The device works very well and distributes a good signal across the four sites. Overall, during my brief use of the Meraki MR33, I feel like I have barely scratched the surface of its features. Deploying a full Meraki system provides even more features, allowing you to break down the network and identify specific points of failure. The switches can even detect cable issues which quite often can be the main cause for a call-out within my business. I would rate it nine out of 10.

Like anything in life, if you're familiar with it, it's easy. Can it get complicated? Of course. But I would just say, just do your research. And make sure you count the cost too. There are two things that are in play here; do your research. Once you get on a comfort level, then you can proceed with it. It works. It's pretty solid. And then the cost. Make sure that if you've got to expand that you have the financial flexibility to be able to accommodate any expansion you need, if not, then you may want to turn to another solution that might be a little cheaper.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine. 

I work for a partner. I have only used physical controllers. People who want to use the tool must review the Miercom reports. The reports are independent tests that Miercom runs against Cisco and its competitors. I haven't read one where it hasn't been Cisco that has come out on top. If your enterprise wants a stable, high-performing, and resilient wireless tool, Cisco is the solution for you. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

We're just a customer and an end-user.

We use the 2500 wireless controller and all the APs that go with it. 

We have Cisco switches and routers as well. We were using Cisco firewalls up until about three years ago. And then we switched to Palo Alto. As far as switching goes, still happy with their switches. They're extremely pricey, however, they last forever, and they meet a lot of government requirements that we have.

I'd recommend the solution I wouldn't hesitate to do install it if the company can afford it.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten for its ease of setup, ease of scalability, and robustness.

I would recommend it based on the requirements. Any medical, educational, financial, and government sector can go for Cisco with closed eyes. A retail shop, store, or restaurant doesn't require Cisco. They just need internet access, and they can go with Huawei, Fortinet, Ruckus, or any other third party. You need to know your requirements before deciding on a solution.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.

My recommendation to others about the product depends on why they want to use it. There are so many types of wireless controllers from other vendors like Cisco, Huawei, and HP, but Cisco is the best one for stability. For the coverage Cisco Wireless provides, I won't recommend it.

I rate the overall tool a ten out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to other users. If you're interested in Cisco, Meraki is a good choice, but they are lagging a little bit behind in terms of technology. If you compare Aruba with Mist, Mist has the most advanced wireless solutions that you can possibly get at the moment.

After over seven years of use, overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of seven.

My company has no problems with the performance offered by the product.

Cisco offers the best solutions in the market.

To those who plan to use the solution in the future, I would say that it is a tool that needs to be completely integrated into an infrastructure.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten. I recommend Cisco Wireless. The way we designed and deployed it, considering cost is always a significant factor for us, has proven to be more than affordable. With the extensive deployment of access points throughout our infrastructure, Cisco Wireless aligns well with our budget. Moreover, it is compatible with 2.4 and 5 gigahertz and Wi-Fi 6, which perfectly meets our requirements.

I'm a customer. I'm an engineer in a midsize enterprise that employs 40,000 people. It's a global company spread throughout the world. Scalability and wireless is something that we are looking for right now.

This product is great for someone who is looking to improve their connectivity. Of course, new users should check whether or not this is suited for the company. There are some cheaper, smaller solutions that they could use - even Cisco's Meraki. 

The solution we are using is big due to the fact that we have 300 or 400 access points per country, so we are using 80% of its features. We are tweaking everything from RF policies, and we're using advanced-style SSIDs like 802.1X authentication via radius, on the external radius server. We are using simple pressure key authentication. We are also using captive portal authentication with Cisco ISE. And we are also currently trying to implement a more advanced form of pressure key ossification, a segmented policy-based pressure key based on Cisco ISE, which is going to be used for the IoT devices. We get a lot out of Cisco.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

There were some issues during the initial installation. You need to be very careful of the images for some reason. For example, the GUI can trick you. That's my beef with them. Sometimes not everything gets displayed correctly in the graphical user interface. One example would be I would load an image and upgrade the cluster, the virtual virus control cluster, and it would go through everything. And then after the reboot, I would see it basically didn't do anything. It didn't upgrade it. Therefore, I have to stop using the  GUI and revert to CLI. That's my concern, especially during the configuration part.

Of course, for somebody who's new to the product, the GUI is the way to go since you have everything nicely presented in the graphical user interface they really did upgrade from the previous version. They've done a good job of making the user interface somewhat friendlier and better composed than the previous versions. Yet, that's small considering that sometimes they don't display the real situation and that can be sometimes very confusing. 

