We performed a comparison between Cisco Wireless WAN and Fortinet FortiExtender 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 offers very good performance, especially for iPhones."
"Mobile anchoring and graphic user interface are helpful features."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of configuration."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's most valuable feature is it is robust."
"Stability is one aspect that I find very valuable."
"Cisco Wireless WAN is stable and scalable, and the support received is good."
"We don't see many troubleshooting issues. Normally, it's a user error when it comes to the JSS or the VPN. Once they log into the system or they get on the internet, then they log directly into the JSS, so they can do their work."
"Recently, the most valuable and in-demand feature that users are enjoying is WiFi 6 support on the access points. The other good thing about Cisco Wireless LAN is how easily it provides clean access to the WiFi network."
"Management can be carried out from a central point."
"The solution is extremely user-friendly."
"The product is easy to use and easy to integrate."
"You don't need to have two different vendors to interoperate and get into comparability issues or inter-operability issues."
"For me, the best feature of Fortinet FortiExtender is its integration with an external solution such as a 5G LTE broadband modem, wired modem, and cellular network. I also like that the product can be integrated into one device or a unified device, and that is one of its best features because it allows you to manage and centralize the control of every device."
"The initial setup was was just beautiful. It was straightforward."
"We appreciate that this solution can be used as an active secondary link as well as a backup."
"The most valuable feature will be that it works."
"The setup of Cisco Wireless WAN needs an expert. You need someone with experience to be able to work with Cisco Wireless solutions. It took approximately one to two weeks to implement the solution."
"We found the initial setup to be a bit complex due to the CLI commands."
"There are some limitations with scaling the on-premises version - if you want to scale, you need to change the hardware and purchase a new wireless controller at an additional cost."
"The support of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The pricing is a bit high."
"The product must be made more user-friendly."
"Cisco Firewall cannot recognize some applications and that makes dealing with policies difficult. Even when we whitelist, it does not work well."
"The interface is a little bit difficult to understand at times. It would be good if Cisco were to make it user friendly so that everyone can easily configure it without the need to do certifications and courses to learn how to use all of the devices."
"The support could be faster and more responsive."
"I would like to see them make it smaller in the next release so that it has a smaller footprint for mobile clients."
"What most of my clients are telling me is the price is a problem."
"We would like to see some improvement in the price for 5G models, as they are currently very expensive."
"The engineering of the solution has some negative points, especially in terms of troubleshooting. It's difficult to troubleshoot when we have a problem. It's not like other products like Cisco or Palo Alto which make troubleshooting much easier."
"Though Fortinet FortiExtender has some security features, the product could still be improved by adding features similar to those in FortiGuard, such as antivirus, intrusion, prevention, and detection, as well as web filtering features. The product is also not as user-friendly, so that's another area for improvement. In the FortiGate UTM solution of Fortinet, there's software-defined or SD-WAN, and in the next release of Fortinet FortiExtender, I'd like to see SD-WAN embedded in the product. Most of the communication in Fortinet FortiExtender is related to WAN and Edge, so having an SD-WAN function in the product would be useful for integrating and controlling WAN communication."
"There is a huge downside because we need to remove and insert the SIM to get it working."
"The solution would be a lot better if it was a little bit more intuitive. Additionally, the help menu would be a lot better if it was easier to identify the items that I was looking for. I find the graphical interface a little bit difficult to navigate. And I find the font that is used on the HTML interface not conducive to being able to be read in low light situations."
Cisco Wireless WAN is ranked 4th in Wireless WAN with 61 reviews while Fortinet FortiExtender is ranked 6th in Wireless WAN with 8 reviews. Cisco Wireless WAN is rated 8.2, while Fortinet FortiExtender is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco Wireless WAN writes "Widely available and has a straightforward setup". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortinet FortiExtender writes "Seamless with excellent integration capabilities and flexibility". Cisco Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium Networks Wireless WAN and Ubiquiti Wireless, whereas Fortinet FortiExtender is most compared with . See our Cisco Wireless WAN vs. Fortinet FortiExtender 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.