Mohamed TalbiNetwork and Security Engineer at a tech consulting company
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The ease of management is the solution's most valuable feature."
"I like how the look and feel of the product is standardized to match other Cisco solutions."
"This stability is one of the major reasons to stick with this product."
"The program is very stable."
"The initial setup was really easy and straightforward."
"Mobile anchoring and graphic user interface are helpful features."
"This is the most stable product in the market."
"Granularity of standardization and technical controls."
"The solution is extremely user-friendly."
"The initial setup was was just beautiful. It was straightforward."
"Pricing is very high with Cisco products. It's something that many people complain about. They should work to make it more affordable."
"The pricing could be improved in future releases. It's quite expensive."
"The worst thing about the Cisco controllers is that they only have two ports."
"The integration support technology should be improved."
"There is no centralized management for multiple wireless control deployments or a user tracking feature."
"The reporting feature needs improvement, especially adding information with regards to availability uptime."
"Include more managing features within the product, rather than having to purchase them as extras."
"The cloud interoperability needs improvement."
"The engineering of the solution has some negative points, especially in terms of troubleshooting. It's difficult to troubleshoot when we have a problem. It's not like other products like Cisco or Palo Alto which make troubleshooting much easier."
"The solution would be a lot better if it was a little bit more intuitive. Additionally, the help menu would be a lot better if it was easier to identify the items that I was looking for. I find the graphical interface a little bit difficult to navigate. And I find the font that is used on the HTML interface not conducive to being able to be read in low light situations."
"It is very expensive."
"Cisco is more expensive than other solutions."
"This is a very expensive solution but there are no additional costs."
"It was a one time fee and there are no costs in addition to this."
"There is a license that is needed for the use of this solution."
Earn 20 points
With businesses increasingly relying on cloud and remote applications, WAN connectivity must always be available. FortiExtender can be used as a primary connection or deployed as a backup connection to ensure reliability. FortiExtender integrates directly into the FortiGate security platform. This provides centralized management and enables seamless security. In addition, deep visibility into performance and data usage lets you monitor health and avoid excess data charges.
Cisco Wireless WAN is ranked 4th in Wireless WAN with 13 reviews while Fortinet FortiExtender is ranked 8th in Wireless WAN with 2 reviews. Cisco Wireless WAN is rated 8.0, while Fortinet FortiExtender is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Wireless WAN writes "Enables you to control everything, every technology within the wireless arena and has good granularity". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortinet FortiExtender writes "Very user-friendly, extremely simple to set up and good scalability". Cisco Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium, whereas Fortinet FortiExtender is most compared with . See our Cisco Wireless WAN vs. Fortinet FortiExtender 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.