We performed a comparison between Aruba Wireless and Cisco Wireless based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: When comparing Aruba Wireless and Cisco Wireless, it is evident that Cisco Wireless is the more popular choice. While both have great features, users of Cisco Wireless seem to find fewer things lacking with it and are generally satisfied. In regards to service and support as well, Cisco users are happy with the service they receive. Users do feel that it is an expensive solution, however.
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is Marvis, the AI-driven network management system."
"The most useful feature of Juniper Wireless AP is the reporting Marvis."
"You can easily monitor, manage, and cover all your IT equipment."
"The artificial intelligence feature is very good."
"The most valuable feature of Juniper Wireless Access Points (AP Series) is the ability to troubleshoot ports on the network. Additionally, when there is an update on the APs they are able to reboot quickly reducing downtime. Other solutions have a longer downtime when updates are done."
"In terms of reporting, in terms of all the user reports, it's very rich."
"It provides private network access, helping us protect our company’s devices."
"The initial setup was very easy and intuitive."
"Aruba Wireless is stable."
"The solution has been helpful in improving the way our company functions."
"ClearPass is a unique product that contains multiple solutions like BYOD, Guest, NAC, AAA, UEBA, etc. There is also quick support from Aruba TAC."
"With Aruba Wireless Controller, all our access points are connected to one controller. Through that controller, we can actually handle each access point; we can disconnect or connect that access point, and then we can tell, or see, or allow how many users are, or should be, connected through that access point."
"The virtual controller has options for updating and remotely restarting any AP from one controller panel."
"Aruba is easier than Juniper."
"It has helped in making deployments easier."
"Cisco is one of the leading vendors and is at the top of many lists. The access software is robust, and the performance of the devices is excellent."
"Overall, Cisco was stable and worked well for all our needs until we started having more and more students and teachers using YouTube and Zoom — what with classes being isolated and everything — which put a lot of strain on our Wi-Fi network."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its security"
"Cisco Wireless solutions are easy to use."
"The solution offers very good stability."
"The most valuable features for network security with Cisco Wireless were the policy enforcement capabilities."
"The most valuable features of Cisco Wireless are security and the ability to manage everything easily. Other solutions, such as Aruba are not as simple."
"Cisco's technical support is very good, I've never had an issue with their technical support."
"Juniper Mist Wireless Access Points’ support services need improvement."
"The solution is expensive."
"The price could be better."
"I need a bit more time with it before criticizing the features."
"If you want to do more specific stuff, it's a bit limited."
"Juniper Wireless Access Points (AP Series) could improve if the MIST platform had a built-in master key. This would be an advantage."
"The product should include adaptive Wi-Fi to show a more accurate location."
"The pricing should be made cheaper."
"I believe more security options are needed."
"Our customers ask for a security portfolio, which the tool doesn't have."
"Aruba Wireless has room to improve the connection from one AP to another."
"The management system would be better if it were more polished, if it had a better interface like, for example, Meraki"
"Initial setup was complex."
"The console is difficult to use. The firewall settings could be improved."
"What I would like to have with these kinds of devices is the most enhanced security. For example, if I could apply security from wireless devices, that would be great. I would also like more enhanced reports on user adoption, who is getting what bandwidth."
"Customer service really needs to be improved. If the customer support was better, I would recommend it to others more than I do now. Considering that you have to pay yearly for support, I expect a higher level of support."
"It would be better if some utility lets us know the best place to install the system. Every time we install it, we have to change it, and we have to add more access points. This is a problem we have all the time. It would be better if it integrated seamlessly with products from other vendors. It'll also help if they included a device diagnostics feature in the next release."
"The software quality could be improved, in particular for the new Cisco Aironet Series 2800/3800 Access Point which is pretty Linux-based."
"In the next release, I would like to see some AI capability deployed. Other competitors like Mist and Juniper already have it. So, AI features need to be introduced next year."
"The product could be improved with interference reduction. Because wireless frequency interferes with microwave or Bluetooth technologies, this causes issues. A lot of users still use legacy wireless adapters and black box and they do not experience the speed that they could get using the latest technologies. The number of devices on the market makes wireless communications complex. If the problem of interference could be resolved it would further improve utility and ease of system design."
"Improvements can be made to the telemetry. The licensing gets in the way here. It makes it impossible to record the different flows across the wireless network."
"Assurance capabilities must be improved."
"The coverage area of Cisco Wireless could improve. Additionally, the reports when a problem arises could be better, such as how it is done in Aruba Wireless solutions. In the Aruba wireless solutions, there are reports that are provided regarding uploads, downloads, and other internet activity that are useful. If this feature was added to Cisco that would be a benefit."
"The web interface for Cisco controllers could be better. It could be more user-friendly. Sometimes I have to remember how to access some functionalities or how to enable or execute some functions. If it were more user-friendly it would save time."
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 143 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.