Aruba Wireless and Cisco Wireless are industry leaders, offering robust solutions for building and managing wireless networks. Users prefer the robust stability of Cisco Wireless after a longer setup process, while Aruba Wireless offers quicker deployment with seamless integration and strong security features. Cisco Wireless excels in performance and customization options, but needs improvement in range and connectivity. Consider your existing network infrastructure. If you heavily rely on Cisco products, Cisco Wireless might offer smoother integration.
The summary above is based on 64 interviews we conducted recently with Cisco Wireless and Aruba Wireless users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"The most valuable feature of the solution is Marvis, the AI-driven network management system."
"The artificial intelligence feature is very good."
"It provides private network access, helping us protect our company’s devices."
"The solution is stable."
"The simplicity is great."
"With Mist, every Wednesday they roll out new features."
"The AI capabilities of Mist Wireless are superior to other OEMs."
"The solution is pretty generic and easy to use."
"The performance and the application monitor. You can select the applications you want to use and block on your network"
"Overall, it's a very strong solution."
"The coverage, concurrent user life, and visualization are the most valuable features of these solutions."
"The fact that Aruba Wireless has a virtual controller onboard the internet access points makes it cheaper than other solutions."
"Aruba Central."
"The web-based GUI is much simpler to use than similar products by Cisco."
"The most valuable feature is the fact that it can work with many devices. It supports everything that we need it to."
"Our wireless overhaul has reduced the number of wireless related help desk tickets by nearly 90%."
"I like many of the features that Cisco Wireless has to offer."
"I'm very satisfied with Cisco's technical support."
"Cisco Wireless is scalable."
"It integrates with Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA)."
"The most important thing for me is that all the access points are in one group and use one access code. So, when you move from one area to another, you don't disconnect and reconnect again. The device is also very easy to install and control."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is its durability because we can rely on this solution. It is also easy to configure. Lastly, if something happens, we get good support from Cisco."
"The mobility that it provides is really helpful."
"Cisco Wireless is scalable."
"The pricing is very high in the Indian market."
"The price could be better."
"The product should include adaptive Wi-Fi to show a more accurate location."
"Improving third-party integration is key for Juniper Mist's next release."
"The solution is expensive."
"Juniper Wireless Access Points (AP Series) could improve if the MIST platform had a built-in master key. This would be an advantage."
"Juniper Mist Wireless Access Points’ support services need improvement."
"They should include SD-WAN features to it."
"Because it's cloud-based, it takes time for the floor maps and the heat map to load."
"The upgrades tend to be buggy and better testing is needed before they are released."
"I used to have issues with DHCP. It is extremely buggy and difficult to upgrade with different firmware versions/models."
"The Help option within the GUI needs to be improved."
"A lot of the access point commands are in the command line interface, versus being in the GUI."
"The certification for licensing could be better."
"Aruba Wireless is a little bit complex to use and operate."
"Aruba’s poor performance and random upgrade issues caused too much time consuming maintenance and troubleshooting."
"When you integrate a network access control with authentication with an ISE engine it's really complicated to put in place."
"The software quality could be improved, in particular for the new Cisco Aironet Series 2800/3800 Access Point which is pretty Linux-based."
"Assurance capabilities must be improved."
"The solution could be cheaper and have a better web interface."
"The licensing models need to be reviewed in some instances. Obviously Cisco's licensing models are quite challenging, and it can be costly."
"Its licensing model and cost should be improved."
"Cisco Wireless does not have a dashboard that would make it easier for people to manage the solution, such as Cisco Meraki where you are able to monitor the network through the dashboard and everything is visible making it easier."
"No product can be a ten out of ten and there are some security issues."
More Juniper Mist Wireless Access Points Pricing and Cost Advice →
Aruba Wireless is ranked 1st in Wireless LAN with 138 reviews while Cisco Wireless is ranked 2nd in Wireless LAN with 146 reviews. Aruba Wireless is rated 8.4, while Cisco Wireless is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Aruba Wireless writes "The portal for centralized management and virtual controller for APs are very valuable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Wireless writes "Allows us to deploy a wide range of wireless products with stable WiFi". Aruba Wireless is most compared with Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, Ruckus Wireless, Ubiquiti WLAN, Huawei Wireless and Mist AI and Cloud, whereas Cisco Wireless is most compared with Ruckus Wireless, Ubiquiti WLAN, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, Mist AI and Cloud and Omada Access Points. See our Aruba Wireless vs. Cisco Wireless report.
See our list of best Wireless LAN vendors.
We monitor all Wireless LAN 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.
On the most basic level, Cisco Wireless can offer a rather straightforward initial setup. In the span of about three hours, the basic framework can be set up. Step-by-step instructions are available to ease the deployment of the Cisco wireless network. A small business will now be able to make use of this wireless product without being worried about having to make a massive investment of either time or resources. This peace of mind extends to the actual maintenance of the product as well. Cisco wireless’s network does not require very much in the way of maintenance. It does require occasional upgrades to keep it running smoothly, but other than that, a team tasked with maintaining it has very little to worry about. Organizations of all sizes will be able to benefit from both of these aspects of Cisco wireless’s design.
Cisco wireless provides a very robust service that will continue to run over long periods of time and under heavy usage. Furthermore, the teams that are responsible for assisting users and resolving any potential issues that may arise are highly professional. These are two additional features that make Cisco wireless a valuable product. The wireless service is capable of running for years without any real need for replacements to be made to the hardware.
Although no system is perfect, Cisco’s Wireless network shows that products can still be made to last. Long spans of time can pass without issues arising. When they do, Cisco’s technical support team is well-equipped to help handle it. They respond quickly to inquiries and they are extremely knowledgeable. They bring the kind of professionalism that one would hope to have in a product’s support team.
Aruba Wireless can support many devices and provide the features that one would expect for this type of product. It is relatively cheap when compared to other products like Cisco Wireless. For that relatively cheap price, Aruba offers hardware whose performance can match anything offered by its competitors. It advertises what it can do and follows through with its promises. It is also very easy to configure. However, they do not guide users in different industries through the best practices that they should be employing when using Aruba Wireless.
Conclusion
Cisco Wireless offers an effective service. In terms of cost it is more expensive than Aruba Wireless. They both have a lot to offer. The price tag might just be the deciding factor.
Aruba is our choice for our WIFI solution as Aruba has a lot of features that can do the same with Meraki.
Aruba is saving costs vs Meraki in a long time operation.