We compared Cisco Wireless and Huawei Wireless based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
In summary, Cisco Wireless is praised for its robust network connectivity, seamless roaming capabilities, and excellent security measures, while Huawei Wireless stands out for its strong connectivity, efficient performance, and reliable signal strength. Cisco Wireless receives positive feedback on customer service and support, setup cost, and licensing, leading to a highly satisfactory return on investment. On the other hand, Huawei Wireless users appreciate its sleek design, user-friendly interface, and long battery life, along with efficient customer service and competitive pricing. Areas for improvement for Cisco Wireless include signal strength, security features, and user interface, while Huawei Wireless could benefit from enhancements in signal strength and device compatibility.
Features: Cisco Wireless is valued for robust network connectivity, seamless roaming, reliable performance, excellent security measures, and user-friendly management interfaces. Huawei Wireless is praised for its strong connectivity, efficient performance, user-friendly interface, and reliable signal strength.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for Cisco Wireless is reported to be manageable and user-friendly, while Huawei Wireless is acknowledged to have a straightforward and hassle-free setup cost. Additionally, users mention the flexibility and options provided by Cisco's licensing, while Huawei's licensing is easily obtained and offers usage flexibility., According to user feedback, the ROI from Cisco Wireless has been highly satisfactory, while Huawei Wireless has contributed positively to our return on investment.
Room for Improvement: Cisco Wireless may need improvements in signal strength, security features, user interface, reliability, and connection speed. On the other hand, Huawei Wireless could benefit from enhancements in signal strength, compatibility, user interface, and durability.
Deployment and customer support: The reviews for Cisco Wireless mention varying timeframes for deployment and setup, ranging from three months for deployment and an additional week for setup to a week for both deployment and setup. On the other hand, Huawei Wireless reviews also mention varying durations, with some users spending three months on deployment and an additional week on setup, while others spending a week each on both deployment and setup, suggesting that these terms may refer to the same period., Cisco Wireless products have received high praise for their customer service and support. Users have expressed satisfaction with prompt and helpful assistance, efficient and responsive support staff, and an overall positive experience. Similarly, Huawei Wireless products have also been highly praised for their customer service and support. Users appreciate the prompt and helpful resolution of issues, the expertise and knowledge of the support team, and the professional and efficient customer service experience.
The summary above is based on 66 interviews we conducted recently with Cisco Wireless and Huawei Wireless users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"The artificial intelligence feature is very good."
"The simplicity is great."
"The solution is stable."
"The most useful feature of Juniper Wireless AP is the reporting Marvis."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is Marvis, the AI-driven network management system."
"You can easily monitor, manage, and cover all your IT equipment."
"The most valuable feature of Juniper Mist is the Virtual Network Assistant, powered by artificial intelligence."
"The solution is pretty generic and easy to use."
"This solution is highly stable. We have only had one issue in seven years."
"Cisco Wireless solutions are easy to use."
"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."
"I find this solution easy to configure and use."
"It is a reliable and robust solution. Access and Mobility Groups are useful. We don't use anything very fancy."
"The integration is great."
"Some of the valuable features of this solution are security, the controller is simple to configure, devices are easy to install, and we use the software to administrate all the APs."
"Before COVID, the emphasis was primarily on wireless connectivity in specific areas like conference rooms. However, with the shift to remote work and increased mobility, coverage areas needed to be expanded to accommodate users throughout the entire location. We are beginning to expand our infrastructure."
"You can add a lot of features, such as cloud, integration with IoT, etc. They have a lot of options available but the top feature is the performance."
"It is based on 802.11ax, which is a new technology. There are several valuable things, such as its speed and mobility. There are options for self-organizing networking so that it can perform operations and maintain itself. Its three interfaces are very good and user friendly."
"I think it's a good technology. I like that it transparently connects with LDAP. The technology has a lot of capacity for WiFi six. It provides notifications, and there are many ways to connect with fiber. There is an electrical tool, and you can put an SFP transceiver. There are also many ways to implement antennas."
"The solution has high performance and we are using Wi-Fi 6 that we have found to be the best coverage."
"I am impressed with the tool's seamless integration."
"From an implementation perspective, it's easy. I rate it a nine on a scale of one to ten, where one is a difficult setup, and ten is an easy setup."
"It is easy to set up."
"The best feature of Huawei Wireless is the quick and fast setup."
"The solution is expensive."
"They should include SD-WAN features to it."
"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."
"Improving third-party integration is key for Juniper Mist's next release."
"The pricing should be made cheaper."
"There is room for improvement in terms of support and installation."
"The pricing is very high in the Indian market."
"When you integrate a network access control with authentication with an ISE engine it's really complicated to put in place."
"The new licensing has no added value and seems to be Cisco's effort to take advantage of customers."
"If needs to provide more visibility. It can detect and do it, but as technicians we don't have a lot of visibility into seeing exactly what's happening. It doesn't give us a lot of log information for us to troubleshoot. They probably have additional software you need to purchase to get that kind of information. But I think not all companies can afford additional software to see those kinds of details. So if the wireless controller already had, built-in, those types of things for the technician or wireless engineer, it would be more attractive for the end-user."
"The interface could be better."
"It requires a few tweaks in order to stabilize it. Its portal is complex. Cisco solutions are complex in general."