I am an end-user. I work for a manufacturing company. I manage the networking solution for that company.

At this moment, we are choosing Cisco as a continuous technology. Nowadays just we have our roadmap. Our plan for the next two months is to open a new branch office, and no more.

I'd rate this solution at a ten out of ten.

I noticed with the 1552E access points, the local mode has more coverage than the flexconnect mode.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven to eight out of ten.

I recommend using Cisco.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

The best advice I can give is to always get a second opinion. When I arrived six years ago, we had way too many access points, and the density was causing a lot of interference. It was only after removing some access points that we had better Wi-Fi. When asked, the school said that they had originally added more access points because the Cisco technicians told them to.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a seven out of ten. 

I would advise people not to choose Cisco Wireless. They should choose Meraki Wireless. It is also a Cisco product. It is much better and easier to operate. Overall, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.

The tool is available on the cloud to manage and optimize our company's network performance. Through a cloud-based, the tool allows you to access your access points. You can choose to change or optimize your network from a central location to all the sites that your organization has, which is a good feature for me.

I have integrated Cisco Wireless with other network management tools, like Cisco DNA Center, in my previous job but not at my current workplace.

The integration capabilities of the product are good. I would rate the tool's integration capabilities an eight out of ten.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

I rate the tool a seven and a half out of ten.

One piece of advice I'd give is to understand the deployment process thoroughly before starting. It's important to have a solid infrastructure design in place before implementing Cisco Wireless. Regarding cost, while it may seem expensive initially, if the features align with your needs, it's worth considering. 

We're just a customer.

The solution is fairly up-to-date, however, we aren't using the most recent version of the solution right now.

Overall, I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. We've used it for years and it's worked quite well for us with very little issues to speak of.

I recommend people use the solution even if it means that they have to start small. Initially, the investment can be expensive, but the product is robust and enduring. We can use it for a very long time. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

I rate Cisco Wireless eight out of 10. They still need to improve in a lot of areas. For example, Cisco needs to raise the throughput. At the same time, they've made a lot of advancements in the past two years. The access points are performing better. It's stable. They've added a multi-gig port, which is increasing the throughput of the users. 

The scenario where Cisco Wireless significantly improved network performance isn't directly about performance but adaptability. With the shift to remote work during COVID, everyone became more mobile. Now, returning to the office, there's less reliance on fixed connections. People need to be adaptable. We need mobile devices like laptops and tablets, which rely on wireless connections to enable this. Transitioning from a wired setup to a wireless one allows for greater adaptability.

Currently, we only have wireless control for managing the wireless network. We're seeking a solution to handle wireless and wider network management. The product integrates easily with the existing infrastructure, like routers and switches. 

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. Whether to recommend Cisco Wireless to others depends on several factors. If they already have a Cisco deployment of devices, it's often easier to integrate and manage, making it a suitable choice. However, other products like Aruba might be more cost-effective. Cisco Wireless is particularly well-suited for enterprise deployments. 

We recommend Cisco for enterprise customers because they are already invested in Cisco solutions. Once the setup is complete, they can utilize existing accessories. Additionally, Cisco provides fantastic support and robust product features, making it a reliable, high-performance solution for network needs.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution is good for our environment. Overall, I rate it a perfect ten.

Reviewing the security requirements is essential because security is complex and requires detailed policies to control access to the network environment. I rate the product an eight out of ten. 

If budget is an issue, then you can go for a cheaper option. If you're not planning for a big environment, you don't necessarily need to invest in Cisco because of the price.

I would rate it an eight out of 10. Overall, I am very satisfied with this solution.

My advice to others wanting to implement this solution is they should have very good support. You don't have to be a leader in the market. They don't have to be challengers. You don't have to be a visionary. If you have very good support clients will be happy with the product.

I rate Cisco Wireless a five out of ten.

I'm a Cisco partner.

I'd rate the product at a nine out of ten. Overall, we've been happy with the capabilities of the product.

That said, if I had to choose between Cisco and Aruba, I'd probably choose Aruba.

Cisco is one of the main products in our region. People who want a solution with flexibility and security should choose Cisco. Overall, I rate the product an eight and a half out of ten.

I plan to change to a Catalyst 9800 next year.

If companies already have Cisco wireless infrastructure, the deployment of this solution will be easy.

I rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

I'd give Cisco Wireless an eight out of 10. I don't know what to compare it to, but I'm hesitant to give anybody a 10. I'd give them an eight. If you are considering Cisco Wireless, I suggest looking at the total cost of ownership. This stuff doesn't last forever. So when you put it in the ceiling, when will you need to replace it? It's not a one-time investment. And then what is it going to take to get it there? Because sometimes you may end up with the impact you have every time. Hospitals are constantly renovating. Depending on what you need wireless for, you may have to spend tens of thousands re-surveying and repositioning your access points to optimize if you remodel an area. You may have thought, "Oh, I already have wireless in there. Just because I'm moving these three or four walls doesn't mean..." Well, it does mean something. The total cost of ownership matters. Make sure remediations are built into your capital budget if you're doing construction.

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

We aren't necessarily using the latest version of the solution. Some access points, for example, are so old we cannot upgrade them any longer. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users. If you have the money and budget, Cisco is a good, stable solution.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. 

I am using the latest version of the product. Overall, I rate the product a ten out of ten.

I would recommend a third-party integrator if they need help implementing the  Cisco Wireless, they can help out a lot.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

Overall Cisco Wireless meets my needs, it has been in place for a while, and I am happy with the solution.

I rate Cisco Wireless seven out of 10. I wouldn't recommend Cisco Wireless. I would advise others to look into a cloud-based setup like Arista. Cisco should improve on that part because it is tedious to manage different controllers

They provide good support services for the tenure of the contract and software upgrade. I rate it an eight out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to anyone, Cisco is the best. We are migrating to Cisco Meraki next week.

I rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

We're a partner with Cisco. We aren't just a customer.

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten. If it was more reasonably priced for the local market, I might create it a bit higher.

I would say that it's a good solution. Everything is there and I have nothing to point out. 

I would definitely recommend this product, but at the same time, I would say that they should bring their price down. 

Like every solution, it has pros and cons. It's just part of the process.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco Wireless a nine. From the product side, I would rate it nine, but if you ask me about the return on investment, I would probably say a six or seven because the investment is huge here.

I’ve been working with Cisco Wireless since 2008. Although CPI and controllers have come a long way, the AP is the limiting factor. There are a lot of assumptions in the controller algorithm.

Don’t just conduct a passive survey. Set up three APs and do an active survey with RRM enabled among three.

Cisco’s wireless solution is a seven out of 10, in my experience, compared to other solutions. It has limitations on the polarization processing.

The solution can be deployed both on-premises and on the cloud. You need to be very technical to deploy and maintain the solution. I would recommend the solution to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a six out of ten.

Whatever solution used, the design of the wireless network is the most important part of how well it works. I would plan on putting in 60% of the effort to the design and 40% to the deployment. In the designing phase, you must actually get into the network, look for interference issues, create proper wireless heat maps and place the wireless network connection points in the exact location where it is required. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

I rate Cisco Wireless nine out of 10.

We're a Cisco partner. 

I used various deployment models, including cloud and on-premises as well as hybrid.

I would rate the solution at a ten out of ten. We've been quite happy with its capabilities overall.

It's a good device, and I would recommend it. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at eight.

I rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

We are just a customer and end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

We're using the latest version of the solution right now.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations looking for a wireless solution. For the most part, it's worked well for us.

I'd rate the product at a nine out of ten as it's been mostly reliable.

I recommend this product because it is easy to implement, and it has good performance with utilities that are needed within the office.

I rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

We are a customer and end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

As a product itself, I would rate it around an eight or nine out of ten, however, due to the fact that it's so expensive, I'd knock off a few points. Therefore, on a scale from one to ten with all things considered, I'd rate it at a six. If money were not an object, I would highly recommend the solution.

Any people who are looking to get a stable solution with and long life and long time connectivity should go with Cisco.

The big lesson is that when you invest in expensive hardware, you have to understand that it should be a trusted hardware to give you stability and to make sure that your investment will be returned soon. The cost of implementation and downtime with Cisco are less than with other solutions.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Cisco Wireless a nine.

I rate Cisco Wireless a seven out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco Wireless seven out of ten.

When we are opening up a new location we are going to continue using the solution. This solution is standard with our organization. Even though Cisco tends to be more costly than other solutions you get more than you pay for. 

I rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

I am satisfied with Cisco Wireless.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a seven out of ten.

I would advise someone considering this solution to be prepared. Understand your needs. Undertake a very clear site survey to be in a position to present the best-adjusted solution. If you don't do your due diligence you can buy a very good product response, but it won't resolve the wireless coverage problem; the key is to deploy a strategic wireless solution and adjust the parameters as needed. As well as being able to scope access points.

