We performed a comparison between Cisco Wireless WAN and Ubiquiti Wireless 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."We have found that the product scales well."
"I am impressed with the tool's packet tracing so that connection with the devices is always consistent."
"The solution offers very good performance, especially for iPhones."
"The technical support we have experienced has been good."
"The security and the capabilities of the platform are the most valuable features."
"This stability is one of the major reasons to stick with this product."
"Our most valuable feature involves the 802.11ac, which operates at a very high level and has updated technology."
"The implementations are easy."
"It is very stable and the equipment lasts quite a long time."
"Installation is easy with seamless integration of additional APs."
"The 3x3 MIMO antenna provides excellent coverage and the product is well supported by Ubiquiti in terms of firmware updates."
"The indoor WiFi connection works well."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is a simple and useful tool that offers good performance."
"Having dual-band is important. Having compatibility with very old equipment on certain frequencies, for example on 2.4 and 5.8."
"Easy to set up and maintain and simple to configure."
"It offers very good pricing."
"We cannot use wireless for the servers due to potential performance issues. They must be connected via fiber."
"The initial setup and deployment should be easier."
"We feel that Cisco is quite expensive, so we're looking for a reasonable alternative. We are considering Aruba and some other brands that are less expensive. Cisco works fine, but the issue is the annual licensing and support costs."
"The price of Cisco Wireless WAN could improve, it is expensive."
"The coverage area on some of the low-end access points isn't the best. The high-end ones are fine, but we've had bad experiences on the other ones."
"The product must be made more user-friendly."
"The DNA space is a separate license cost, which should be included in the license."
"The tool's speed and IP address acquisition from the domain controller should be improved"
"They have access points that are in the firewalls, and I believe the firewalls could be significantly better. They use the USG firewall, which I believe is a poor device. VPNs for example, it is really bad, it is difficult to configure, and I don't like them at all."
"My company has to wait for a response from the product's support team. From an improvement perspective, the product's support team should be quicker to respond."
"I would like to see more cloud features that some of the other competitors such as Cisco Meraki have that are very nice."
"We tried to create an access point with built-in voice and sound that we could use in schools, for example. We tried to create something that could play sounds or messages out of the access points. We wanted to, for example, use it as a school bell instead of using other equipment. It didn't work very well. It turns out when you connect to the Ubiquiti Wireless access point, it's not possible to send simple messages (like what is going on in the canteen, or some news update for the school, etc.). We had to use the on-premises version, as the cloud version wouldn't allow for this."
"Performance could be improved in the solution because when I compare it with Ruckus and other APs, some of those APs are better performing, so you don't have to deploy too many APs to get the same level of Wi-Fi coverage and stability. It's not about how many clients the solution can handle, but it is more about stability and coverage. Another room for improvement in Ubiquiti Wireless, compared to other brands, is that it doesn't do well when used in an office network. It has a limitation on how reliable the AP of the system is."
"The control system can be improved by making it easier."
"We'd like the solution to be more stable and have fewer firmware upgrades."
"The production is not very stable in our experience."
Cisco Wireless WAN is ranked 4th in Wireless WAN with 60 reviews while Ubiquiti Wireless is ranked 1st in Wireless WAN with 67 reviews. Cisco Wireless WAN is rated 8.2, while Ubiquiti Wireless is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Wireless WAN writes "It's a reliable, user-friendly solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ubiquiti Wireless writes "It's cheap and easy to use but isn't suitable for large deployments or complex use cases ". Cisco Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium Networks Wireless WAN and Fortinet FortiExtender, whereas Ubiquiti Wireless is most compared with Ruckus Wireless WAN, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, Cambium Networks Wireless WAN and Aruba Wireless. See our Cisco Wireless WAN vs. Ubiquiti Wireless 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.