Ubiquiti WLAN Reviews

We are a systems integrator and offer Ubiquiti WLAN as a solution to our clients.

Most of our clients prefer to eliminate the use of China brands, and Ubiquiti, being from the US, is something we can offer to them as a good alternative.

So, it's a good alternative. 

If they can integrate or release a single platform because, currently, there are two different platforms for switches and routers. So I believe maintaining just one unified platform, like for example, unifying the models or brands, and avoiding separate platforms for edge switches, edge routers, and other Ubiquiti products, would simplify the integration and implementation process. Currently, having two different platforms makes it more complicated for the end-users to manage and modify their devices.

We have been using Ubiquiti WLAN for seven years now. We currently use the latest version.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. Based on our previous installations, once you install the device, you can just leave it or forget about it. You can enable auto-pilot or automatic updates unless there's a bug or fix that needs human intervention, then that's the time you need to repair or modify the system. But from all the projects where we installed this product, we didn't encounter any issues.

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. It is very scalable. 

We don't usually communicate directly with Ubiquiti technical support, but we try to participate in the Ubiquiti community. However, some of the answers in the community are misleading. So instead, we rely more on watching YouTube videos or listening to reliable video tutorials from experienced users.

The initial setup is straightforward. The only thing to note is that the edge max or the edge switches and the unified systems are two different platforms, which can make things more complicated for end-users managing two different platforms.

We are using a mixed implementation. So we use on-prem, and we also use some managed services for our clients.

We handle the maintenance in-house. Two engineers are usually involved in maintaining the Ubiquiti WLAN.

As for pricing, we are getting a good price from our distributors, and it depends on the complexity and scale of the project, so we can negotiate for more discounts based on the volume of orders.

We charge for technical support, but we don't charge for any license renewals or recurring costs related to licenses.

You cannot compare Ubiquiti to Cisco because Cisco is for enterprise, and Ubiquiti is for SMB. So it's hard for me to make a direct comparison.

We used Cisco Meraki for deployments, and we have also worked with other competitors of Ubiquiti, depending on the specific needs of the customer.

So, we work with multiple products based on the customer's requirements.

In terms of technology, we have observed consistent updates to improve functionality and simplify the solution.

I would definitely recommend using the solution. Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We use Ubiquiti WLAN to connect different departments of our organization. It helps us in blocking and allowing access to the network.

The product is simple to use in terms of GUI and dashboard.

Ubiquiti WLAN's features need improvement for enterprises compared to other vendors. Its scalability, UI, and security features could be better. The product should have features similar to Cisco in terms of R and D for environments. Additionally, they should introduce certification programs for people to learn more about it.

I rate the platform's stability a seven.  

I rate the platform's scalability a six out of ten.

They have a lot of documentation and YouTube tutorials. However, the technical support services could be better.

The initial setup is easy. I rate the process a ten out of ten. It can be deployed on hybrid as well as private and public clouds. It takes a few minutes to complete depending on the network size.

Ubiquiti WLAN is a low-priced product. I rate its pricing a one out of ten.

I advise small and medium-scale companies to use the product. I rate Ubiquiti WLAN a six out of ten.

I use Ubiquiti WLAN to provide Wi-Fi in the hotel industry.

We've received positive feedback from our clients after deploying Ubiquiti WLAN, which has improved our confidence and reputation as a service provider.

Ubiquiti WLAN's best feature is the free controller system software. We can download this software anytime without licensing fees, and once deployed, the access point instantly synchronizes with the system, which makes configuration faster and easier. Other valuable features include Ubiquiti WLAN's signal reach and penetration, single view of all access points, and captive portal system, which you can use to generate tickets for guests and allow them to log in using the password.

Ubiquiti WLAN would be improved with the addition of individual AP configuration, which would allow for fine-tuning of individual access points and logins. There are also occasional issues with syncing the controller software.

I've been using Ubiquiti WLAN for three to four years.

Ubiquiti WLAN's stability is good.

Ubiquiti WLAN's scalability is good.

Ubiquiti's technical support is satisfactory.

Positive

The setup is straightforward; for example, deployment will take around four to five days for a three-story building with fifteen to twenty rooms.