I rate this solution an 8 out of 10. I give it an 8 because it's a general rating of the overall product. Cisco is a network and security technology provider. Their strength lies in the network and security solution. The wireless solution can be built better.

I rate this Cisco solution an eight out of 10. To bring it up to a 10, as I mentioned earlier, you have to get a Cisco Prime in order to view  signal strength and what's going on, which is an additional cost. You have to buy another product to manage WLC, so why not have Cisco Prime built into WLC so there is one product? That way you wouldn't need to have to buy additional software or licenses to manage WLC. It's basically: WLC manages access points, Prime manages WLC. So why not all under one umbrella, that way you don't have to jump through multiple pages to look and troubleshoot. If all is in one place it would be much easier.

If it's the first time you're implementing it, there is a different way of doing it. Now, I think, Cisco offers a different type of a wireless controller. It can be cloud-based, it can be on a switch module, or it can be just an appliance. So it's based on what your environment looks like and what kind of failover you want. Based on your needs, that's how you have to design. 

Also, look into other products and evaluate them yourself. Have a demo on your site for Aruba or Cisco and see, regarding the high density, how many clients are connecting to one access point and where the breakpoint is, those kinds of things. Evaluate yourself and go with whatever makes sense for your company.

If you have a large company and you have enough money, you should implement Cisco because it's the best solution. However, if you are in the middle to low range then it is better to look for another, more budget-friendly solution. In Isreal, the government has Cisco licenses.

Also, if the service that you are providing is not a high-level service and has normal features to access the internet, I suggest the middle to low range products.

Overall, I am happy with Cisco Wireless and the main concern that I have is with the price.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Fantastic product for an indoor wireless solution. Smooth seamless AP handover, excellent Tech support, integration with other peripherals (AD, Cert server, SIEM etc.) and stable hardware. These are the reasons you should choose this product.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

We are using versions six and eight, a mix of both.

We tend to use the on-premises deployment model as we are in healthcare and there are restrictions on what we can do with the cloud and what we cannot do with the cloud.

For those considering the solution, I'd advise them to make sure the support is good in their area or for the solution you choose and that there are knowledgeable people around so that if there are any issues, they can be addressed. 

I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

I would recommend this product to new users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Wireless a nine.

No, we stuck we Cisco since that's what we have been using all these years.

We are using the Wireless Controller 3504 on Wi-Fi 5.

If they work on fixing the reliability of the solution we will be fine using the product in the future.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

While I cannot recall the exact version number we are on, we are using the latest version of the solution.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations.

Because of Cisco's expense, we also use Huawei and Ruckus devices, and the interoperability between these three vendors is good. I would give this solution a score of ten out of ten.

People need to be aware that everything is going wireless in the next couple of years and it's a good idea to move to wireless now so that there's a familiarity with how it all works. 

I rate this solution a seven out of 10. 

I would recommend others to use this solution.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

My advice is that this product should be the first choice to adopt when deploying a wireless solution. If cost is a factor then proper sizing will help to reduce it.

I would recommend Cisco Wireless based on the needs. You probably need a certification in order to run it effectively. If you are going to do it, do it, but just be aware of the complexity of their solutions. It is good, and it works. It is not a bad product, but they make licensing very difficult. It also takes a little while to get hold of somebody in technical support as compared to other vendors.

We are going to swap Cisco Wireless with the Aruba platform because of better stability, price, and technical support.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a seven out of ten.

I would advise someone considering this product to use it. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten because it has easy digital effects, it's easy to use and, has good stability. 

Cisco Wireless has a large portfolio and is used in many places, such as school campuses. They have many types of deployments, such as on the cloud. Most of the features are available and they're supporting the latest technology.

I rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

I'm a system integrator. I'm a Cisco partner. The company is a Cisco Gold Partner.

Cisco is great due to the fact that there is so much documentation online. It's very easy to research it and learn it and to troubleshoot if you need, simply due to the fact that there's so much shared knowledge out there. I'm not sure if that;'s the case for any other solution. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

I rate this solution a seven out of 10. 

I would absolutely recommend this solution. I would rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

Please always keep the Spectrum Expert (SE) connect mode. I feel is useful when troubleshooting.

Cisco wireless is a pretty good product. I would definitely recommend buying it. If you are looking for a wireless solution I would definitely recommend going with Cisco Wireless.

I rate Cisco Wireless at about eight out of 10. It's pretty good, it's very compatible with other Cisco products.

I would strongly advise any company, but especially in business, to use this wireless solution.

