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.
"It's highly scalable as long as the licenses are in place. You can expand it easily."
"The ratio of highest quality to value is the most valuable."
"The technical features are very good and it's very useful if you need a wireless solution."
"Ruckus Wireless WAN's best feature is its virtual controller."
"There are numerous features, but what I like about Ruckus is that they have a good coverage range due to their BeamFlex technique."
"What I like best about Ruckus Wireless WAN is easy administration. After installation, you'll benefit from how easy it is to administer the product. I also like that the product can cover the whole area with just a few endpoints."
"The initial setup of Ruckus Wireless WAN is very easy."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of adding an access point."
"It functions properly and includes centralized management for access points and switches."
"We had a client with a power plant. Different wireless devices from various brands caused problems. We fixed it using the Ubiquiti Wireless UDM controller and installed 75 access points and antennas."
"It is a highly scalable platform."
"The stability and performance are great."
"What I found most valuable in Ubiquiti Wireless is that it's priced competitively, compared to other brands available in the market. From a price competitiveness standpoint, it's a product I would recommend. I also find Ubiquiti Wireless quite reliable, at least for me using it as a home access point, it seems to serve its purpose. I also like that with Ubiquiti Wireless, you can build a very modular network, so you could change out your router to use a Ubiquiti router if you want to. The solution also has gateway equipment and all, so I like the modular concept of Ubiquiti Wireless. Another feature I find valuable in the solution is monitoring. It is pretty good. For example, as a home user, I have the unified app on my computer, so I'm able to watch how my APs are performing."
"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."
"It's very easy to use. The hardware is very easy to use, compared to Microsoft. Microsoft is more complicated. It has software that is okay if you are familiar with it. In my opinion, Ubiquiti hardware is more heavy duty then Microsoft."
"It allows us to offer policy control."
"I have been working with WiFi for more than 17 years. I am not able to convince customers because of the pricing of the solution. Otherwise, we could have sold lots of this tool to the customers."
"Of course, we'd always like it to be cheaper, but that's for every product."
"We had a problem with the delivery of the solution."
"The support could be faster. It takes time for them to reply."
"The solution needs to offer more analytics."
"The solution could be more stable."
"Pricing is an area for improvement. The devices are relatively expensive."
"The documentation they do have is very difficult to understand. There should be some scenarios, deployments, complications, or techniques to follow. They are inadequate in that regard, and the documentation needs to be greatly improved."
"The network setup could be a little easier and more straightforward."
"The Unifi controller software has a small issue."
"The documentation and support provided by the solution areas of concern where improvements are required."
"They should make more advanced features for the power users. I am a technician and I am functional, but I do need some features that I find only in Microsoft."
"Sometimes we have some micro breaks we do not know what causes them."
"Its stability could be better."
"Better third-party integration would be helpful because often, Ubiquity is a product that customers choose after they already have something else from another vendor like HPE."
"One of the Ubiquiti access points broke down, and it can't be used. It's still down now, so overall Ubiquiti hasn't been a good experience for me."
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