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."It runs well, without issue."
"Cisco Wireless access points are highly stable with a wide coverage area."
"We find the product to be stable."
"Granularity of standardization and technical controls."
"The implementations are easy."
"The program is very stable."
"It's a reliable solution."
"The technical support we have experienced has been good."
"The indoor WiFi connection works well."
"The 3x3 MIMO antenna provides excellent coverage and the product is well supported by Ubiquiti in terms of firmware updates."
"Ubiquiti is easier to install than Mikrotik."
"I would say that the user experience is pretty good in this solution as well as the roaming solution part of it."
"Easy to use and flexible."
"This is a high-quality solution that allows us to provide wifi access points in challenging areas."
"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."
"Cisco Wireless WAN would be improved with the ability to monitor new usernames, product registrations, and flow traffic."
"The tool's speed and IP address acquisition from the domain controller should be improved"
"There is no centralized management for multiple wireless control deployments or a user tracking feature."
"Documentation is an area that needs review. It should be more dynamic and it should be easier."
"It can be complex to set up."
"The reporting feature needs improvement, especially adding information with regards to availability uptime."
"The solution could be more stable."
"The only thing I would like to see is better high availability if you're using the embedded wireless controller."
"The product lacks to offer reliability to users."
"I would like a better explanation or better documentation on how to use the onboard spectrum analyzer."
"We need an official distributor in Egypt as we don't have one right now."
"Tech support is mostly remote and could be better."
"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."
"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."
"Central monitoring is the main functionality that should be included in the product."
"The external devices, the outdoor devices, are not so rugged. For example, for the weather that we have here in Florida, it doesn't hold up well even though it is supposed to be designed for outdoor use."
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.