We performed a comparison between Aruba Wireless and Cisco Wireless based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: When comparing Aruba Wireless and Cisco Wireless, it is evident that Cisco Wireless is the more popular choice. While both have great features, users of Cisco Wireless seem to find fewer things lacking with it and are generally satisfied. In regards to service and support as well, Cisco users are happy with the service they receive. Users do feel that it is an expensive solution, however.
"You can easily monitor, manage, and cover all your IT equipment."
"The most useful feature of Juniper Wireless AP is the reporting Marvis."
"With Mist, every Wednesday they roll out new features."
"The simplicity is great."
"It provides private network access, helping us protect our company’s devices."
"The artificial intelligence feature is very good."
"In terms of reporting, in terms of all the user reports, it's very rich."
"The AI capabilities of Mist Wireless are superior to other OEMs."
"The web-based GUI is much simpler to use than similar products by Cisco."
"Enterprise wireless LAN solution with good visibility and amazing scalability. Aruba Wireless also offers good technical support."
"AirWave is a valuable feature."
"It's a very stable system."
"With Aruba Instant, we can use the access points independently, allowing us to position them in many places."
"It provides superior WiFi access and RF management."
"With Aruba Wireless Controller, all our access points are connected to one controller. Through that controller, we can actually handle each access point; we can disconnect or connect that access point, and then we can tell, or see, or allow how many users are, or should be, connected through that access point."
"Stability and its ability to handle more devices has been an improvement for our organization."
"Cisco Wireless is one of the more stable products so their products are scalable."
"Good connectivity and easy to configure."
"The installation process is very easy."
"I've found it to be quite secure."
"Authentication is the important feature for us. My IT staff no longer has to look after catering to clients who come from overseas."
"The solution offers very good stability."
"The most valuable features of Cisco Wireless are the level of control and management. I am happy with it."
"The technical support from Cisco is good."
"They should include SD-WAN features to it."
"The solution is expensive."
"Juniper Wireless AP can improve by continually improving its reporting and integration with other systems."
"The price could be better."
"The pricing should be made cheaper."
"There is room for improvement in terms of support and installation."
"I need a bit more time with it before criticizing the features."
"Juniper Mist Wireless Access Points’ support services need improvement."
"What I would like to have with these kinds of devices is the most enhanced security. For example, if I could apply security from wireless devices, that would be great. I would also like more enhanced reports on user adoption, who is getting what bandwidth."
"I believe that Aruba's support could be improved."
"The latest design of their APs removes the console port and requires purchasing an expensive proprietary cable just to access the console."
"The solution's GUI for configuration could be better."
"They need to increase the number of routers on the controller."
"The solution could be improved on the security side."
"They should have more support for implementing Aruba Wireless in Smart Cities and outdoor applications."
"The network times for protocol synchronization can be improved."
"This solution is very expensive, which means we often have to go for cheaper options instead."
"The main problem that traditional solutions like this one have is that you need to buy packages to deliver a similar solution as a Meraki one."
"There are some features I would like to have in Cisco Wireless, such as Telemetry and other IoT. However, they are available in the new version of the solution."
"Cisco won't work with any other vendors. That is a significant problem with Cisco."
"The current issue with Cisco is I don't have centralized management."
"If they could offer better coverage, we'd be much happier."
"The integration with our CM and other technologies could improve this solution."
"Assurance capabilities must be improved."
More Juniper Mist Wireless Access Points Pricing and Cost Advice →
Aruba Wireless is ranked 1st in Wireless LAN with 43 reviews while Cisco Wireless is ranked 2nd in Wireless LAN with 20 reviews. Aruba Wireless is rated 8.4, while Cisco Wireless is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Aruba Wireless writes "Simple to install, easy to use, and cost-effective". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Wireless writes "Easy to deploy with a user-friendly GUI, but can be expensive". Aruba Wireless is most compared with Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, Ruckus Wireless, Ubiquiti WLAN, Huawei Wireless and Mist AI and Cloud, whereas Cisco Wireless is most compared with Ruckus Wireless, Ubiquiti WLAN, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, Mist AI and Cloud and Omada Access Points. See our Aruba Wireless vs. Cisco Wireless report.
See our list of best Wireless LAN vendors.
We monitor all Wireless LAN 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.
On the most basic level, Cisco Wireless can offer a rather straightforward initial setup. In the span of about three hours, the basic framework can be set up. Step-by-step instructions are available to ease the deployment of the Cisco wireless network. A small business will now be able to make use of this wireless product without being worried about having to make a massive investment of either time or resources. This peace of mind extends to the actual maintenance of the product as well. Cisco wireless’s network does not require very much in the way of maintenance. It does require occasional upgrades to keep it running smoothly, but other than that, a team tasked with maintaining it has very little to worry about. Organizations of all sizes will be able to benefit from both of these aspects of Cisco wireless’s design.
Cisco wireless provides a very robust service that will continue to run over long periods of time and under heavy usage. Furthermore, the teams that are responsible for assisting users and resolving any potential issues that may arise are highly professional. These are two additional features that make Cisco wireless a valuable product. The wireless service is capable of running for years without any real need for replacements to be made to the hardware.
Although no system is perfect, Cisco’s Wireless network shows that products can still be made to last. Long spans of time can pass without issues arising. When they do, Cisco’s technical support team is well-equipped to help handle it. They respond quickly to inquiries and they are extremely knowledgeable. They bring the kind of professionalism that one would hope to have in a product’s support team.
Aruba Wireless can support many devices and provide the features that one would expect for this type of product. It is relatively cheap when compared to other products like Cisco Wireless. For that relatively cheap price, Aruba offers hardware whose performance can match anything offered by its competitors. It advertises what it can do and follows through with its promises. It is also very easy to configure. However, they do not guide users in different industries through the best practices that they should be employing when using Aruba Wireless.
Conclusion
Cisco Wireless offers an effective service. In terms of cost it is more expensive than Aruba Wireless. They both have a lot to offer. The price tag might just be the deciding factor.
Aruba is our choice for our WIFI solution as Aruba has a lot of features that can do the same with Meraki.
Aruba is saving costs vs Meraki in a long time operation.