I rate Cisco Wireless at nine out of 10 because, as I said, I like the performance, stability, the easy implementation and the controller. There is just that one problem with the controller, so that's why I gave it a nine and not 10.

We are customers and end-users. We use it in our organization. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

We are using the latest version of the solution. We are using an older version. I do not have the version number on hand.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product at a nine. It's very reliable and we've been very happy with its overall capabilities so far. It does not disappoint.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations.

I started first with the 1440, without a wireless controller in an autonomous access point. Two years after that, I moved to the 2504 Wireless Controller - a 40-access-point deployment. The next year I was working in a car manufacturer's warehouse. I managed three warehouses. One of them was a 5520 with 300 access points. Another site was with the 5508 with less than 200 access points.

I would rate Cisco Wireless at seven out of 10 because, when we compare it with other solutions like Aruba or Aerohive, Cisco is behind in technology and just a little more expensive. Aerohive, as I mentioned, has some access points in the new 802.11ax standard and Aruba, in many cases, is more user-friendly to configure and to manage.

My suggestion would be to go with Cisco products.

Understand your need. Let the need drive the purchase not the other way around.

My target customers include individuals in banking, industry professionals, and employees of enterprise companies. They have existing affiliations and connections with a good level of connectivity. Cisco wireless effectively safeguards data and assets within homes or other environments.

We can use some firewalls from Cisco.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I would advise potential users to implement Cisco wireless if they're implementing Airwaves. The old models like 2504 and 5508 work well with Airwaves. But it requires some specific knowledge to take that to the controllers and unplug the device. Some connectivity is derived from the core to the controller. You need to know what type of connectivity is required, what kind of access, and all those things. Cisco 9800 is a pure IOx, and it has a very straightforward configuration. It's very easy when compared to Airwaves.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Wireless a ten for stability and performance. I don't have any issues with that.

We're just end-users. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco.

Currently, just doing the upgrade. I'm just doing the upgrade in order to have Wi-Fi 6 enabled, which is the new technology. 

I would recommend the solution to others.

Overall, I would rate the solution nine out of ten. We've been pretty happy with it.

I would rate Cisco Wireless at eight out of 10 because of its ease of installation on virtual platforms, on appliances. It is easy to maintain and configurations are straightforward. It provides the flexibility to create and integrate with many social Wi-Fi solutions. It is a reliable and stable solution. The ROI is very good.

I would recommend the solution to others, however, it depends on the capabilities of the end-user. Some may find it difficult. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We are pleased with it so far.

Cisco is quite complex compared to Aruba Central, which is more user friendly and easy to handle. I would rate Cisco Wireless at seven on a scale from one to ten.

It is quite simple. Even if you are not a wireless network expert, you will be able to use it by doing some research. It is not difficult or super complex.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten. I am satisfied with this solution.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Cisco Wireless is that they need to know the products. There are a lot of features that you can turn on and off, so they need to know the product itself. It's not as simple as it seems.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I would recommend this solution.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to others.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

I rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

This is a great product and despite the high cost, I rate it a 10 out of 10 for performance. 

We're a Cisco partner.

We use a variety of different versions of the solution, including the 800 Series, and 2800 Series. We are planning to go to the Catalyst 9000 Series soon as well. 

It's a centralized solution depending on the wireless controller and some access points have their own branches.

While not related to hardware, in relation to software capabilities, we're always looking for ways to better integrate solutions. This particular solution has been great thanks to the access technology provided. We have seamless integration with the infrastructure. The movement of the users is very easy to pinpoint. The user's onboarding onto the infrastructure is simple.

While the solution isn't perfect as a standalone, the integration capabilities on offer make it really special.

New users will really need to utilize features to get the most out of the solution.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. There are a few features that we would like to see added in the future that would make it perfect.

The suitability of this product depends on the environment and the requirements, as every place has its own circumstances. Generally, I recommend this product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I would rate this solution eight out of ten.

The underlying wired infrastructure is important, make sure it has enough capacity so avoid causing bottlenecks on the wireless network. If possible keep the network on a specific vendor for ease of management and support.

The Cisco WLC has many features. Plan carefully which to use before you start to implement.

If you are implementing a wireless solution, you can actually use any wired solution while running the wireless solution on top of it. If you are only looking at a wireless setup, then you might be better off choosing Ruckus. However, if you need an end-to-end solution, Cisco is a better option.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cisco Wireless at seven.

