Personally, we believe that Omada Access Points are not good enough for our requirements and the location. So, that's why, instead of TP-Link, we need some advanced technologies, something like Aruba or Juniper. We are currently using the very basic TP-Link ones, which don't cover our requirements. That's why we are looking for other technologies.

After evaluating options such as Alcatel, Ubiquiti, and Cisco, we ultimately chose Omada due to its durability, cost-effectiveness, and robustness. 

Before implementing Omada Access Points, we used a more basic networking setup without centralized management. We did evaluate other options like Fortinet, but ultimately chose Omada due to its affordability and compatibility with our existing devices.

We are currently researching Aruba Wireless products to compare against TP-Link.

We chose TP-Link because it's very cost effective. It is cheaper than the other big brands, like Aruba or Cisco. Our clients prefer to have a cost-effective solution because some of them plan to scale, having a large quantity of access points.

For example, some companies require 20 access points, but they have a limited budget. This means that we need to modify their plan or look for a solution for them that will fit their budget.

It has all the common solutions that all other solutions provide. But it is very effective, I was planning to go for Ruckus, but its cost is 60% less than Ruckus. In our region, for Ruckus I have to pay $15,000 to have 25 access points. For TP Link I just need $5,000. So, you can see the level of difference.