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."Cisco Wireless WAN is stable and scalable, and the support received is good."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's most valuable feature is it is robust."
"The initial setup is straightforward, and you need to spend around six to 10 weeks to set up one controller."
"It's a reliable solution."
"Cisco Wireless access points are highly stable with a wide coverage area."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's best features are simple management, the cloud base, dashboards, and reliability."
"This stability is one of the major reasons to stick with this product."
"The most valuable feature of Cisco Wireless WAN is the ease of management."
"It offers very good pricing."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is a simple and useful tool that offers good performance."
"The most valuable aspect of Ubiquiti is the ease of setup. It's easy to set up, secure, and use. It works on an adoption basis. I can pull the system up, design a network, and pull 20 different Ubiquiti units into it."
"It has a user-friendly interface."
"I have found the most valuable features to be how user-friendly it is and how simple it is to do the configurations."
"The pricing of the solution is excellent. It offers a great value."
"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."
"What I found most valuable in Ubiquiti Wireless is that it's priced competitively, compared to other brands available in the market. From a price competitiveness standpoint, it's a product I would recommend. I also find Ubiquiti Wireless quite reliable, at least for me using it as a home access point, it seems to serve its purpose. I also like that with Ubiquiti Wireless, you can build a very modular network, so you could change out your router to use a Ubiquiti router if you want to. The solution also has gateway equipment and all, so I like the modular concept of Ubiquiti Wireless. Another feature I find valuable in the solution is monitoring. It is pretty good. For example, as a home user, I have the unified app on my computer, so I'm able to watch how my APs are performing."
"The tool's speed and IP address acquisition from the domain controller should be improved"
"If there's a problem, it's usually when Cisco pushes out updates. The users don't always push the updates to their computer, and it causes some issues. It's reliable as long as everyone is doing what they're supposed to."
"Improvements can be made in the wireless fabric."
"The new platform of Cisco Wireless WAN I did not like, there weren't many features available. The online platform has more options."
"We cannot use wireless for the servers due to potential performance issues. They must be connected via fiber."
"The solution could lower its pricing to make it more affordable."
"The console interface is not very user-friendly. It's a bit complex and difficult to navigate."
"The DNA space is a separate license cost, which should be included in the license."
"Ubiquiti could develop a more elaborate firewall solution. Their firewall solutions at the moment are entry-level. Maybe they don't want to bring those products in because many people prefer putting a third-party firewall into a solution like that. We usually do."
"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."
"Central monitoring is the main functionality that should be included in the product."
"They should make more advanced features for the power users. I am a technician and I am functional, but I do need some features that I find only in Microsoft."
"One of the Ubiquiti access points broke down, and it can't be used. It's still down now, so overall Ubiquiti hasn't been a good experience for me."
"Everything needs to be professionally done."
"Some of our customers have reported problems with their outdoor WiFi connections."
"After upgrades to the interface, some features disappear."
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.