We use an in-house team.

We've received a decent ROI from Ubiquiti WLAN.

Ubiquiti WLAN is fairly well priced and available as a one-time purchase.

I evaluated Cisco Meraki and Ruckus.

I would rate Ubiquiti WLAN seven out of ten.

Ubiquiti WLAN needs to expand the models with external antennas. It needs to improve stability. 

The tool's deployment is very easy. The deployment of 15 access points can take a day. 

Ubiquiti WLAN is cheap. It can work without licensing. 

I rate the product a six out of ten. 

The solution's most valuable feature is its pricing.

They should improve the solution's online console. Also, they should work on making its AP features stable. Presently, it reboots whenever we make any changes.

We have been using the solution for a couple of years.

It is not a stable solution.

We have 50 solution users in our organization.

The solution's support team needs to be more responsive.

Negative

The solution could work better. I rate it as a five.

We are a solution provider and the Ubiquiti WLAN is one of the networking products that we implement for our customers. We have worked with different versions including the AC Pro HD, the HD, and the XD.

I have set up and manage multiple sites. There are 45 access points deployed all over a billion square feet.

The most beneficial thing about Ubiquiti is that it is simple to deploy. I found that the access points were easy to identify on the network and they came over easily, which was an upside.

The downside is the interface changes, where they are constantly doing firmware updates. I often felt like I was being pushed into updates, in spite of it already working. In my mind, it also raises a red flag because you have to wonder why they keep changing the firmware. You can decide to ignore the update, but then if you move the access point then it will update automatically anyway. This is a little bit of control that you give up. So, while it is easy to deploy, all of these things that happen in the background make me uncomfortable.

I have been working with Ubiquiti in general for several years, but specifically with WLAN for the past two to three years.

The Ubiquiti WLAN is very stable, although if I don't update it, I feel a lot better.

The technical support is not good. We did get help, but I didn't have a good feeling about it.  By comparison, it isn't the level of support that you would get from Cisco or Aruba.

I would say that they have improved from when I started with them a few years ago and that they are getting better. In fact, it's a lot better, and also, the need for calling technical support has been reduced as well. By comparison, we call Fortinet for technical support more often. With Fortinet, we often joke that you wait on hold for so long that you've fixed the problem before you even speak with somebody about the issue.

Another comparison is with Meraki; with them, you get them on the phone quickly and they fix the problem. That's it. 

I have experience with products from several vendors. Some examples are EnGenius, Fortinet, Cisco, Juniper, Aruba, and Cisco Meraki.  There are differences between them and some of my colleagues are upset with the security levels that are offered by some of the other vendors.

For example, if you want to compare Juniper to Cisco, Cisco settings are not as secure. The group settings are much higher in terms of encryption on the Juniper than on the Meraki. And, if you want better security, which is group 14, you can't do that unless you call them up and they actually set it for you. So that's on the Meraki side, or Cisco.

In terms of support or how things actually happen under the hood, some people liked Meraki the best. I am leaning towards liking Meraki more, but there are some drawbacks. As far as the support is concerned, or the overall experience with the solution, Ubiquiti is simple and easy and inexpensive. You go to Meraki or you go to Aruba or you go to the others, it's a lot more money.

For many years, I use the EnGenius products for Wi-Fi. Pretty much all the access points we were selling to our clients were the EnGenius brand. Then we went to Ubiquiti and I was happy because it was much easier, I can manage it in one place, it's better, and I don't have to update things as much if I choose not to. With EnGenius, I never changed anything. I set it once, and I forgot it, and there's something to be said for that. You just set it and forget it and leave it. But the EnGenius, if you have to do troubleshooting then it is quite a problem because the management is terrible.

We implement and deploy network solutions for our customers. This includes setting up the physical access points, then configuring them by adding them to access groups, making sure that the channels don't conflict with other devices, and so forth.

The deployment and models depend on the density of the access points in the space.

This product is more cost-effective than some others on the market.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Ubiquiti is to first make sure that you have a good plan first. Make sure that you have done your homework in terms of the space where it will be installed. The best is if you're replacing the existing solution, you should still review the placement. The reason is that nine times out of ten, you'll use fewer Ubiquiti devices than you would if you were using Aruba, or Meraki, or some other brand.

