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."Reliability and visibility in the product are most valuable. We are able to see client performance, signal strength for clients, and things like that."
"The most valuable features for me are the ease of operation and scalability."
"The technical support we have experienced has been good."
"It just gives you the ability to use it around the office without being tied up to an actual physical connection."
"This is the most stable product in the market."
"I am impressed with the tool's packet tracing so that connection with the devices is always consistent."
"The performance of the solution is valuable."
"Technical support was helpful."
"The most valuable feature is more access points."
"The solution is easy to use and flexible."
"It functions properly and includes centralized management for access points and switches."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is a simple and useful tool that offers good performance."
"It allows us to offer policy control."
"The most valuable feature of Ubiquiti Wireless is the ease of configuration."
"Their hardware is very good."
"I like the price, quality, and consistency of manufacturing."
"Cisco Firewall cannot recognize some applications and that makes dealing with policies difficult. Even when we whitelist, it does not work well."
"The cost and support should be improved, and there should be support for the 6E standard."
"The pricing of the solution could always be better."
"The support of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"We found the initial setup to be a bit complex due to the CLI commands."
"It can be complicated to configure the solution."
"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."
"It can be complex to set up."
"Ubiquiti Wireless could improve by being more user-friendly and easy to use."
"Some of our customers have reported problems with their outdoor WiFi connections."
"After upgrades to the interface, some features disappear."
"We'd like them to improve aspects of device management."
"There isn't any technical support."
"The documentation and support provided by the solution areas of concern where improvements are required."
"Central monitoring is the main functionality that should be included in the product."
"I would like a better explanation or better documentation on how to use the onboard spectrum analyzer."
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.