We previously used Fortinet as well as Ubiquiti access points and were literally struggling to keep our Wi-Fi stable until and unless we got Ruckus into our environment. 

We were forced to switch to Ruckus for better performance at peak times and also due to its increased penetrative power through hard walls.

In terms of an enterprise solution, this is the only solution that we have been using. Before that, we had some kind of APs that weren't really controller-based.

We have also used Cisco. We switched because of many reasons, but staying with Cisco would have cost us almost double the price. So, we had to change. It's not a question of reliability because Cisco is reliable also. It's more a question of something that's not for corporations and more for education in our case.

I worked with Ubiquiti and Aruba. We have replaced Ubiquiti with TP-Link. So if we need a cheap solution, then we'll go rather to TP-Link than to Ubiquiti.

We used SonicPoint, which is with SonicWall. The only reason for switching was that it wasn't their main thing. They were more of a firewall, and they had it as a secondary thing. We needed something that was much more robust with more capabilities per access point. We have 250 or more people on an access point.

We used to have Cisco's products for one or two years. I don't know the last time I had to turn in an RMA for a Ruckus radio. They're a solid product.

I have experience with Aruba and Meraki. Ruckus Wireless is above average in price and performance, but it does a good job. Ruckus Wireless is expensive compared to other tools in the market. Considering the fact that there are more expensive products in the market, Ruckus Wireless is a robust product compared to the other cheap alternators in the market. Ruckus Wireless performs well at its price point but is expensive when considering its features.

My company purchased Aruba Wireless for a new location based on Gartner recommendations. My company also made a technical comparison and found that Aruba Wireless is the number one product in the world, which is why the company is leaning toward it versus Ruckus Wireless.

I've also worked with Cisco solutions. Cisco is more expensive, and there is less performance. Ruckus offers better quality. 

I am also using Tanium, which is also a very good product. I chose to use Ruckus Wireless because I wanted to separate my production environment from the office environment so that nobody could disturb the production environment.

After conducting a comprehensive market analysis, our team arrived at the conclusion that Ruckus Wireless was the optimal solution for our commercial needs. The level of consistency demonstrated by Ruckus Wireless was unparalleled and thus, we made the decision to transition from our old solution to their offering.

We were previously an Aruba partner, but we switched to Ruckus because it's better. We've been in business for 15 years, and we have used Cisco, HPE, Extreme, Juniper, and several other vendors in that time.

I have used several solutions. In some cases, I am still using Ubiquity. If I have advanced requirements or need an enterprise solution, I go for Ruckus.

The previous solution was Aruba, but after many issues with the performance of their solution, we were forced to make a needed change.

• Clients would be kicked off randomly
• Slow wireless network
• APs would randomly reboot
• Complicated management
  

We use Ruckus Wireless in parallel with Cisco because it is less expensive than Cisco.

I've used a variety of different solutions in the past. I've been using Ruckus for quite a bit of time now. However, before that, it would be just a router that I bought. For example, a Linksys or Ubiquiti, or something like that. 

Ruckus is the first high end enterprise grade Wi-Fi product I have been this actively involved with. Our company also engages with Aruba, however, we have not deployed as many Aruba solutions lately.

We previously used Aruba, but we chose this solution because of its performance and configuration.

I did not use a different solution just yet.

We have used other solutions in the past. Occasionally, we do installations for clients that go against our advice and then often we have issues, however, with Ruckus, this is never the case. Never, in all the years.

I'm also familiar with Aruba. Compared to Aruba, the frequency will not disconnect.

We tried Cisco, also, however, we heard that it's not a good product. Price-wise, they're really cheap, however, they are not a better product.

I have knowledge of many different solutions, including Ubiquiti and Mist. I don't use Ubiquiti. However, Mist that does BLE technology and I don't believe Ruckus can do what they do. BLE technology is superb because you could track people with it using their cell. There's a ton of features available if you look at Mist. I sold probably about $300,000 or $400,000 worth of equipment from between 2005 and 2017. That's about $250,000 worth of equipment. Then, all these other players came into market. Ruckus was expensive, but you didn't need as many access points with Ruckus as you did with other access points because they were that good. With the wireless, more doesn't mean better.