You don't need to buy as many, even though with the budget you have you can buy twice as many access points for the same money you would spend on Meraki, but it's overkill. You don't need that many. So, be conservative about the number of access points that are put out there. This is to say that you have to do a really good survey.

Look for metal plating, look for the line of sight access, so that you put the access points where they can actually see each other. Make sure that the access points are not too close to each other, but not too far away. That's the whole thing. I go with 50 or 75 feet away, in tight spaces.

Overall, I feel that this is a good product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

It's a WLAN solution. I can provide access point management for the whole corporation.

We are not physically installing a single site, we have a few branches across the nation, and I can manage them in a single point.

I have a few SSIDs that broadcast to specific sites.  

I can manage the login, and I have it integrated to make it easier for my clients. They don't need to use passwords, it is based on a certificate that is on my domain. 

The feature that I really like is the backup. You can save backups of this controller locally and then I can export it to wherever I want.

It notifies me when I have to update the access points. It is consistently roaming my environment and alerts me when it is not up-to-date, or if it requires my attention.

For example, it alerts me, if there is an access point that is conflicting with another access point outside of my organization and is using the same channel.

It includes a heat map, which is pretty good. I can import an image with my company or my site, and delimitate the spaces, such as where the wood is, or concrete, brick, glass and few other materials, all with built-in options on the tool. I can pin my devices won where they were installed and we know exactly the broadcast intensity of the signal.

The heat map is a nice troubleshoot tool, that helps me to manage the solution and understand if there is a complaint regarding a co-ordinant. For example, if someone complains that the Wi-Fi is not connected in some place of my sites, I can check the heat map and shows me the proper signal strength on that specific place, I know then, that where I should act, on my AP or on the client's connection to evaluate the network card for the user.

The heat map is always working well.

It has good visibility.

This solution gives me a lot of power to manage the WLAN for my company.

Ubiquiti WLAN is a very robust product to use.

They have a feature that allows you to wirelessly connect between them. If for example, the Wi-Fi has a poor connection with the network, it will look for a partner, and select the wireless from there, or if I don't have data cabling on the local, I can simply connect it into the eletric network and it will work as a wireless extension from any other devices. We barely have outages with the solution and I requires a minimal attention/effort to keep running.

For me there is little room for improvement on my scenario, I have never used cloud solutions or had a glance on it. 

The improvement I see right now as a good feature is firmware related, if I were able to re-firmware my legacy/old Ubiquiti AP's with a generic new firmware, this would definitely extend the life-cycle of my older assets that still work smoothly, It would allow me to avoid some hardware expenses within years and keep my environment up-to-date.

Another nice improvement for this would be a seamless integration with PowerBi from Microsoft to generate dashboards and aggregate the info on Infrastructure reports easier.

I have been using Ubiquiti WLAN for approximately two years.

We are using the most updated version, which is version 6.0

We had two instances where the controller was down, but that was due to a server issue.

The controller and access points are pretty stable.

In my environment, I currently have 20 access points. In the beginning, we had 15 or 16 access points, we already had close to 30 in the close passando, and now we are running around 20.

In my experience, this platform scales pretty well. I have not scaled it to hundreds of access points, so I am not sure if it can scale for larger enterprise companies the same way it has for us.

I have never contacted technical support.

I have experience with the Ubiquiti UniFi solution. I have been working with it for three years. It's pretty stable.

I have also, worked with Hewlett Packard and Cisco. 

The command line breaks the point for troubleshooting and for managing the information, as mostly things are done using a GUI on Ubiquiti, it really gets way easier to identify the issue sometimes.

It was easy to set up. I would rate it an eight out of ten.

It was only two hours to deploy.

It is very easy to manage the solution.

It doe not cost much, I could say that it delivers a nice pack for what it costs.

Ubiquiti itself, is a good company to start with. 

Ubiquiti is the best choice for small companies because of the easy installation, their variety of products, and their integration, and you can manage all of your devices from a single controller.

