We performed a comparison between Cisco Wireless WAN and Ubiquiti Wireless 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."It runs well, without issue."
"I use Cisco because of its reliability."
"Provides good visibility and insights into what is happening."
"The most valuable feature of Cisco Wireless WAN is the ease of management."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's best features are simple management, the cloud base, dashboards, and reliability."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"I give the scalability a nine out of ten."
"Our university has experienced a positive return on investment, and I believe Cisco Wireless WAN will continue to benefit us for at least a decade."
"Ubiquiti Wireless is very scalable. I don't know that there's a limit to the scalability. We just add more data switches to power more access points. We haven't come across a situation where it can't handle the Ubiquiti equipment."
"The most valuable feature is more access points."
"Ubiquiti wireless proves especially helpful in scenarios requiring mobility."
"It offers very good pricing."
"This access point provides internet to every lab on campus, including the computer laboratory"
"Ubiquiti Wireless is extremely easy to set up."
"Easy to set up and maintain and simple to configure."
"Having dual-band is important. Having compatibility with very old equipment on certain frequencies, for example on 2.4 and 5.8."
"Cisco Wireless WAN would be improved with the ability to monitor new usernames, product registrations, and flow traffic."
"If there's a problem, it's usually when Cisco pushes out updates. The users don't always push the updates to their computer, and it causes some issues. It's reliable as long as everyone is doing what they're supposed to."
"The price of Cisco Wireless WAN could improve, it is expensive."
"The only disadvantage of Cisco is maybe the cost."
"The support of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"We feel that Cisco is quite expensive, so we're looking for a reasonable alternative. We are considering Aruba and some other brands that are less expensive. Cisco works fine, but the issue is the annual licensing and support costs."
"Pricing is very high with Cisco products. It's something that many people complain about. They should work to make it more affordable."
"Cisco Wireless WAN is expensive."
"Ubiquiti Wireless could improve by being more user-friendly and easy to use."
"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."
"Difficult to see error logs and locate the problem."
"Sometimes we have some micro breaks we do not know what causes them."
"We'd like them to improve aspects of device management."
"In Ukraine at least, it's a problem when it comes to buying the hardware. For example, I made a request for 20 switches a few months ago. The solution needs to have worldwide availability."
"After upgrades to the interface, some features disappear."
"Tech support is mostly remote and could be better."
Cisco Wireless WAN is ranked 4th in Wireless WAN with 61 reviews while Ubiquiti Wireless is ranked 1st in Wireless WAN with 68 reviews. Cisco Wireless WAN is rated 8.2, while Ubiquiti Wireless is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Wireless WAN writes "Widely available and has a straightforward setup". 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 ". Cisco Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium Networks Wireless WAN and Fortinet FortiExtender, whereas Ubiquiti Wireless is most compared with Ruckus Wireless WAN, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, Cambium Networks Wireless WAN and Aruba Wireless. See our Cisco 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.