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 performance of the solution is valuable."
"The most valuable features are user and handling capacity, indoor and outdoor access points and antennas, and the inbuilt intrusion prevention system."
"The most valuable features of Cisco Wireless WAN are its security functionality. We have a lab environment and we have to provide different authentications to the users which are easy to manage. Additionally, there is a lot of useful automation embedded into the system."
"I like that it has integrated the cost of our network access."
"Cisco Wireless access points are highly stable with a wide coverage area."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's best feature is the integration with other Cisco products."
"The program is very stable."
"Reliability and visibility in the product are most valuable. We are able to see client performance, signal strength for clients, and things like that."
"It functions properly and includes centralized management for access points and switches."
"Very simple, very basic setup for Ubiquiti Wireless. Its performance in a home or small business setting with fewer access points is fantastic."
"Ubiquiti is easier to install than Mikrotik."
"Ubiquiti Wireless is easy to use, it's stable and flexible, and the performance is great. It is scalable as well."
"It has a user-friendly interface."
"The pricing of the solution is excellent. It offers a great value."
"I have found the most valuable features to be the ability to use the main centralized administration process and the internet."
"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."
"The support of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The technical scalability is easy, but the license scalability is quite tricky."
"The console interface is not very user-friendly. It's a bit complex and difficult to navigate."
"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."
"Improvements can be made in the wireless fabric."
"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."
"There is no centralized management for multiple wireless control deployments or a user tracking feature."
"The technical support is less than stellar."
"Tech support is mostly remote and could be better."
"There is really nothing wrong with the product but there are ways the utility and features can be expanded to meet future demands."
"Ubiquiti Wireless could improve by being more user-friendly and easy to use."
"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."
"There isn't any technical support."
"We use different models of the solution but in some cases, the security could improve in the adaptive portal, be a little more robust, and easier to use."
"The product lacks to offer reliability to users."
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.