As of right now, I don't have any switches, just Ubiquiti access points, and a controller, but we can manage any device that is manufactured by the same vendor. This is a great feature to have.

I, personally, have never used the switches. I am not sure what the capabilities of it are, or what the throughput is.

If you are a small or medium-sized company, it will ease your life. It will present you with dashboard, and management capabilities.

I haven't seen that ease with other vendors. Ubiquiti offers you a simple way to manage it.

I don't know if it can be used in large companies, where you have large environments to manage, or with data centers or services that you offer on a large scale (over 200 AP/switch devices).

I would rate Ubiquiti WLAN a nine out of ten.

The configuration is straightforward.

The initial set up is easy. All solutions at this point, at a basic level, are very similar in terms of features and items of that nature.

The pricing is very competitive and the feature sets are very good. It compares well against more expensive options.

The support needs improvement. The official support is kind of complex. It's not that straightforward compared to Cisco and Aruba. Their support is probably so much better. That's one of the reasons I'm looking for an alternative solution.

You may find a lack of features compared to Cisco, or other options. For example, on Cisco or Aruba you've been able to find the Wi-Fi 6 access point for a long time now. If you have set up a new solution, you probably will look for something with Wi-Fi 6 coverage. Ubiquiti at that point didn't have it. Now they have it. I checked their website and they do have Wi-Fi 6 support. However, it's clear that they are behind on some pretty standard aspects.

If you're talking about enterprise-level coverage, you likely have many locations. Ubiquiti can handle this, however, it's a bit complicated. To compare another solution, Meraki cloud has a cloud controller. Ubiquiti has a cloud controller, however, it requires some other stuff and probably an appliance that you need to have in order to have this centralized solution control. Cisco is more straightforward and easier to manage at this point. 

If you were to compare solutions in general, Cisco is a step forward. Again, there are no big differences. It's just these minor details. However, overall, it makes a difference, depending on your requirements.

When I started to compare other solutions it was due to the fact that I do have technical issues with this product. There seems to be interference between the channels of the solutions. What I was told is that Ubiquiti can set up the channels automatically in order to avoid interference between channels, especially on 2.4 large coverage. That's fine, however, I heard that Cisco, for example, does have the option to do it automatically for APs. If there's a conflict between channels, and interferences become a big issue on your network, they will automatically adjust. That feature is not available on Ubiquiti. That is probably one of the reasons why I do have some technical issues regarding the overall experience.

The solution has okay stability.

I've had issues with technical support.

When it came to dealing with interference, they weren't upfront about the issues caused by too many APs being set up. I didn't really get a timely response from Ubiquiti. It took too long to get into contact with them. Their worldwide support just isn't as good as, for example, Cisco.  

I'm in South America. That means, if I have an issue, I can call Cisco and have expert help in 24 hours or less. Ubiquiti doesn't have that kind of turnaround. They can't help you solve things very quickly. 

The initial setup is not complex. It's pretty straightforward and very similar to any solution of this nature. A company shouldn't have issues implementing it.

The relationship between the cost versus performance is probably the reason this is the best solution from a pricing perspective. It's pretty cheap and has the best features if you were to compare it to others. 

We haven't switched yet, however, we are looking for new options.

I have issues with interference and I'm looking for products that offer solutions to help me avoid this. I've looked at Cisco, and they seem to be able to adjust automatically if interference is detected. 

I've also looked at Aruba, and I've found that comparing the three, Cisco and Aruba are much more mature solutions.

We are a customer and an end-user. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

I've run an internal audit about the company's Wi-Fi solution properties, all the main metrics about the solution. I was told that there was interference between the channels due to the fact that we have many floors and the floors are where the conflict comes in. Even though the channels were set up automatically by the solution, there were too many APs on the same floor, and that caused the interference to become an issue. It was not caused by the specific solution, however, the fact that their solution was not capable of fixing that automatically or doing something to let me know that that problem was being caused by too many APs density was not the best response.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. We've had problems with interference, however, that issue aside, the value you get in terms of features and pricing is quite good. It's not the most mature solution, however, it does offer a pretty good set of features overall.