When it comes to additional features and product offerings, Cisco has a broader portfolio including a range of solutions, such as firewalls, various boxes, and software options. It enables you to assemble an entire network environment, covering almost all your needs. In contrast, Extreme Networks focuses on specific areas, such as Wi-Fi management, network access control, and switches, without offering a wide array of supplementary products. This means that if you opt for Extreme, you might need to seek out other vendors for components like firewalls, load balancing, and DNS to fulfill all your requirements.

We have used other options. We have deployed NetGear types of access points. We've taken Cisco's access points. We went with this solution as it was more centralized. 

They used Aerohive.

We previously used Ubiquiti networks. The solution connected several buildings across our 32 acre campus. The signal strength was pretty good, even though it dropped off in a relatively short distance. However, the system was not robust and failed easily under load.

We also use a lot of Cisco products.

We previously used a variety of vendors across the state. Aerohive was chosen to standardize our system to make maintenance and support easier.

I have personally used many different vendors’ products such as Trapeze, Aruba, and Cisco. Dealing with those solutions after having dealt with Aerohive was pure torture. I used to work for a Cisco Gold partner where our major client base was K-12. I dare you to try and get Bonjour or any other multicast based application to work with a Cisco WLAN. You can do it, but it is a painstaking experience. Every enterprise should be Aerohive in my opinion, but K-12 especially should be taking a serious look.

We previously used Meraki. We looked at TCO for five years and the Aerohive looks like it will be less expensive, especially if purchased with the support up front.

The major differences between ExtremeCloud IQ and competitors include the superior updating of devices and the overall better support provided by the cloud solution.

Yes, we used HP wireless previously. Switched for several reasons. 1) The controller was unreliable 2) the wireless network was hard to manage 3) The wireless signal was poor 4) I had used Aerohive previously and loved it 5) The school wanted to do BYOD and I would trust no one else with this important task!

I’ve used both Cisco and Meraki extensively and have found Aerohive to offer the best mix between stable hardware and software and ease of setup, deployment, and management.

We did have another solution in place. I switched because of the ease of use I saw with the Hive Manager. Also, Aerohive had helped with the network at a conference I attended, and it was the best year we ever had in terms of connection.

We had a completely different way of doing wireless, so this was a "start from scratch" project. I evaluated a number of vendors and visited several peer sites before choosing a solution, though.

Previously, I did not use any other solutions.

We used Symbol Controller based WiFi. It was terrible, it went down all the time, and it was difficult to upgrade or add APs to.

We did not use an enterprise solution previously. We built a new manufacturing facility and needed a solution that would meet our needs.

We did not use another wireless solution before this one. We purchased it because we needed to provide wireless service within the organization.

Have used Netgear, Cisco, and others. I saw the APs demonstrated and HiveManager, and went with them for the quality of the product and the ability to manage everything from one cloud-based interface.

Yes, we were primarily a Meru shop with a little bit of Aruba and Xirrus. We switched because Aerohive presented a much better solution when our wireless RFP went out. The cost and feature set to scale for our deployment just made Aerohive a clear winner.

We used unmanaged access points before. We switched to more easily control our wireless infrastructure.

No. We researched multiple vendors however the controller-less system and hivemanager capabilities won. Why is there a minimum character of 120 if the answer is No.

I previously used Symbol/Motorola. We switched due to scalability and management issues.

I came onboard with company using this system so we have not even looked at any other systems or even had another system at the time

We did not have any previous solutions in our environment.

Mikrotik, impossible to manage these devices. Mikrotik requires that you know their proprietary system to get it to work.

Nothing enterprise-wide, but we did use some CIsco and Linksys products for a small office roll-out.

TP-Link Business Wireless Router.

We had “non central management” wireless solution before Aerohive. That was our primary goal for switch – to have central control over wireless connection at whole company and enforce different set of security policies.

We've used HP and switched because of the appeal of a controller-less wireless solution, and the appeal of simplified management.

Yes we used Extreme/Enterasys. They were starting to charge to much for their product, also some of the features that are included out of the box with Aerohive cost big $$$ with Extreme.

We only had some single individual access points. That of course means individual config (no central management), no roaming, no full coverage ...

We previously used Ruckus. We switched due to our equipment being end of life and we wanted to move to a cloud solution. Aerohive was able to meet both of those needs. We also wanted something that worked good with our noisy environment and was able to provide a stable connection with a lot of interference.

We were using consumer-grade, unmanaged access points.

Motorola was previously used; because of a new version, APs had to be changed so we had to send out a PoC to find the best solution at that moment (end 2012).

We were using Ruckus and UBNT. We changed because neither of these solutions was able to provide us with unified management within one central management system. Also, neither of these past solution got even close in features and capabilities to Aerohive. We noticed that Ruckus is, perhaps, 10% better in performances than Aerohive, which is a very small percentage when comparing the complete set of functionalities and network capabilities of these two vendors.

Cisco. We swapped to Aerohive because of many reasons.

1. One reason is the installation. The install of the AP250s is much easier on the drop ceiling compared to their Meraki MR42 counterpart.
2. Another reason is the price to performance. We found that the AP250s perform better than the MR42s at almost half the cost. With the money we saved, we were able to up our concentration of APs.

A mix. Mostly Cisco.

Yes, the company was no longer developing their product.

Cisco and HP were used previously, and we decided to switch because we were attracted to AeroHive's cloud management.

We now actively service existing Aerohive installs, but are encouraging new sites to consider Cisco Meraki as the sales, training and support efforts are more mature in our region.

Yes. Our previous solution was centralized and we had a lot of dependability issues. With the Aerohive solution we were able to decentralize our wifi solution. This helped provide a more stable and dependable solution.

We also use Meraki MX and MR devices.

Yes, we had standalone solutions and we switched because we needed more centralized management.

We did not previously use a different solution.