"There is room for improvement regarding HA issues and Radius integration."
"The solution's pricing should be improved."
"The security must be improved."
"I have already integrated the radius system with Cisco and Huawei products, but it can be further improved to be more user-friendly and easier to use."
"They should include more security features in the solution."
"I'd like to see some after-sales support. It's a little bit below the expectations we had."
"Improving the visibility, control offered, and cloud management would all be very helpful. Also how you can monetize the information you get from Wi-Fi controllers should be improved."
"The solution could be easier to use."
"There could be a console port for demonstration or configuration purposes."
"Cloud integration needs to be improved."
"They should actually first test the equipment thoroughly and then launch it. Sometimes, things come out too soon, before they are ready."
More Juniper Mist Wireless Access Points Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Wireless is ranked 2nd in Wireless LAN with 146 reviews while Huawei Wireless is ranked 8th in Wireless LAN with 32 reviews. Cisco Wireless is rated 8.2, while Huawei Wireless is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Wireless writes "Allows us to deploy a wide range of wireless products with stable WiFi". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Huawei Wireless writes "Customizable and has many unique features, such as encryption, spatial streams, and smart antennas". Cisco Wireless is most compared with Aruba Wireless, Ruckus Wireless, Ubiquiti WLAN, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN and Omada Access Points, whereas Huawei Wireless is most compared with D-Link Wireless, Aruba Wireless, Ubiquiti WLAN, Ruckus Wireless and Fortinet FortiWLM. See our Cisco Wireless vs. Huawei 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.
All are good selections, and this question is difficult to answer without knowing your throughput requirements, as each vendor has multiple models within there series.
Personally I recommend looking at Arista Networks’ cognitive Wifi, where controllers are a thing of the past.
Ruckus virtual smart zone will be your best bet allowing up to 300k connected devices and 30k access points. furthermore, Ruckus has time and again proven best in speed, throughput in high density environments by independent studies. I have over a decade of working with this product and none of the other competitors can beat the layer 1 connectivity of Ruckus WiFi
Hi,
Every one of the mentioned solutions is good but you need to check the needs which are security since the firms you are working with need protection and tracking of data. For this reason, I recommend:
- if you have FortiGate installed then go for Fortinet Wireless since they can be integrated with the Fortigate without buying a controller and they work perfectly together and you will get the advantage of applying rules to the client himself whether mobile or computer, easily managed & monitored, more visibility over your network and incident notifications.
If the above doesn't apply then you can go with the best one that fits your budget and security needs which for me doesn't fall on the mentioned solution but to go with ARUBA Instant Access Wireless Solution and the reasons are as such:
- Cisco is too much expensive and you got to pay smart support with some complexity in configuration and you need to buy a controller
- Ruckus is good but when you want to have the security you need to buy a controller with licenses and it won't give you the security needed since it is just a wireless solution
- Huawei is not a stable company since it had many ups and downs and they can reach with you to have all the solutions nearly free so that you install their brand.
Whereas Aruba you don't need a controller in the Instant access points and you will get the minimum security with radius integration and what is important a lifetime warranty on the access points.
In addition, if the number of access points increased and you want more detailed management and more advanced configurations, you can buy a controller either on-premises or on-cloud with Aruba.
The above information is based on my experience with all the solutions and their POC.
If you need any more details and consultancy, kindly feel free to contact me.
Regards.
Hi Imad,
Thanks for your input. Do you have any POC data for Cisco and Aruba?
Thanks in advance
Boa tarde
As soluções cada solução que você indicou tem pormenores que podem impactar tanto no funcionamento quanto em caso de disaster recovery.
Fortinet: Possui bons access points, aliado às funcionalidades de segurança do próprio UTM, porém será mais um serviço para o appliance gerenciar, e dependendo do que está rodando nele, corre-se o risco de degradar a performance da funcionalidade principal "segurança", por que tambem está gerenciando uma rede wireless, além do fato se houver alguma pane no appliance Fortinet, tanto os itens de segurança quanto a rede wireless irão ficar indisponível. Dê a Cézar o que é de Cézar, deixe a fortinet focada em segurança, que é o que ela faz de melhor.
Ruckus: Excelentes Access points, confiáveis e com alta performance, possui no mínimo 4 opções de gerência, sendo, controlerless Unleashed, appliance virtual, appliance hardware e cloud, ambas as opções não trará prejuizo à performance da rede wireless, porque não há tunelamento de dados para elas, além de possuir várias funções de segurança inerentes à rede wireless. licenças são perpétuas.
Cisco: Excelente access points, porém solução muito cara para aquisição e renovação.
Huawei: Pelo que conheço, tem bons access points, e controladoras virtuais e appliance físico, mas conheço poucas redes com esta solução.
É lógico que uma tem um recurso extra a mais do que a outra, mas considero mera perfumaria, pois o básico para uma rede wireless segura todas atendem.
Eu já atendi a mais de 40 universidades federais no Brasil, todas com Ruckus, e não há reclamação da solução.
Como recomendação pessoal, vá de Ruckus.
Hi,
It is all dependent on the size of the controllers in question. Though I would suggest getting a cloud base technology so you are limited by any controller and have much better redundancy. Take a look at Arista Cognitive Wireless