We switched to Aruba when Hewlett-Packard Enterprise bought Aruba. We previously used Cisco, Meraki, and Hewlett-Packard. Aruba had a broader offering than some of the other solutions.  For instance, if you used Cisco, there was a missing middle area in terms of capacity where you had to jump from a low-end to a higher end with nothing in between. Meraki started on the low end, and they didn't have much on the high end. We found Aruba fit the entire range. 

I have experience with Extreme Networks. My company also has experience with solutions offering access points, like Cisco and Meraki.

We actually represent a variety. We have several in our portfolio of products, and Aruba and Cisco are the top two. Cisco and Meraki being the top of the Cisco brands.

Compared to those, Aruba has a more customer-friendly focus for its business model, not only on the support function but also on the acquisition and operation side. Where I mentioned the complexity before, Meraki has simplified its installation. That's something that if Aruba could accomplish what Meraki did with their simple installation plan, they would be top-notch in every area.

We previously used Huawei AP but had some issues and budgetary concerns. 

We didn’t really use a different solution. There wasn't much in the market in 2005. When we started, we started with wireless into the early and late nineties. By that time, you had very small island solutions. There were three coming market and a few other products that were controller-based, and almost nothing was controller based.

If you look at the competitors, they're almost all the same, they're just the different flavors and whatever you are used to it and how comfortable you feel with the product. We do WAN products with Aruba. We do WAN products with Fortinet as well. We do software-defined networking, the same as Aruba offers; however, there's not much difference between them.

We’ve also used Ruckus. We have a few customers in the carrier business, and Ruckus is primarily used in the carrier business. It's placed in the same league as Aruba.

We previously used Fortinet and switched because our customer decided to use their solution.

We have used Cisco before.

I have used many other similar solutions including those by Extreme Networks, Cisco, Ruckus Networks, and Huawei. Huawei is the market leader in this domain.

I have used many other network solutions, such as Cisco and Ruckus.

Ruckus stands out in its ability to provide connectivity to users through its access points even when the controller is unavailable or cannot be reached. In contrast, if the controller goes down with Aruba or Cisco, the entire infrastructure will be affected, unless you switch to Mobility-based or virtual-based software.

One disadvantage of Aruba is their access point bracket, which is not standardized across all their devices, such as Cisco's brackets. This makes it difficult to identify and mount access points in different locations, as they may require different types of brackets based on the mounting method and physical location. Additionally, Aruba's console cable is not standardized across all models, unlike Cisco's console cable which can be used for switches, access points, and RJ4 devices. Furthermore, Aruba's console cable is not included in the box, which can make it challenging to access and control an access point through the serial port without having to find and purchase the specific cable required. In contrast, Cisco has a standardized console cable that can be used for all their devices.

Before using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN, we had been working on Cisco and Awale, which are somewhat competitors of this solution. We also deployed Awale, which works fine, but Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is widely used in our company.

We also use Cisco. I'm familiar with Juniper as well. 

My company has past experience with Cisco. My company switched from Cisco to Aruba because, at times, if you try to upgrade it using Wi-Fi 6, you would realize that Cisco doesn't support Wi-Fi 6.

I'm also familiar with Cisco, however, their warranties are not as good. We used to use Cisco Meraki. Aruba is less expensive. 

I’ve also dealt with Cisco and found Aruba more affordable with better support.

Previously, we did not use another solution.

There was a seller who suggested Aruba, and we started using it from that time.

I didn't switch. It was just the solution that was here. Coming from Cisco and other systems, Aruba actually did leave a good mark on me compared to how other systems operate and work.

My most important criteria when selecting a vendor would be

• the quality of the product
• the support behind it
• the stability of the environment in real life, not in a demo environment.
  

We have also worked with Cisco wireless solutions. The price of Aruba is better but Cisco's technical support is superior.

We used HPE MSM. HPE replaced that with Aruba, and that's why we followed.

Yes, we used Cisco before, but we switched to Aruba because of the price. Cisco was too expensive.