We previously used Cisco. 

We were using an older generation of the AP, and it was outdated by the time we upgraded. I also had some experience with Ruckus. It wasn't extensive, but my colleagues say that Ruckus is more reliable in a hospitality setting, and the coverage is better. 

Aruba lacks functions like the rogue Wi-Fi notification, but it's a good product. It just requires fine-tuning to get what you need and a good experience. Ruckus can do everything out of the box. You have an initial input, and it does everything for you. You can get the same from the Aruba.

We previously used Extreme Aerohive then we started using Cisco Meraki for some of our locations. We had Meraki at one or two of our offices, but we decided it was too costly, so we shifted to Aruba.

We've also used Ruckus Wireless, which is an 802.1X solution. Ruckus lacked a security feature that is available in Aruba. We didn't want to compromise on security with Ruckus even though the range is really good. It can cover larger areas and a greater number of devices. However, we are an organization that places a high premium on security, so that is why we switched to Aruba.

I think Meraki and Aruba can go hand in hand, but Meraki is expensive, and the OpEx is costly. You need to renew the licenses every year, so it's a lot of overhead. Meraki is a fantastic solution apart from that. 

I rate Cisco Meraki higher than most others I've used in the same price range. Ruckus is stable, but it can be difficult to implement an external Wifi connection without some kind of problem with the cabling or something else.

Aruba is in roughly the same class as  Ubiquiti, which carries no licenses that I'm aware of. Ruckus is an excellent product to use for local government clients when I'm not planning to go back there. Plus, it has the advantage of being an HP-branded product. 

I have previously used Cisco and Huawei solutions. The major difference with Huawei is it provides one single platform for the management of all of your features.

I have experience using Cisco, HP Comware, Commvault, Palo Alto, and Fortinet.

Our company uses a few solutions for our conferencing needs including this solution and Ruckus Wireless. We added Aruba because we expanded and needed two solutions. 

We used to use Ruckus.

With Ruckus, we were in on the initial stage. We were facing a lot of issues depending on the management. With Aruba, we did a POC, and we were satisfied with that. That's why we moved to them.

I also use Cisco.

There are no differences in the technology. There are some user experience differences. Integration would be a part of that. There are many integrations possible in the Cisco portfolio in terms of their own product line. If the entire portfolio is of Cisco, then the integration is quite easy and Cisco has the same kind of offerings. The SLA might differ and some of the user experiences might differ. However, in terms of the portfolio, Cisco stands out as they have an enterprise-class and a different portfolio altogether to cater to the cloud-based market. They have an entire offering called Meraki. They do focus on the enterprise with Cisco. Companies that are small or medium scale work more with Meraki.

I worked for a company that had Cisco for many years. Actually, towards the end of that, I switched them from Cisco to Ruckus. I did a POC and a pilot between Ruckus and Aruba, and Ruckus came out on top because of its simplified approach to wireless networking. I have also used Meraki, which is Cisco's cloud-only based AP solution. 

Cisco is like the other de facto. A lot of shops are all Cisco. Their hardware is probably on par with Aruba in terms of processing and handling capabilities. Features are also probably the same. It is more like a Ford-GM question. If you were brought up in a Ford household, you are probably going to buy a Ford sort of thing. I don't think there is much to them, to be honest.

The differentiator for me is that Cisco has a product, which is its network access control system, called ISE or identity services engine. That's a terrible product. It really is an awful product. It is very cumbersome, and it makes adding network access control to your wireless and wired networks very problematic. Aruba's product is called ClearPass, and it is a very flexible tool and easy tool. It is a much more reliable tool. While it doesn't have all the features that you can use with Cisco, it is a standard network application system, which means it will work with any vendor for any system. So, you can do 90% to 95% of the stuff you want, and it is a much more stable and capable system. This difference and the price are differentiators for me. 

From a purely wireless perspective, I think that Aruba is number one. Cisco is a very close number two, and then Ruckus is actually a distant third. Ruckus doesn't have all of the advanced capabilities, but what it does, it does very well. If you want a very basic entry-level wireless that is cheap for K-12 schools or a lot of environments like that, you can use Ruckus. If you need some of the advanced stuff, then you're going to have to pick one of the other solutions.

