I rate Cisco Wireless WAN nine out of 10. My only advice to future Cisco Wireless users is to keep your system updated. Don't delay updates because that's what usually causes problems. People don't accept the updates and put them off because they're doing other things.

View full review »

I would recommend Cisco Wireless WAN to anyone who is considering using it. It is a great solution for campuses and universities. Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten.

View full review »

I will recommend the solution to others. If a company wants something stable that will last them longer, they should go with Cisco, even if it's more expensive. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

View full review »

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN a nine out of ten.

View full review »

I'd rate the solution six out of ten. I would not recommend the solution. We had a lot of issues with it.

View full review »

I’d advise those considering the solution to go onto the internet and find as much documentation about the solution as you can.

I’d rate the solution an eight out of ten.

View full review »

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten. I wouldn't give it 10 out of 10 because the price is high and the solution can be complicated.

I would recommend it to those who are interested in using it. 

There's a lot of advice and information on the internet. Some of it may be incorrect, so you just have to try it and see.

View full review »

I'm a customer and end-user. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. I've never had any issues with the product. 

View full review »

I would want people to be aware that Cisco Wireless WAN is a top-end product and solution. Their portfolio is superb. They have major experience and maturity and are very much in tune with their field. I work in warehousing facilities. Like most things, though, there are pros and cons. Cisco is the top end, commercially. It's going to be double the price, and I mean double the price, of everything else. Other products that I use, and I have cross-referenced the price point with many solutions for the requirements of our enterprise customers, are half the price.

They are a good product. Do they warrant the extra expense? I would have to say no, but they do have great maturity and their product portfolio is not just the access points but their other add-ons; their antennas, maturity and the information out there, which is invaluable. You pay for these from an engineering and consultative perspective. I need to research issues and other people's experiences. Cisco obviously has the world's best engineers, consultants who have that and very nicely post their experiences. That is invaluable. But unfortunately some markets, again I'm talking about Ireland here, sometimes can't afford that. And there are other products that can do the job just as well.

Commercially they are quite flawed but in terms of technology, you can't really beat Cisco, to be honest. Commercially I would rate them as a 2 but technically they would be an 8 or 9 out of ten. I'm not a fan of the Meraki product so I'm taking it out of the equation. I'm talking about Cisco WLCs, and what would be the solution. Technically it's an excellent product.

Unfortunately, their validity into other commercial markets is flawed. Majorly flawed. And they have too much competition, and Cisco being Cisco will just go "Well, that's fine, we didn't want to do that."  Then we would not use their products. So that's unfortunate. Maybe that's just a bit of pretension on their part.

View full review »

I'm not sure which version of Cisco we are using. 

I'd recommend Cisco to other users and companies. I would rate it an eight out of ten. We're mostly happy with its capabilities. 

View full review »

I’m a customer.

We use the latest version of the solution.

The solution is a market leader. It works great.

I’d rate it nine out of ten.

View full review »

Cisco Wireless WAN is most suitable for enterprise companies. Before choosing this solution, remember that there are other good solutions, including Aruba and Ruckus, so you should explore which solution is best for your organization. I would give Cisco Wireless WAN a rating of eight out of ten.

View full review »

I would rate Cisco Wireless WAN a seven out of ten.

View full review »

In summary, this is not a product that I recommend.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

View full review »

Our clients are mostly enterprise-level companies.

Our first test of the solution will be to see how the new features are implemented in Wi-Fi 6. The new access point is smaller than the previous one, and I find it's very good, very pleasant, because the 3700, and especially the 3800 were very, very weak.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. If the pricing was better, I'd rate it ten out of ten.

View full review »

This is super flexible, meets our needs, is ultra secure, and offers excellent support. I'd rate it nine out of ten. I'm very happy with the product.

View full review »

We are Cisco partners.

I'd advise new users to check the documentation and go over it pretty thoroughly at the outset. It's important to read everything before you start. If you miss something, it may cause you to troubleshoot and spend more time than you need to figure things out. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

View full review »

For the Cisco Wireless implementation, the most important advice I would like to give is regarding the planning of the access points. The planning is very important because if you do not do proper planning based on the requirements, then the project might well turn out to be a big mess. That's because once you install an access point in one location, it's very hard to move around. Keep this in mind from the beginning. 

