We performed a comparison between Cisco Wireless and Ruckus Wireless based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: As competitors, Cisco Wireless and Ruckus Wireless come in at a close tie. Both products offer a really strong set of features. However, their pricing is where each stands out, with Cisco being more expensive and Ruckus being affordable. In addition, users of Ruckus Wireless report seeing an immediate ROI.
"It provides private network access, helping us protect our company’s devices."
"The solution is pretty generic and easy to use."
"The simplicity is great."
"The AI capabilities of Mist Wireless are superior to other OEMs."
"The most useful feature of Juniper Wireless AP is the reporting Marvis."
"The artificial intelligence feature is very good."
"With Mist, every Wednesday they roll out new features."
"You can easily monitor, manage, and cover all your IT equipment."
"It is tough, has a nice speed, and is quite reliable."
"Cisco has good support services."
"We are using Cisco access point 2802, and they are very reliable."
"It is a stable solution."
"Wireless connectivity is the main feature. It is also securely integrated with ISE, which is valuable because, in the banking industry, we also cover the security aspect. This Wi-Fi controller integrates with the ISE system that we have. Every user that comes on the wireless needs to log in with the domain. If they don't, it will not allow the user to join the network. This is the key feature of this solution."
"The product is compatible with a lot of mobile devices."
"Authentication is the important feature for us. My IT staff no longer has to look after catering to clients who come from overseas."
"With Cisco Wireless we have DNA technology for the frequency in which it operates, so that in case of any frequency interference it can look for and switch to another frequency, where there no interference."
"The speed between client to client is really nice. It is better than any other vendor, but officially, I cannot say that to people."
"The scalability has been very good."
"The most valuable feature is that this solution is reliable."
"Analyzes real-time, in-depth network performance."
"Once we got it set up and configured we've had little issues and it's been relatively stable. We use it across all seven of our offices and they all have the exact same wifi setup so when I go into any office I can get on the network and access resources."
"Tremendous throughput and easy installation, configuration, and monitoring."
"The solution is used for public Wi-Fi. The Wi-Fi solution provides internet connectivity in the public platform."
"Good connection quality."
"The price could be better."
"Improving third-party integration is key for Juniper Mist's next release."
"The pricing should be made cheaper."
"I need a bit more time with it before criticizing the features."
"The solution is expensive."
"They should include SD-WAN features to it."
"Juniper Wireless Access Points (AP Series) could improve if the MIST platform had a built-in master key. This would be an advantage."
"There is room for improvement in terms of support and installation."
"The coverage provided by the solution is an area of concern in some cases, making it an area where improvements are required."
"There's a delay in equipment that comes to Columbia, to our country, and that lasts almost six months."
"The solution should introduce natural language troubleshooting processes. It will identify possible problems or errors due to the symptoms."
"Older versions are complex to configure and implement."
"Its licensing has been very frustrating. There is also the complexity of managing the product. These are probably the two reasons why we're looking at Aruba. The way they license this product is not simple. There are some good features in the latest version, but there are additional license costs as well, which is frustrating for us. It is not really a feature issue for us. It really comes down to cost and licensing. They should make it a bit simpler to manage. We find the overall solution a little bit more complex than we would like to deal with. Its troubleshooting is a bit difficult, and it does require a high skill set. Comparatively, Aruba seems quite simple. One of the benefits of the Aruba product is that it is cloud-managed. We don't have to manage the management platform itself, whereas Cisco is on-premise. Its user interface could also be better."
"In this part of the world, support is the weak side of this solution."
"The internet speed is high within environments. As you move further away from the access point, there is a decline in speed. Omada or Ruckus don’t have the speed degradation as you move away from the access point."
"The technical support could be better. They aren't as helpful as they need to be when we run into issues."
"We've had issues with the ISP, not enough bandwidth."
"The pricing needs to be more clear and licensing could be less expensive."
"The switching could be improved. The active component requires a data center. Cisco and HPE have a complete solution for data centers. Ruckus has a core solution, but the data center aspect needs to be improved."
"They could add more flexibility for switching over to another radio if a radio is poor. I am not able to change the radios from 2.4 GHz to 5 GHz. I am yet to figure it out. I want it to be a bit more explicit or a bit easier to change radios. When you shut it down, you lose some of the information. It would be good to have a controller where I can store the information, and later on, I can retrieve the information. There should be some form of small storage to keep the information. Its price should also be improved. Its price is currently quite high."
"Ruckus seems to have removed the built-in help from the appliance, urging the user to log on to the support web site to obtain it. This is simply a nuisance if one wishes to look up what a particular field on the configuration page does, for example."
"The solution isn't the cheapest option. However, you are getting a quality product."
"The cost must be reduced."
"The cost could be improved."
More Juniper Mist Wireless Access Points Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Wireless is ranked 2nd in Wireless LAN with 146 reviews while Ruckus Wireless is ranked 3rd in Wireless LAN with 96 reviews. Cisco Wireless is rated 8.2, while Ruckus Wireless is rated 8.6. 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 Ruckus Wireless writes "Great wireless, good reliability, and excellent connectivity". Cisco Wireless is most compared with Aruba Wireless, Ubiquiti WLAN, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, Mist AI and Cloud and Omada Access Points, whereas Ruckus Wireless is most compared with Aruba Wireless, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, Ubiquiti WLAN, ExtremeWireless and Omada Access Points. See our Cisco Wireless vs. Ruckus 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.
They both do a great job. But it depends on the application scenario.
For corporate environments probably Cisco will perform better not only because of Cisco Wi-Fi features but especially because you can be integrated with all Cisco infrastructure and manage it all.
In heavy-duty environments, like public hot-spot, stadiums, exhibition centers, etc, Ruckus should be considered. In this type of applications, pure Wi-Fi performance is more important than management features or security, and therefore, it could be the better choice.
If you care more about performance and stable communications, Ruckus Wireless is definitely better.
Ruckus Wireless APs have;
- Adaptive antenna technology (called BeamFlex). This technology analyzes different paths to reach the client and electronically turns itself to a directional antenna, choosing the path that gives the best performance to reach each specific client. If the client is mobile or if the environment changes (such as a warehouse) the selection of paths/direction also changes instantly.
Transmitting in a directional way allows a good Signal-to-Noise Ratio and also causes less interference for other nearby APs outside the path of the directional transmission.
- ChannelFly technology. This technology chooses the best channel based on performance rather than background scanning for noise.
- Polarization Diversity. This technology allows the clients not to lose signal strength when held at different angles (important for mobile devices such as tablets and telephones).
- Better receive sensitivity compared to the competitors.
All these features make Ruckus Wireless a better choice than any other competitor (better performance, better coverage area, more stable and surprise-free communication especially in not so easy conditions such as noise, too many clients, too much traffic).