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."We find the product to be stable."
"We don't see many troubleshooting issues. Normally, it's a user error when it comes to the JSS or the VPN. Once they log into the system or they get on the internet, then they log directly into the JSS, so they can do their work."
"Cisco Wireless WAN is stable and scalable, and the support received is good."
"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."
"Our most valuable feature involves the 802.11ac, which operates at a very high level and has updated technology."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's best features are simple management, the cloud base, dashboards, and reliability."
"I like how the look and feel of the product is standardized to match other Cisco solutions."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The main strength of Ubiquiti Wireless is the ease of use it provides to users."
"I have found the most valuable features to be the ability to use the main centralized administration process and the internet."
"The failure rate is very low on these devices - I've had them installed for five years and have only lost one out of a hundred."
"I have found the most valuable features to be how user-friendly it is and how simple it is to do the configurations."
"This is a high-quality solution that allows us to provide wifi access points in challenging areas."
"Ubiquiti Wireless is easy to use, it's stable and flexible, and the performance is great. It is scalable as well."
"Ubiquiti is intuitive. The management interface is user-friendly. You can easily make changes and do the things that need to be done."
"The solution offers us good situational awareness by providing information on user activity, signal strength, and all the data that you need to manage the system and understand issues."
"The reporting feature needs improvement, especially adding information with regards to availability uptime."
"Cisco Wireless WAN is expensive."
"The setup of Cisco Wireless WAN needs an expert. You need someone with experience to be able to work with Cisco Wireless solutions. It took approximately one to two weeks to implement the solution."
"There is no centralized management for multiple wireless control deployments or a user tracking feature."
"The support of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"It needs to increase its strength in capacity."
"The price could be better."
"Include more managing features within the product, rather than having to purchase them as extras."
"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."
"This product has issues with scalability and ease of manageability at scale. Security also needs to be improved, when compared to its competitors. Ubiquiti Wireless doesn't have any support that you can call. They only have an online portal where you can access support documentation, but it's not great. You have to figure out issues and solutions for yourself."
"The solution should offer simpler management for guests. That would be helpful in the hospitality industry, for example."
"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."
"Some of our customers have reported problems with their outdoor WiFi connections."
"We tried to create an access point with built-in voice and sound that we could use in schools, for example. We tried to create something that could play sounds or messages out of the access points. We wanted to, for example, use it as a school bell instead of using other equipment. It didn't work very well. It turns out when you connect to the Ubiquiti Wireless access point, it's not possible to send simple messages (like what is going on in the canteen, or some news update for the school, etc.). We had to use the on-premises version, as the cloud version wouldn't allow for this."
"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."
"Better third-party integration would be helpful because often, Ubiquity is a product that customers choose after they already have something else from another vendor like HPE."
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.