We onboarded Ruckus as the first product in our company. We did not use anything else prior to Ruckus.

Previously, we were working with Cisco. It was more complex to manage the Cisco Network and the setup was more complicated. This was the main reason that we switched. 

We decided to go with Ruckus Wireless because it was easier to use and more user-friendly and the price was better.

I have experience working with Cisco, Aruba, and other types of Wi-Fi that my customers have installed.

Our clients used several brands prior to making the change such as Cisco, HP network, and Dell EMC network as well. They changed to Ruckus because they didn't feel satisfied with the product they were currently using. The majority of the problems stemmed from access point issues; the access point offer through these brands wasn't adaptable and compatible with their needs.

• Cisco enterprise - expensive and complicated, more APs needed to cover an area.
• HPE Colubris - unreliable.

We use solutions such as Juniper, Cisco Meraki, Ruckus, and Extreme. We are an independent integrator company, so we use the best solution for the customer.

We switched because we needed something that was a little more empire scale instead of little small hotspots located all around different wireless networks at different offices. Our people are always asking to connect and want to expand the capability of giving guests access to the internet while still protecting the infrastructure.

The first criteria we consider when considering a solution is responsiveness. They should also have good customer service and support team. We consider the stability of the platform and make sure that it's going to work and serve with minimal issues.

We used to use Cisco's enterprise wireless, but I kept hearing about Ruckus and I just couldn't believe that some upstart company was better than Cisco. Once we started using it, we saw that it outperformed Cisco and, on top of that, the difference in configuration between Cisco and Ruckus is night and day. Cisco is a pain to configure, where Ruckus is pretty much already set up out of the box. There are a few tweaks here or there, but the configuration time is 10 times faster with Ruckus versus Cisco.

An engineer met me out in the field, put some gear up, and it just blew the Cisco away. And it was just so much easier to configure, that it was a no-brainer. It was cheaper. We had better coverage, it was more reliable, it was faster, and it was easier to configure. It's one of the best companies I've ever dealt with in my life. I have nothing but good things to say about them, which is the only reason I'm doing this review, because I think they deserve it.

We also provide Cisco Catalyst Switches, and Alcatel switches for customers. We are gold partners with Alcatel which is why we work with Alcatel products such as PBX, network switches, and WiFi.

We also use MikroTik as a cheaper option for customers that can't afford Ruckus. 

Configuring MikroTik is more complex compared to Ruckus, where we only need to create an SSID, and the rest is automatically handled in the background.

When compared with Cisco, and Aruba, Ruckus Wireless is less expensive. 
Cisco is expensive, and there is no support in Jordan.

We use different products. Occasionally, a client may want to use Cisco. I'm not, however, too familiar with Aruba. Whatever we use depends on customer requirements and not our personal preference. I find Cisco to be a bit costlier. That said, it has lots of features on offer.

I do currently use Infinit Wireless Quanta products. I'm also familiar with Ubiquiti Wireless solutions.

We are also an Aruba and Cisco partner. 

We also work with Cisco and Aruba. We offer all three to our clients and they tend to choose which one they want to work with, or which has the best price point for them.

We've worked with Cisco, Aruba, and Huawei as well. We have system integrators for all these three solutions. We also have used it in our offices.

I have experience with similar solutions from different vendors, such as Aruba. In particular with Aruba, I have had huge problems with coverage. We have had other difficulties with their solutions, as well. With Ruckus, on the other hand, it is a really robust technology and the coverage it provides is helpful during deployment. In general, it is a much better solution than Aruba.

One of the reasons we actually moved from Juniper to say Ruckus was to avoid a future stoppage. 

We are partners with Fortinet and Juniper so we have gone through their product lines. The reason we chose Ruckus is because from the very beginning we found these companies only worked on wireless.

In addition to Ruckus we are also using Cisco Wireless LAN. It's not that one is better than the other, each has a different focus. For Cisco it's teaching and for Ruckus it's AP.