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.
"The solution is very secure."
"The most valuable feature of Juniper Mist is the Virtual Network Assistant, powered by artificial intelligence."
"With Mist, every Wednesday they roll out new features."
"The most useful feature of Juniper Wireless AP is the reporting Marvis."
"The solution is pretty generic and easy to use."
"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 solution is stable."
"In terms of reporting, in terms of all the user reports, it's very rich."
"Cisco Wireless is scalable."
"Cisco Wireless is scalable."
"It is a stable solution. The performance was good."
"Cisco's technical support is very good, I've never had an issue with their technical support."
"The most valuable features are mobility and security."
"The tool's most valuable features are security, flexibility, user activity, and high bandwidth."
"Good connectivity and easy to configure."
"Identity PSK helps save SSIDs."
"Comprehensive availability and performance of monitoring and reporting for WISP network monitor."
"It's stable."
"Ruckus Wireless is an easy to manage solution."
"It's good for low-level usage."
"The solution enhances the user experience."
"Ruckus Wireless provides good coverage."
"The solution has an easy configuration."
"At times of heavy network congestion, we can restrict the bandwidth available to clients either by SSID or at the client level, which helps cut down on our bandwidth costs."
"They should include SD-WAN features to it."
"If you want to do more specific stuff, it's a bit limited."
"There is room for improvement in terms of support and installation."
"The solution is expensive."
"Enrolling into the tool is a tedious process."
"Improving third-party integration is key for Juniper Mist's next release."
"I need a bit more time with it before criticizing the features."
"The product should include adaptive Wi-Fi to show a more accurate location."
"It requires a few tweaks in order to stabilize it. Its portal is complex. Cisco solutions are complex in general."
"The coverage area of Cisco Wireless could improve. Additionally, the reports when a problem arises could be better, such as how it is done in Aruba Wireless solutions. In the Aruba wireless solutions, there are reports that are provided regarding uploads, downloads, and other internet activity that are useful. If this feature was added to Cisco that would be a benefit."
"There's a delay in equipment that comes to Columbia, to our country, and that lasts almost six months."
"The pricing of the solution is expensive if you compare it to other competitors."
"The technical support could be better. They aren't as helpful as they need to be when we run into issues."
"The main concern is the length and overlapping. We have to put on four to six access points on the same floor, and we face the issue of overlapping areas. If Cisco can extend the range of their indoor APs, we would need to install just one or two access points, and it would eliminate the problem of the overlapping area."
"For pricing, Cisco has to make an effort, or Cisco has to improve the distribution channel."
"Installation is complex."
"Some customers have issues with the price because it's more expensive than Ubiquiti, but they can accept the cost because it's reliable and has more features."
"In my company, we still has to do some manual calculations on where we should set the access points, which is a time-consuming process as there were no automatic setup functions provided by the tool."
"If the system could directly download and update, that would be much easier. It could be more automated."
"While the Virtual SmartZone appliance has improved in the last few years, it isn’t without issue and the performance of the Web page leaves something to be desired."
"I would like to see this product made a little more economical because it's very expensive."
"The solution could include more security features."
"I think that Web management, global management, could be improved. Unfortunately, there's not one solution that does everything. There are something like six different solutions, and each of them do something better than the others. Unfortunately, there's not one global solution that does everything."
"It is extremely difficult to send videos in Ruckus live sessions. Zoom streaming, or using Teams Streaming live sessions to send videos, for example, could be more effective."
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 97 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).