I would rate Cisco Wireless LAN an eight out of ten. I won't say it's the best there is, but it is definitely a leading solution.

View full review »

Speaking about whether the tool gets used in our company for backup connectivity, I would say that our company's engineers use it for testing purposes.

The security features of the product have improved our company's network safety.

The product has sometimes helped our company handle network failure, failover, or recovery areas.

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

I rate the overall tool a ten out of ten.

View full review »

Cisco wireless on-prem has moved to Cisco Meraki Access, and Cisco Meraki is the better. We can use the cloud solution. The only thing is the price is a little high. Other than that, all the features and security aspects are really good with Cisco.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. The overall rating is seven due to the higher price and the need for enhancements in the console and security features. The guest Wi-Fi and non-console options are lacking in the older version, although I believe the new version might address that.

View full review »

We use ten network administrators for the maintenance of the solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN a ten out of ten.

View full review »

We have a lot of equipment from Cisco. We are customers and end-users. 

I'm not on the latest version of the solution. That said, I'm renovating my wireless environment.

I'd recommend the solution to others. It is good. However, it costs a lot. I'm currently looking for something more cost-effective. 

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. There is no master controller for the controllers. When we have access points in different buildings, I need a centralized management system to achieve redundancy and operations simplicity. 

View full review »

Cisco Wireless LAN solutions is good enough to deliver the wireless experience for my customers, but sometimes we need to adjust or tune the configuration before get the best experience. Since Cisco is already has AI capability, I hope that in the future, the configuration will be adjusted with the baseline of customer environment. Suppose that there is learning curve process for 1 week, after that the solution will provide a report that configuration need to be fixed according to the customer environment and according to Cisco Best Practice. This report need to be evaluated by IT Admin and if it is approved, then schedule a downtime in the out of office hour for implementing the configuration.

View full review »

We are using the latest version of the solution at this time. 

I would rate the solution a ten out of ten.

View full review »

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN nine out of 10. You need to read the documentation carefully when implementing it because you have to go through a step-by-step configuration. Upgrading can be done in two ways: HTTP from the desktop or TFTP. HTTP is extremely easy. You connect with a console cable and do it.

View full review »

My advice to others is to understand the use case properly before deploying any solution. If you don't have a complex use case and if you can't afford it, don't get Cisco. But if you have a complex use case with a high frequency, high bandwidth of data usage in a wireless network, Cisco is the right product for you. The licensing strategy and the pricing could be improved, but it is a good solution. I rate it a seven out of ten. 

View full review »

We are a partner with Cisco for networking and security.

I'm working with the latest version of the solution. 

Cisco maintains a good relationship with its customers. They have a very good reputation on the market.

I'd recommend the solution to others. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

View full review »

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

Cisco provides a good product, the stability and reliability are there but it's very expensive. Competitors deliver solutions that are more affordable and almost as good. 

View full review »

The solution is good and very easy to deploy, manage and configure. We have encountered no issues in this regard. 

We now plan to convert the 802.11ac to 802.11.ax. We intend to purchase a new access point to meet the technology challenges. We are now planning to move all access points to a new access point involving 802.11.ax technology.

The number of users making use of the solution depends on the employee count. I would say that perhaps 200 users are connected daily with the access point that we have. For the moment we have a very small area. In every department we have in excess of 100 to 150 users connected to one access point. This works fine. But, depending on the user size and the type of Wireless Card the user may possess, certain users experience some difficulties due to the Wireless Card's age and its lack of compatibility. As such, it is the user size which would account for certain issues, not the product size.

My advice to others is that the product and its performance are very good and scalable. Cisco is very good and the product is nice to deploy and to work with. One can use it with freedom from any latency. Overall, the product is very good and established and the company has been working for some time to make improvements to it. This and the reputation involved are why I use the product. 

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN as a ten out of ten. 

View full review »

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

We use a lot of Cisco products, including Cisco Catalyst Switches, Wireless WAN, and Cisco Nexus.

We use one of the latest access points, however, we are not up to date on the newest controller versions as our versions are still supported. We plan to replace them probably in the next one or two years. It's not the latest, let's say, controller version. However, from a software standpoint, we are still up to date.

I would recommend the solution to others. However, they have to be prepared to pay the price and have the budget for the product.

In general, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been extremely satisfied with its capabilities.