My company has a particular office on Cisco APs, then replaced completely with Aruba Wireless, one of the most extensive Aruba deployments in the company.

My company is still planning to switch from Cisco Wireless to Aruba Wireless in other offices. However, concerning Cisco Wireless, the product is pretty stable and solid. It has been running for years, but eighty percent of the environment is on Cisco Wireless, which Aruba Wireless will eventually replace.

I work with Cisco and Aruba. We are more familiar with Cisco because we've been using it for more than 15 years. It is stable and available in active/standby. We can put one in the backup dial center and one in the primary dial center.

Cisco's controller is also stable, and they're using DNA to monitor. It sends us an alert if something happens and tells us what caused the problem. It can identify the root cause and solution. 

I have used Ruckus previously and when I compare this solution to Ruckus, they are both very similar. I implement both of them.

We are a partner for Aruba, Cisco, and Huawei.

We previously used Extreme Networks. We switched from 802.11n to 802.11ac, and Aruba was rewarded the bid mainly due to cost.

I've also used Juniper.

I also have experience with Cisco wireless LAN controllers and a little bit with the Meraki line of networking equipment.

We were primarily running Cisco products at one time. However, we pulled out the Cisco devices because they were too complicated and too expensive.

We bought out another company that is currently using Aruba wireless LAN controllers. However, we're getting rid of that system and moving them to the cloud.

The reliability of Aruba products is better and the technical support from Aruba is more responsive.

Cisco is good but there's much better competition out there.

I previously used Meraki. Aruba has better network speed. Also, in Meraki, when we make changes, we need to refresh the dashboard. With Aruba, it's one click and we can regulate and refresh the dashboard. It's much easier. 

Before Aruba, we were on individual "fat" access points, so we had to manage each one individually.

We used Cisco, the older technology, before using Aruba Wireless. We were not getting guest management as a feature on Cisco, while Aruba Wireless came up with guest management via Aruba ClearPass, so we started using Aruba Wireless.

I do not have any experience with other vendors other than Aruba Wireless.

I have been working with Juniper WLC Series for one year. We plan to implement Juniper next month.

I also have experience with Cisco Wireless solutions as well. 

We previously used Cisco. We were contacted by Aruba and had some fantastic demonstrations from them. We talked to other schools that had already implemented the solution. We looked at Gartner reports and where they sat in terms of their support, their product and their reputation in the market. We did extensive research on Aruba before switching.

We also use Ruckus Wireless.

We have used Cisco and Ruckus in the past. We are still using Ruckus, but stopped using Cisco due to directors orders.

I wanted experience using more products. We were already using another product but I thought, "Okay, let's try Aruba this time and see what the feedback is like." I thought Aruba would give me better performance, after looking at the performance of the existing devices.

When selecting a vendor, the most important factor is that support has to be there. I would look for constant support from any vendor. It can't be that the product is sold and after that there is no support. There has to be constant and quick support from the vendor.

We did not switch products. Rather, our choice is based on customer requirements. It's the best-recommended product listed by Gartner on this segment.

I have a lot of experience with wireless networking products from Aruba and Juniper. I also have some experience with Ruckus.

I compared Aruba Wireless with other solutions, and I found it to be a complete product. It's ahead of the competition, so I chose to work with it.

We also use Cisco. We find Aruba's technical support is better.

We had Aruba and we just replaced it with Juniper Mist a few weeks ago (September 2020). The AI-driven management solutions from Juniper Mist suits our business more than the Aruba solution we used before. I think Aruba did the work we needed before, but better management is the reason why we moved over to Juniper Mist.  

Before Aruba, we worked with HP Colubris. We stopped using the HP Colubris solution because HP no longer provided it. That is what happened.  

They had their wireless in place for eight years and I have been here for three. I wasn't a part of the initial decision-making process.

We switched to Aruba because of the advanced security. In healthcare we have HIPAA compliance to achieve and maintain. Security is a priority.

We have used Cisco products in the past.

We have also used Cisco. Aruba's database is better compared to Cisco. We chose Aruba because the pricing is better.

Our company has been a partner of the solution for the last ten years. 

I am certified, in Sophos XG.

We work with Full Configuration, Virtual Controller Wireless, Ruckus, and Cisco.

