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 most valuable feature of Cisco Wireless WAN is the ease of management."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of configuration."
"The initial setup was really easy and straightforward."
"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."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's best feature is the integration with other Cisco products."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's most valuable feature is it is robust."
"Granularity of standardization and technical controls."
"Cisco wireless is stable, easy to use, and simple to configure. They have an outstanding GUI."
"Their hardware is very good."
"I would say that the user experience is pretty good in this solution as well as the roaming solution part of it."
"Setting it up wasn't so complicated. It is reliable. Security-wise, we didn't have much trouble, but that could be due to our environment. We haven't had so many attacks, at least up till now."
"Installation is easy with seamless integration of additional APs."
"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."
"We have not had an issue with Ubiquiti Wireless since we have been using it. The solution is highly reliable."
"The UniFi Controller Software provides excellent statistical and monitoring facilities."
"We use the solution for many of our smaller customers and the cloud management aspect of the solution is very good. If you compare it to other vendors that have a controller, it's much easier to manage the cloud-based solution because we travel a lot. It allows us to manage everything from any place."
"We did have issues with the product that made us concerned about the overall stability."
"The new platform of Cisco Wireless WAN I did not like, there weren't many features available. The online platform has more options."
"The integration support technology should be improved."
"The prices are high and should be reduced in order to be more competitive."
"The cost and support should be improved, and there should be support for the 6E standard."
"In terms of improvement, there is always something that could be enhanced. For example, we can't change wireless channels in Cisco Meraki due to a recent standard update."
"Technical support could be more helpful."
"The solution could be more stable."
"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 a better explanation or better documentation on how to use the onboard spectrum analyzer."
"After upgrades to the interface, some features disappear."
"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."
"I would like local support from the parent company."
"The product lacks some security features."
"Performance could be improved in the solution because when I compare it with Ruckus and other APs, some of those APs are better performing, so you don't have to deploy too many APs to get the same level of Wi-Fi coverage and stability. It's not about how many clients the solution can handle, but it is more about stability and coverage. Another room for improvement in Ubiquiti Wireless, compared to other brands, is that it doesn't do well when used in an office network. It has a limitation on how reliable the AP of the system is."
"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."
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.
