We compared Ruckus Wireless WAN and Ubiquiti Wireless based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
In summary, Ruckus Wireless WAN is commended for its excellent signal strength and network stability, while Ubiquiti Wireless is praised for its reliable connections and ease of installation. Ruckus offers robust security measures, scalability, and advanced troubleshooting capabilities, while Ubiquiti is noted for its user-friendly interface and security features. Customers find Ruckus's pricing competitive and appreciate its strong ROI, while Ubiquiti is valued for its cost-effectiveness and positive impact on productivity. Critics suggest Ruckus improve network stability and management options, while Ubiquiti could focus on signal strength and reliability enhancements.
Features: Ruckus Wireless WAN stands out for its excellent signal strength and coverage, seamless connectivity, and advanced troubleshooting capabilities. On the other hand, Ubiquiti Wireless excels in its ease of installation and setup, user-friendly interface, and flexible scalability options.
Pricing and ROI: Ruckus Wireless WAN has been praised for its reasonable and competitive pricing, with minimal installation costs. Users find the licensing process flexible. On the other hand, customers consider Ubiquiti Wireless to offer good value for the cost, with straightforward setup and no additional expenses. The licensing process is described as uncomplicated and hassle-free., The ROI from Ruckus Wireless WAN was highly positive. Users praised the ease of installation and setup, as well as the scalable solution. On the other hand, Ubiquiti Wireless offers cost-effectiveness and advanced security features. Users appreciate the improved connectivity and faster speeds.
Room for Improvement: Ruckus Wireless WAN could improve network stability, reliability, management options, configuration options, troubleshooting capabilities, and customer support. Meanwhile, Ubiquiti Wireless needs enhancements in signal strength, coverage, reliability, and stability.
Deployment and customer support: User reviews of Ruckus Wireless WAN indicate varying durations for deployment, setup, and implementation. Some users spent three months on deployment and an additional week on setup, while others completed both in a week. For Ubiquiti Wireless, some users took three months for deployment and a week for setup, while others took a week for each. The context in which users use these terms should be considered., Ruckus Wireless WAN is known for its reliable support system and efficient problem resolution. In comparison, Ubiquiti Wireless excels at providing excellent customer service, with knowledgeable and patient support personnel who offer prompt and helpful assistance.
The summary above is based on 58 interviews we conducted recently with Ruckus Wireless WAN and Ubiquiti Wireless users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"Its build quality is good and quite robust."
"The strongest point for Ruckus has always been the radio hardware."
"The most valuable feature of Ruckus Wireless WAN is the antenna technology."
"One of the best features of Ruckus Wireless WAN that customers are interested in is the adaptive antenna called BeamFlex. Ruckus Wireless WAN also has the best management platform, and even if there are thousands of users of the solution, it's very easy to manage on Ruckus Wireless WAN. It can also support third-party equipment. It's an all-in-one solution and it has IoT and secure access capabilities. Upgrading the network to Ruckus Wireless WAN is also easy."
"The technical features are very good and it's very useful if you need a wireless solution."
"Ruckus Wireless WAN is an easy-to-use solution."
"The initial setup of Ruckus Wireless WAN is very easy."
"The stability provided is very nice."
"One of the nice features is the backup version control."
"Easy to use and flexible."
"The failure rate is very low on these devices - I've had them installed for five years and have only lost one out of a hundred."
"I like the fact that you can set it up like a wireless connection. Previously, we used to connect from one SSID to another. When we started using Ubiquiti, everyone was so happy because even if they moved from one place or another, say from the pantry to a meeting room, they didn't need to connect manually to another SSID. This is one of the features that I really like about it. It is doing a great job. It offers a free controller that you can use to see if the devices are connected or not and if they are up or down."
"It offers very good pricing."
"The solution offers us good situational awareness by providing information on user activity, signal strength, and all the data that you need to manage the system and understand issues."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is a simple and useful tool that offers good performance."
"The ease of the setup is one of its most valuable aspects."
"There is a significant issue with wireless functionality in Apple devices, particularly during video calls."
"Pricing is an area for improvement. The devices are relatively expensive."
"The solution could be more stable."
"I would like to have a better built-in reporting feature."
"The captive portal should be more customizable because right now, it is very limited."
"The initial setup is complex."
"We had a problem with the delivery of the solution."
"In Cisco, there is a configuration where it automatically switches from the 2.4 GHz to 5.2 GHz frequency. But with Ruckus, usually, we need to manually define whether we want to use the 2.4 GHz or 5.2 GHz."
"We'd like the solution to be more stable and have fewer firmware upgrades."
"Ubiquiti isn't as good for larger networks as any of the other wireless solutions. It lacks performance, coverage, and some of the advanced capabilities other solutions have."
"The solution has very good product lines. However, it feels like some models overlap. For example, a new model is announced after three months, and another new model is announced shortly after. So, the release cycle feels too short, and some features overlap. Overall, the products are very good and reliable."
"Their stock is a bit low compared to others, making it difficult to purchase."
"They have access points that are in the firewalls, and I believe the firewalls could be significantly better. They use the USG firewall, which I believe is a poor device. VPNs for example, it is really bad, it is difficult to configure, and I don't like them at all."
"The Unifi controller software has a small issue."
"Ubiquiti Wireless could improve by being more user-friendly and easy to use."
"We use different models of the solution but in some cases, the security could improve in the adaptive portal, be a little more robust, and easier to use."
Ruckus Wireless WAN is ranked 2nd in Wireless WAN with 45 reviews while Ubiquiti Wireless is ranked 1st in Wireless WAN with 68 reviews. Ruckus Wireless WAN is rated 8.2, while Ubiquiti Wireless is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Ruckus Wireless WAN writes " Offers robust outdoor connectivity, but signal strength and support need improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ubiquiti Wireless writes "It's cheap and easy to use but isn't suitable for large deployments or complex use cases ". Ruckus Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium Networks Wireless WAN, whereas Ubiquiti Wireless is most compared with Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, Cambium Networks Wireless WAN, Aruba Wireless, ExtremeCloud IQ and Fortinet FortiWLM. See our Ruckus Wireless WAN vs. Ubiquiti Wireless report.
See our list of best Wireless WAN vendors.
We monitor all Wireless WAN 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.
yes. aprox. same issues at the half price
yes