I rate Cisco Wireless six out of 10. My advice to people implementing Cisco Wireless is to find the right reseller. Find one who can deliver the service you need. That's the most important thing because we might not know the product, so we need support from time to time.

I would rate Cisco Wireless nine out of 10.

I would rate it a seven out of ten and I would recommend this solution. 

I rate Cisco Wireless eight out of 10. However, I wouldn't typically recommend Cisco Wireless. In this case, the clients had to implement Cisco to meet a corporate standard. If someone asked me to suggest a good WiFi solution, I would say Ruckus.

Cisco Wireless is one of the top solutions in the market, I would recommend them.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

I would advise new users not to underestimate the complexity of the configuration.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Wireless an eight.

We're were just a customer and an end-user. I don't have a business relationship with Cisco at this time.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. I'd rate it higher if it was more reasonable in terms of pricing and if the reporting was better.

If a company would like to implement this product, they must make sure the pricing doesn't bother them and that they buy enough devices in order to ensure proper coverage for their needs. 

That is a good solution, pay attention on Compatibility Matrix with some APs.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate Cisco Wireless an eight out of ten.

I would recommend this solution. I would advise getting it done by a professional who knows what he or she is doing so that you don't run into any issues.

I would rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

Cisco Wireless has been around for quite some time. Cisco is a leader and its Wireless product is very reliable, so investing in it is a safe bet.

I would rate this solution at eight out of 10 because of the availability of support, and its stability.

My most important criteria when selecting a vendor are the 

• product knowledge
• support from the vendor and the availability of the technical staff to support it.

Do your research! Make sure this product fits your needs.

Cisco Wireless is good. On a scale from one to ten, I would give them a rating of seven, although to give a more accurate rating, I would need to experience something else to compare it to. I'm considering sticking with Cisco, unless I find other models that can give better performance. Cisco has a few types of models: the standard Cisco, the normal Cisco, and the Meraki one. I'm not sure if Meraki would be a better solution for us, or if the standard Cisco Wireless controller would be better. That's why I went to your website — to find other solutions and read comparisons about them.

I'm not a wireless expert, but we've been running Cisco Wireless for a long time. On a scale of one to ten, I would definitely give them an eight.

I think the licensing models need to be reviewed in some instances. Obviously Cisco's licensing models are quite challenging, and it can be costly. Those are the two things to check.

I would recommend this solution.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cisco Wireless at five.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. It's good but it's not a ten because there are some specific technicalities they can improve on. I would recommend using this technology. 

When implementing this solution, you require the right partner to be in place to support it, that is the first requirement.

I would rate this solution at nine out of 10. The best part of the solution is the stability. Also, the easy usage of the switches They are automatically switched on and get their configuration. I don't need any technical person to look at it.

Up until now, it has been a good product, so go ahead with it. It works well. We have been happy with it for the last four years.

Security and support are important factors when looking at this kind of solution. Cisco is more expensive but you have to compare the security and support you are getting. The support, in particular, is very critical, especially if you are in a conference call and the sound breaks off. You need them to get back to you quickly.

Cisco is a large company, the number-one company, and those are important factors when selecting a vendor. The other factor is the pricing, in addition to support and security.

I rate Cisco Wireless at 10 out of 10 because I have never had a problem. I am a happy customer.

See my website article:

http://aweisoft.net/Knowledge/Cisco/OptimizeWiFi/OptimizeWiFi.aspx

There are many users making use of the solution in Taiwan. 

The solution offers fast response time. 

I rate Cisco Wireless as an eight out of ten. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten. No product can be a ten out of ten and there are some security issues. 

This is still a reliable and useful product but other vendors are catching up.

Plan the network first and decide if this box is big enough for your deployment.

Good product and good reliability

We are a service provider.

Cisco is a well-known brand especially when it comes to technology. They're one of the market leaders and they're absolutely a no-fuss vendor. I would recommend it to anyone.

It did take me a few weeks or months to get used to some aspects of the system, however, once you learn it, you get very comfortable with the processes of deployment.

I would rate the solution at a ten out of ten. It's a superior option that's easy to implement and very reliable.

We plan to continue our usage of this product and I would recommend it to others.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

If anybody asks me, I would recommend a Cisco device. When you consider all of the LAN and wireless features, everything is good. Cisco is now customizing products based on customer requirements, and they are also cost-effective.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Have clear ideas about the requirements or goals for the company before implementation and have a good case study.

In summary, this is a good product and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

I would recommend before implementation, administrators must know the exact number of users.

I rate Cisco Wireless a ten out of ten.