I used SonicPoint. The connection stability was very poor. Though, the firewalls worked well.

I also worked with the Cisco wireless solution as I manage several enterprise networks that use different solutions. I would say that managing Aruba products is easier than Cisco.

I was previously using Cisco small business. We switched to Aruba Wireless because the capacity was better and was more stable. I wanted to switch to SQL Enterprise but the price was very high compared to Aruba Wireless.

With our previous system, we had to delete users who had not connected to our WiFi for a period of time. With this system, we did not have to worry about that. 

We used Cisco and switched because of the price. In order for us to get what we needed from them, it would have been too costly. 

We were using another vendor to provide WiFi capabilities. Although it didn't have any limitations, Aruba integrated better with our existing equipment.

I used to use Meraki but with Meraki, if you stop paying for the licenses, you basically don't own the device. Once you stop paying for the licensing, the device is pretty much dead.

We did for a very brief time, it was a consumer "off-the-shelf" product to get us by in strategic locations in our building. It was not intended to be a long-term deployment.

We previously used HP Access Point and LANCOM Access Points. The HP series was discontinued and the LANCOM is very outdated. Therefore, we switched over to Aruba.

Out of the box, we had 1000 access points licensed, but that amount depends on your own license. If you buy 120, you can support 120. There's no change to the control site up to 1000 licenses. Compared to Cisco in this regard, Arube is not as flexible.

Compared with the solution, Cisco Wireless has a more user-friendly GUI for configuration.

The other way around, we have switched away from Aruba to Ruckus. Aruba’s poor performance and random upgrade issues caused too much time consuming maintenance and troubleshooting. Ruckus Unleashed has been flawless; performance almost doubled, and it is far easier to configure.

I have used all three solutions Aruba Wireless, Cisco, and Ruckus.

We were using several different vendors, including Cisco and some old HP's, and we wanted to standardized in all our offices. So, we switched to Aruba and now have central management.

We're switching from Cisco. It was an executive decision, that's what I'll say. In those large organizations, that's how that works out sometimes. We're definitely going to help with that.

We previously used a Sonicwall NSA3500 for all our needs. We switched due to the lack of Layer three provisioning at the time plus I wasn’t a fan of one device controlling so many aspects of our network and security.

I also use Cisco solutions. Both solutions are very good and suitable for different kinds of networks. Cisco is very good for certain kinds of networks, and Aruba is good for other kinds. Cisco is simpler to deploy, whereas Aruba is more complicated and complex to deploy.

I have worked with other great vendors like Cisco, Meraki, Motorola, etc.

Cisco has always been a close competitor to Aruba Networks but Cisco is much bigger than just wireless hence I think Aruba does justice to what they have to offer and are focused on Wi-Fi only.

We had a small Cisco wireless environment originally and to upgrade or expand that environment it would have been a very expensive purchase. Also, instead of one controller that does everything we needed it to do, it would have taken two to three other devices with Cisco to make it work.

I'm familiar via my career with other manufacturers solutions and have worked with those too. In my current position we have used Arubas' WLAN from the start.

I have used Juniper and Cisco networking products previously.

We used Meru. We switched to Aruba for the newer technologies they presented.

We've used Meru and Cisco, but Aruba's proven to be the best.

We switched for its new and advanced features, as well the lifetime warranty.

We chose HP because of the price. It's a good solution and best-suited for us.

Yes I previously used a Cisco Solution. We changed products because Aruba was better in cost.

Partner had been using Cisco. They switched to Aruba, because of price and functionality, also with an option for adding a SW, like AirWave, Meridian, ClearPass, and Central.

Yes, we did. It was Cisco Autonomous APs, but we replaced them as we wanted a centralized system.

We deal with several wireless networking products from Aruba, Ruckus, and Brocade.

I have used Cisco, Ruckus, D-Link, and Proxim. Aruba is equal or better than Cisco. The price and performance were the reason for the change.

No previous solution used.

Previously was using Meru and switched due to additional features and functionality in the Aruba products.

None. Aruba Wireless was the first and has remained til today.

No, Aruba WLAN was my first experience with WLAN solutions and is unique.

We use a previous solution, but we switched due to stability and the possible integration with different products.