We performed a comparison between Cisco Wireless WAN and HPE 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 devices are all of good quality."
"The performance of the solution is valuable."
"The initial setup is straightforward, and you need to spend around six to 10 weeks to set up one controller."
"Stability is one aspect that I find very valuable."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's best features are simple management, the cloud base, dashboards, and reliability."
"The initial setup was really easy and straightforward."
"I give the scalability a nine out of ten."
"The most valuable feature of Cisco Wireless WAN is the ease of management."
"The most valuable features of this solution are it supports the newest virus technology, which helps with bandwidth, and is very stable."
"The solution is easy to use."
"Setting up the solution initially is very easy."
"The main benefit of this product is the lifetime warranty, up to 99 years. For example, if your switch card fails after 10 years, and the hardware fails, it will be replaced with the very same switch or the equivalent model available at the time."
"We've found the scalability to be good."
"It's easy to use."
"The performance is good."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is flexibility."
"There are a number of areas for improvement in Cisco Wireless WAN, including sensitive applications which face issues on wireless stuff and difficulty troubleshooting."
"We cannot use wireless for the servers due to potential performance issues. They must be connected via fiber."
"The console interface is not very user-friendly. It's a bit complex and difficult to navigate."
"The only disadvantage of Cisco is maybe the cost."
"It can be complex to set up."
"The interface is a little bit difficult to understand at times. It would be good if Cisco were to make it user friendly so that everyone can easily configure it without the need to do certifications and courses to learn how to use all of the devices."
"The pricing of the solution could always be better."
"I hope Cisco can improve the capacity to service a high density of users in a small area, as currently we have difficulties with this."
"The installation is easy. However, my implementation is complicated and you would need special training to complete it."
"It's very old-fashioned, which is why we have made the decision to replace it."
"Technical support could be improved. They could respond a bit faster."
"The HPE Wireless dashboard could be more user-friendly."
"I would say that the integration with other vendors in areas such as management or the visibility of other vendors in the management tools could be improved."
"The license cost of the product is an area where the prices are neither expensive nor cheap, leaving a scope for the prices to be lowered further."
"The scalability is good, but it could improve."
"Sometimes it can be difficult to find the right sizing."
Cisco Wireless WAN is ranked 4th in Wireless WAN with 61 reviews while HPE Wireless WAN is ranked 8th in Wireless WAN with 16 reviews. Cisco Wireless WAN is rated 8.2, while HPE Wireless WAN is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Cisco Wireless WAN writes "It's a reliable, user-friendly solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HPE Wireless WAN writes " A tool that ensures to provide seamless connectivity to its users". Cisco Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium Networks Wireless WAN, Fortinet FortiExtender and Ubiquiti Wireless, whereas HPE Wireless WAN is most compared with Ruckus Wireless WAN. See our Cisco Wireless WAN vs. HPE 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.