We performed a comparison between Aruba Networks Wireless WAN and Ruckus Wireless WAN based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Wireless WAN solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is easy to use."
"The most valuable features are price, quality, and performance."
"The solution is overall a great product. The stability is one of the best aspects of it. It's also useful in helping control multiple access points. You don't need to have a physical controller like other brands."
"I like the way that it integrates with the ClearPass security system on-site."
"Aruba is a very stable system."
"Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is stable and good."
"Aruba makes use of "Direct Tunnel" as its best security feature."
"I rate the support an eight out of ten since it is good."
"We use things like VLAN and all the multibeam features that are built in, but at the end of the day, the most important thing for us is to get a good signal and site-wide coverage."
"The best feature of Ruckus Wireless WAN apart from its seamless roaming feature where you roam beautifully on the network is its analytics tool that gives you so much insight into your deployment, so it has become more of a business intelligence type of tool as well. I also like that Ruckus Networks, in terms of WiFi security issues on the WiFi protocols, is also the first company to give you notices of security issues, and also the first to provide patches for those issues. Ruckus Wireless WAN is very proactive and much, much faster than Cisco, Aruba, and Meraki."
"The connectivity is good. There's no lag at all in service."
"It's highly scalable as long as the licenses are in place. You can expand it easily."
"The solution is easy to use and offers good management for wireless."
"Radio management is a valuable feature of the solution."
"The solution is suitable for many types of environments, such as small businesses."
"We found the technical support to be helpful."
"Technical support is important to me and I feel that it is something that can be improved."
"From the commercial-side the pricing side is fine but in other aspects, it could be lowered."
"Its technical support service could be better."
"In the next release, the security should be improved by including support for WPA3."
"In a meshed environment, the handoff between access points is sometimes not smooth when users are mobile. For example, a connection is occasionally interrupted when a user takes their laptop from the gym to the cafeteria."
"The only issues are the configuration problems that impact the stability of the solution."
"The solution would be improved with a better interface."
"The integration, pricing, and configuration could always be improved upon."
"The support could be faster. It takes time for them to reply."
"It would be nice to some analytical features built into this solution."
"The connectivity and mobility for users could be improved."
"The captive portal should be more customizable because right now, it is very limited."
"Ruckus Wireless WAN needs to improve its pricing."
"Pricing could be improved in Ruckus Wireless WAN because obviously, everybody wants things to become cheaper. Another room for improvement in the product is from a delivery perspective, particularly the heavy delivery delays because of the chip shortage that a lot of manufacturers have to deal with. The chip shortage is not coming to an end, but Ruckus Networks has to make a plan because the ETA has slipped out from the average of three months on switches to fourteen months, which is very, very rough on the industry at the moment. Ruckus Wireless WAN could lose business to Chinese competitors, for example, HTC has a good wireless solution that I haven't tested yet, other than on POC, and it works great. I haven't yet experienced the HTC wireless solution in large deployments, so you never know how it's going to go, but HTC has managed to circumvent the chip shortage, so the ETA provided by HTC is much more preferred than the ETAs provided by Ruckus Networks, Cisco, and Aruba products."
"Pricing is an area for improvement. The devices are relatively expensive."
"We have one sole distributor here in our region. To have multiple distributors here would be very helpful to improve the supply chain."
Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is ranked 5th in Wireless WAN with 47 reviews while Ruckus Wireless WAN is ranked 2nd in Wireless WAN with 45 reviews. Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is rated 8.4, while Ruckus Wireless WAN is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN writes "It's reliable, cost-effective, and easy to troubleshoot". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ruckus Wireless WAN writes " Offers robust outdoor connectivity, but signal strength and support need improvement". Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium Networks Wireless WAN, Ubiquiti Wireless and Fortinet FortiWLM, whereas Ruckus Wireless WAN is most compared with Ubiquiti Wireless and Cambium Networks Wireless WAN. See our Aruba Networks Wireless WAN vs. Ruckus Wireless WAN 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.