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's best feature is the integration with other Cisco products."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's most valuable feature is it is robust."
"It's a reliable solution."
"The solution also allows us to increase the power when it's too low."
"The devices are all of good quality."
"I like that it's a very stable solution."
"This is the most stable product in the market."
"Our most valuable feature involves the 802.11ac, which operates at a very high level and has updated technology."
"The most valuable features are ease of deployment, ease of use, and the interface."
"This access point provides internet to every lab on campus, including the computer laboratory"
"The most valuable feature is more access points."
"In general, the setup process is straightforward."
"It's very easy to deploy."
"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."
"It offers very good pricing."
"Overall, it's a straightforward solution."
"It needs to increase its strength in capacity."
"The solution could lower its pricing to make it more affordable."
"The DNA space is a separate license cost, which should be included in the license."
"There are a number of areas for improvement in Cisco Wireless WAN, including sensitive applications which face issues on wireless stuff and difficulty troubleshooting."
"Cisco Wireless WAN is expensive."
"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."
"There is no centralized management for multiple wireless control deployments or a user tracking feature."
"The pricing of the solution could always 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."
"I would like to see this solution have any kind of captive portal on the tool or user accounting tool. This would be quite useful for companies."
"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."
"Ubiquiti Wireless could improve by being more user-friendly and easy to use."
"Their stock is a bit low compared to others, making it difficult to purchase."
"The network setup could be a little easier and more straightforward."
"Its stability could be better."
"The mesh configuration and WiFi 6 coverage should be improved."
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.