We performed a comparison between Aruba Networks Wireless WAN and Cisco Wireless WAN based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Wireless WAN solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features are price, quality, and performance."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The product gives good stability and concurrency."
"I believe their Adaptive Radio Management (ARM) in its current form provides the best automated management of transmit power and channel. It does a really good job of managing proper design and wireless environment."
"Aruba Central seems to be a good way to go in cloud management. However, compared to Cisco Meraki, it's still very early days."
"Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is stable and good."
"Aruba makes use of "Direct Tunnel" as its best security feature."
"The GUI is user-friendly and the dashboards are good."
"Cisco wireless is stable, easy to use, and simple to configure. They have an outstanding GUI."
"The Cisco solution is good, the new GUI looks good and we are seeing more telemetry from it."
"We have found that the product scales well."
"I like that it has integrated the cost of our network access."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's most valuable feature is it is robust."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The network management is good. We use it to control access, channels, and phones and limit bandwidth."
"The security and the capabilities of the platform are the most valuable features."
"The solution would be improved with a better interface."
"The only issues are the configuration problems that impact the stability of the solution."
"Technical support is important to me and I feel that it is something that can be improved."
"We do not have direct access to Aruba’s Mesh portal."
"Support is not good...The support can be improved, especially in India, since whenever I require support, it takes some time."
"The product should improve Aruba Central."
"In a meshed environment, the handoff between access points is sometimes not smooth when users are mobile. For example, a connection is occasionally interrupted when a user takes their laptop from the gym to the cafeteria."
"From the commercial-side the pricing side is fine but in other aspects, it could be lowered."
"The DNA space is a separate license cost, which should be included in the license."
"The initial setup and deployment should be easier."
"The firewall integration is not great."
"The cloud interoperability needs improvement."
"If there's a problem, it's usually when Cisco pushes out updates. The users don't always push the updates to their computer, and it causes some issues. It's reliable as long as everyone is doing what they're supposed to."
"There are limitations on the SSIDs that could improve. We cannot enable two ways of authenticating users on one SSID. For a number of places, we have to provide different modes of certification for the user which requires us to create another SSID for the broadcast."
"Improvements can be made in the wireless fabric."
"The only disadvantage of Cisco is maybe the cost."
Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is ranked 5th in Wireless WAN with 46 reviews while Cisco Wireless WAN is ranked 4th in Wireless WAN with 61 reviews. Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is rated 8.4, while Cisco Wireless WAN is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN writes "It's reliable, cost-effective, and easy to troubleshoot". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Wireless WAN writes "It's a reliable, user-friendly solution". Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium Networks Wireless WAN, Ubiquiti Wireless, Fortinet FortiWLM and Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, whereas Cisco Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium Networks Wireless WAN, Fortinet FortiExtender and Ubiquiti Wireless. See our Aruba Networks Wireless WAN vs. Cisco Wireless WAN report.
See our list of best Wireless WAN vendors.
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.