What is our primary use case?
We use this solution for point to point. For example, if we have an ISP and you want to feed a company with bandwidth, we use the "add point to point" feature for wifi.
We use it as an access point, but if you are talking about manifestation, this is for a very limited range, evaluated in a limited number of people. If you want to have a real ISP business, you need a different solution. It can be installed inside a system, and then you use that setup to broadcast a signal. It's very stable in most cases if we don't have Microsoft.
We use the on-premises version of the solution.
What is most valuable?
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 than Microsoft.
It is also the first company in Iraq that provides a product with an antenna and feeds all in one compact design. Before that, we had the magnetic adapter alone and then antenna alone.
After that, Microsoft and other companies have produced equipment like Ubiquiti, but it was the first one that made this design.
You should also not forget that we use Ubiquiti for point to point with devices. All their features are very popular here in Iraq, though.
What needs improvement?
They should make more advanced features for power users. I am a technician and I am functional, but I do need some features that I find only in Microsoft. I cannot find them in Ubiquiti. This is a very important point because although the user experience is very easy, it lacks many features that can be found in Cisco and Microsoft.
Basically, Ubiquiti is a great product for beginners or home users. If you are a really proficient user, on the other hand, you will need more features. In that case, you would want Ubiquity to add more features.
I think they should improve their firmware. They should make it more like Microsoft, with more features and they should make it as stable as Cisco IOS. I miss this very much because if I have a professional friend and he wants my advice about which router to use, in some cases he will need advanced features. If you want to make something for YouTube, for example, only Cisco or Microsoft will do.
If they add those features, they still should not increase the price. Microsoft has had some serious issues with the same price as Ubiquiti. If the difference is small, like only 5%, it's not an issue.
For how long have I used the solution?
We've been using this solution for the last four years.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The solution is very stable and that is a very good thing. They have a wide range of products like for the point multiplying applications. This is used in the case that I have an access point and a client wants to connect to me. Ubiquiti has staffing for manifestation locally, for both the five gigahertz and 24 gigahertz versions. They move up to manifestation five in DDI, while you also have 23 DDI, 24 DDI, etc. We have a wide range of projects for a very wide range of people.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
It is scalable within a certain range, but I think it's not for very big companies. If you install Cisco, for example, you can leave it to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week and it would go nonstop for two or three years without an issue. For Ubiquiti, I don't think that is possible.
It is a lack of hardware. The hardware is good compared to some other companies. If you comparing to Cisco, though, it's not as good. Cisco is much better at making hardware.
I have many friends using Ubiquiti. I also know may companies using Ubiquiti. In Iraq 75% use UDM products.
They have some products that can be used in both big and small companies. For the point to point application, there is a product that is very widely used in Iraq. You can advance, for example, one gigabyte of data through 23 megahertz to the user. It's called airFiber 11FX and it's very, very widely used in Iraq. There is also the 5X, 5U and 5XHD, and airFiber 24 and 24HD. I don't think Cisco has such a solution. This is why it's used in many companies, even on the enterprise level.
We also use their fiber internet to bring an internet connection to a place that is very far away from the town. So they use this product to get an internet connection.
How was the initial setup?
It is very easy to set up. If I am a new user, for example, I can search for instructions on YouTube. Many videos on YouTube will help. One time I used it to learn how to install and configure very easily.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
The price is reasonable and there's only a one-time payment. We have had this for a long time and I haven't seen any additional fee after paying for the installation.
What other advice do I have?
They have a product that is used a lot in Iraq homes, because they use it to get an education, through the internet from an access point. This is used by all people in Iraq. There are some other companies like TP-Link, but TP-Link is not stable. TP-Link has many issues in their products. So you can use this as a normal user in a house and move up to companies even, in some cases.
Depending on the router type, you might have to reset it every couple of days or every couple of months.
I would rate this as nine out of ten, where Cisco would be a ten.