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 product can scale well."
"I like that it has integrated the cost of our network access."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's best feature is the integration with other Cisco products."
"I like that it's a very stable solution."
"Mobile anchoring and graphic user interface are helpful features."
"The network management is good. We use it to control access, channels, and phones and limit bandwidth."
"We used everything Cisco, not just wireless. It works great with other Cisco tools."
"I am impressed with the tool's packet tracing so that connection with the devices is always consistent."
"It has a decent portal, and it is usable."
"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."
"I have found the most valuable features to be the ability to use the main centralized administration process and the internet."
"I like that it's cheaper and inexpensive. It's also easy to use."
"Easy to use and flexible."
"The main strength of Ubiquiti Wireless is the ease of use it provides to users."
"The ease of the setup is one of its most valuable aspects."
"Ubiquiti outdoor access points in particular, are really stable, and if there are no obstructions, Ubiquiti works well."
"The console interface is not very user-friendly. It's a bit complex and difficult to navigate."
"There are a number of areas for improvement in Cisco Wireless WAN, including sensitive applications which face issues on wireless stuff and difficulty troubleshooting."
"The price has room for improvement."
"The interface is a little bit difficult to understand at times. It would be good if Cisco were to make it user friendly so that everyone can easily configure it without the need to do certifications and courses to learn how to use all of the devices."
"It can be complicated to configure the solution."
"The pricing of the solution could always be better."
"Pricing is very high with Cisco products. It's something that many people complain about. They should work to make it more affordable."
"It can be complex to set up."
"The cost is on the higher side and could be lower."
"The documentation and support provided by the solution areas of concern where improvements are required."
"This might not be the best solution for a very large organization."
"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 to see this solution have any kind of captive portal on the tool or user accounting tool. This would be quite useful for companies."
"After upgrades to the interface, some features disappear."
"Better security is important because we need to have some degree of control over who is connected and how we can restrict the level of connectivity."
"The solution should offer simpler management for guests. That would be helpful in the hospitality industry, for example."
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.