Ubiquiti WLAN Room for Improvement
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.
View full review »
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.
Senior Manager Infrastructure at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
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.
Owner at Platinum I.C.T.
Room for improvement could likely happen in small areas. Largely we're happy with the product, however, the firmware deployments could maybe be managed a little bit differently.
I would like it if there was a better way of integrating the hotspot manager into payment gateways. When you run a desk metric, it would be nice to have integration into payment gateways so people can buy bandwidth themselves, on your wireless network.View full review »
System & Network Administrator at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
This is not a simple solution like you might find with other vendors. There could be some improvement with the updates and it requires a special environment to manage the Ubiquiti device. You cannot manage a device without the environment. You need to understand the architecture, the environment, and the management of the device which is somewhat complicated. It's not something that anyone can do.
Another issue is that there's no option to take another device, say a second PC or a mobile phone, and try to manage the environment. It's only the initial device that can be used and you need to continue with that. If you wish to change a device, it requires reconfiguration from scratch. I think this is a negative in the solution. Even with this issue it's still a good solution.
Managing Member at Pender & Associates
The new user interface could be improved - some of the features in the old UI are missing in the new UI.
The strength of the signal from the access points could be improved.View full review »
There are some connectivity issues that need to be resolved. Additionally, the frequency has to be improved.View full review »
I think the coverage could be increased.View full review »