 solution also allows us to increase the power when it's too low."
"The Cisco solution is good, the new GUI looks good and we are seeing more telemetry from it."
"It runs well, without issue."
"Mobile anchoring and graphic user interface are helpful features."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's most valuable feature is it is robust."
"We find the product to be stable."
"The initial setup was really easy and straightforward."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's best feature is the integration with other Cisco products."
"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."
"Overall, it's a straightforward solution."
"The ease of the setup is one of its most valuable aspects."
"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."
"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."
"Installation is easy with seamless integration of additional APs."
"The indoor WiFi connection works well."
"The setup is quite simple."
"The support of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Pricing is very high with Cisco products. It's something that many people complain about. They should work to make it more affordable."
"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."
"Technical support could be more helpful."
"The price could be better."
"We found the initial setup to be a bit complex due to the CLI commands."
"The initial setup and deployment should be easier."
"It is expensive."
"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."
"I would like to see more cloud features that some of the other competitors such as Cisco Meraki have that are very nice."
"The solution needs to improve its features and offer more to the customer."
"This solution should be more robust when it comes to connectivity and improve wireless technology."
"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."
"The range and maybe the quality of the signal can be improved. I had a feeling that the range wasn't long enough. Unfortunately, beyond a certain range, the signal was too weak. If I'm not mistaken, it must have been something like 100 or more than 100 meters, but I'm not sure. So, one improvement I wish for this equipment is to have a longer range, but that could mainly be due to the model we're using."
"They have access points that are in the firewalls, and I believe the firewalls could be significantly better. They use the USG firewall, which I believe is a poor device. VPNs for example, it is really bad, it is difficult to configure, and I don't like them at all."
"Sometimes we have some micro breaks we do not know what causes them."
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.