View full review »

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN a ten out of ten.

View full review »

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN eight out of 10. If budget weren't an issue, I would highly recommend Cisco.

View full review »

I would rate this solution nine out of ten.

View full review »

We are a Cisco partner. 

This is a good product and we've had no issues with it. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

View full review »

We have a big infrastructure of about 15,000 to 20,000. So if it works fine for us, it will suit small companies with small networks. We use the controller, and it is fine. I rate this solution a five out of ten, mainly because of the network issues.

View full review »

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN a nine out of ten.

View full review »

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN a seven out of ten.

View full review »

I would rate Cisco Wireless WAN ten out of ten.

View full review »

My advice would be to negotiate the price as much as you can. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

View full review »

I use two different versions of the solution. 

Would rate the solution a seven out of ten.

View full review »

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

View full review »

I would tell potential users that it's a good solution if they plan to use more Cisco products. This is because it can be integrated into the entire network design.

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

View full review »

I would rate Cisco Wireless WAN as nine out of ten.

View full review »

Since we have recently migrated to the new version of the Cisco Wireless WAN platform the interface has changed and I'm still getting used to it.

I would recommend Cisco Wireless WAN. However, that's because my exposure is to Cisco Wireless. I'm probably a little bit biased. Overall, it's a fairly good solution.

Whether this solution is suitable or not for a company depends on their deployment, if they were a Greenfield-sized company or a Brownfield-sized company I would have different tips. It does fully depend on the scenario. My key advice is with a wireless solution is for them to do a wireless survey first before purchasing.

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN an eight out of ten.

View full review »

We use dedicated wireless control for our campuses in a redundant topology, active/passive. We use both Flex connect and local, essentially switched networks. Our company uses physical machines, not cloud-based wireless controls.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

View full review »

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. I recommend the solution to new users.

View full review »

Whatever they have in this product is already the best in the market, and I recommend it for people who can afford it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

View full review »

I would definitely recommend using Cisco Wireless WAN.

Overall, I would rate Cisco a nine out of ten.

View full review »

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN nine out of 10. I recommend it if you're looking for a stable wireless solution with a wide coverage area.

View full review »

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

Cisco Wireless WAN is not an affordable option, therefore I suggest making sure that the solution meets all the organization's requirements before making a purchase.

View full review »

I would give Cisco Wireless WAN a rating of six out of ten.

View full review »

The reason why we chose Cisco over another solution, is that Cisco is very strong here in the Aruba and Ruckus region. We have a vendor specifically in Saudi Arabia. What I like about this solution, is that it is always available and it's up to me to integrate, something called the DNA. I like the features that Cisco provides and it a solution that's easy to work on. I like the integration between Cisco and all the other Cisco products when it comes to network roaming, the DNA. So this is the integration that I'm looking forward to integrating, Cisco wireless with the DNA.

On a scale from one to 10, I will rate this an eight. The reason why I don't give it a ten is because Cisco is rather expensive. I would like to see it being more affordable.

View full review »

Wireless solutions are not something that you need to change very often. We have older models installed and they are still working fine. Changing the entire environment involves a lot of money and a lot of effort.

My advice to anybody who is considering this type of solution is to first look at your ecosystem and then choose the product. Don't just choose one without looking at what other types of products, such as switches, you already have.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

View full review »

It's a good solution, and I would rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten.

View full review »

Our clients are large enterprise companies.

This solution is the best on the market. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

View full review »

If I were to give advice to others, I would say is this: I haven't had much experience with any other option. Or if you were asking me to recommend this solution over another one, I'll generally recommend the Cisco Wireless WAN, because that's the only one I know and have experience of. I would like to see better pricing. It would also be great if one of these wireless cards could support multiple service providers. On a scale from one to ten, I will rate this solution an eight. 

View full review »

Cisco LTE WWAN provides an easy way to setup an high speed, robust and secure network with speeds of 100Mbps and above. It supports a large number of network devices and can easily integrate with devices running on older technologies as well. We tested the HD video call feature as well and found it to be of very good in terms of video, voice quality and overall speed. We faced some module compatibility issues with Cisco WWAN while setting up the telemetry system server setup. Overall a good product and provides large number of features for providing high speed network. View full review »

We use the on-premises deployment model. We're a Cisco partner.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

View full review »