We performed a comparison between Aruba Networks Wireless WAN and Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Ubiquiti Networks, Ruckus, Cambium Networks and others in Wireless WAN."It's quite stable."
"The GUI offered by the product is good."
"Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is stable and good."
"They offer per-user tunneling to a variety of endpoints."
"In the event of a controller appliance failure or downtime, the system seamlessly transitions control to any access point acting as a backup controller."
"There is a clustering feature, so the APs immediately switch back to the next available controller. The users will not notice any impact and will feel connected to the network. They will not notice any disconnection."
"We don't know this product very well yet, but what we have used so far and what we like are user control, bandwidth, and access."
"The most valuable feature of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is that it is easy to configure. Additionally, with the same configuration with Cisco and Ruckus, we can receive 55 to 60 percent more out of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN."
"We rarely encounter any issues. The solutions have been very stable."
"For Meraki, the ease of deployment and management is most valuable."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of deployment."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution is the single pane of glass management and reliability."
"The most valuable features are the multiple types of user groupings and access management."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"The product's cloud controller is easy to use."
"I really love their cloud-based dashboard which allows me to see all my locations from one location."
"Aruba's technical support has room for improvement."
"Deployment can take some time if you haven't planned well."
"This solution needs different models that are more specialized for certain customers."
"It works. We don't look at it any deeper than that and don't find any features ar missing."
"We have had stability issues with some types of portable devices."
"We do not have direct access to Aruba’s Mesh portal."
"Sometimes, the configuration part of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN can be complex, and if you fail to understand the product at once, you may not even know about some features that you can apply to your network, and they may go unused."
"The solution would be improved with a better interface."
"The initial setup was simple. However, the full deployment could be easier."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"The technical support for Meraki needs improvements made to the waiting times."
"The licensing isn't very customer-centric. They may have improved it, but previously, if you forgot to pay on a certain day, your service would be shut off."
"Concern when there are a number of concurrent users."
"Quality of technical support varies."
"Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN's management tools need enhancement."
"Meraki is still very much a small office type of solution. It is not a fit for large enterprise networks, as it doesn't have tunneling functionalities."
Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is ranked 5th in Wireless WAN with 32 reviews while Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is ranked 4th in Wireless LAN with 27 reviews. Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is rated 8.4, while Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN writes "Simple to configure, easy setup, but support could improve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN writes "Terrible licensing, trouble with updating, and unhelpful support advice". Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium Networks Wireless WAN, Ubiquiti Wireless and Fortinet FortiWLM, whereas Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is most compared with Aruba Wireless, Ubiquiti Wireless, Juniper Mist Wireless Access Points, Mist AI and Cloud and Ruckus Wireless.
We monitor all Wireless WAN reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.