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 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."
"The artificial intelligence feature is very good."
"With Mist, every Wednesday they roll out new features."
"In terms of reporting, in terms of all the user reports, it's very rich."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is Marvis, the AI-driven network management system."
"The simplicity is great."
"The solution is pretty generic and easy to use."
"The solution is stable."
"Aruba Wireless is reliable, and the signal strength is pretty good."
"The feature that I love the most is being able to broadcast different SSIDs with different protocol requirements. "
"Aruba Wireless is stable and we plan to continue using it in the future."
"The solution is quite stable and very robust."
"The solution is very stable."
"It provided an easy WiFi solution for our branch offices to deploy. We could usually have them up and running from out-of-the-box in about 10 minutes."
"The stability is the best. It's very reliable."
"Setup is straightforward."
"The ability to deploy wireless access points with templates."
"The mobility that it provides is really helpful."
"There are a lot of valuable features and functions. One example is CleanAir to detect and troubleshoot interference issues. Another is RX-SOP to optimize roaming."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is reliability."
"The installation process is very easy."
"It is a very scalable solution."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The integration with Cisco ISE is good, and together we use them to provide services."
"The product should include adaptive Wi-Fi to show a more accurate location."
"They should include SD-WAN features to it."
"Juniper Wireless AP can improve by continually improving its reporting and integration with other systems."
"I need a bit more time with it before criticizing the features."
"There is room for improvement in terms of support and installation."
"Juniper Mist Wireless Access Points’ support services need improvement."
"If you want to do more specific stuff, it's a bit limited."
"Improving third-party integration is key for Juniper Mist's next release."
"Aruba’s poor performance and random upgrade issues caused too much time consuming maintenance and troubleshooting."
"Currently, the stability of the code is the basic underlying problem for us. They had an 8.6 release that came out two weeks ago, but we had to migrate twice because the code wasn't stable. We can't get things to work the same way. Version 8 was a big change for them. They made a change so that it is forced to be a managed hierarchical system. It means that you make changes at the top, and it pushes them downstream. There are a lot of problems with the 8.6 version code. I ran into four bugs in one week and was informed that we should just move onto the next one because all of those fixes have taken place. The feedback loop for fixes is not always really relayed back to you. I don't have a lot of strong things to say about version 8.6. When we had version 6, the controller was pretty much rock solid. We had no problems. We made a heavy investment to migrate a lot of stuff to take advantage of things like WPA3, Wi-Fi 6, and all that kind of stuff, and we haven't been able to turn those features on because we are not confident that they are going to work just yet. So, right now, we're still very much stumbling through the version 8.6 code and just trying to make sure that it is safe before we turn on some of those features. In terms of the marketplace, they are one of the top three leaders. In some respects, one of the things that they focus on is wireless. Therefore, there are some things that should be beyond reproach, as far as I'm concerned. In terms of the stability of the code, there are always going to be bugs, but the core stability of the code needs to be there. When it is not stable, that's a real problem for me because you lose a lot of confidence in the products."
"The certification for licensing could be better."
"The console is difficult to use. The firewall settings could be improved."
"The Aruba Central cloud portal needs a lot of work. It is complicated to navigate."
"I would like to see a faster web interface in the controller and more troubleshooting tools, including real-time troubleshooting tools."
"Needs improvement in point-to-point deployment products."
"Aruba doesn't match some competitors in wireless signal strength. It isn't in the same class as Cisco Meraki, so I would use Cisco Meraki in situations where I need to cover a large open space. Meraki has more powerful signals going out."
"Their software's really clunky."
"Before deploying a wireless solution, you have to read and plan every role, every windows system, put in your access point, and then make the audit. This solution is not the best one to do this. We use another solution that is called Eko. In the future, if this solution could have better auditing capabilities it would be better."
"There are some areas of improvement needed in roaming and streaming."
"The pricing of the solution is expensive if you compare it to other competitors."
"Requires a firewall body to improve security."
"The solution could be cheaper and have a better web interface."
"Sometimes I've seen some issues come up with the interference. That's an issue users face at times. It becomes very complex when you have a lot of wireless interference in the area, or in your office. It's because of the environment of Cisco. Maybe, in the future, they can work on this area, and fix this issue."
"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."
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 145 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.