The solution should improve stability. 

The logs are not detailed enough. You can't clearly see what is being blocked in Ubiquiti WLAN, making the troubleshooting process a little bit harder. The aforementioned areas can be considered for improvement.

The solution should include and expand on a central management system. The higher the number of sites where you use such access or devices, the higher the requirement to have the option to manage them centrally. A central management can be used not just for monitoring but also to push firmware updates and configuration changes.

I got feedback from one of the bigger international customers of Ubiquiti, an international Internet service provider, that they would like to see a central management system for Ubiquiti WLAN.

In my opinion, Ubiquiti has made significant improvements, but there is still room for growth in certain areas. While I believe that Ubiquiti is an excellent brand and offers high-quality devices, I think they could enhance their products by integrating cloud access into each device. This would eliminate the need for separate devices, such as a cloud key, to ensure access through the cloud. 

For instance, individuals who cannot afford a UDM and want to control their devices from Nextiva are forced to buy additional devices from other brands that have this built-in option. I believe Ubiquiti can improve in this aspect and find a way to integrate cloud access into their devices.

The room for improvement is in the controller levels. We have the Cloud Key, but it goes offline most of the time, and we have to unplug and plug it back in again before it comes online. Using the web controller was much better than using the Cloud Key. However, maybe by now, they've made changes, but that was one of our challenges and why we decided to move away from Ubiquiti.

The solution needs to improve robustness, security, and stability. 

With newer products, to be precise, you want to know what their plan is, and where are they heading. Because you want to make wise choices. And, once again, the same product does not last indefinitely. 

You are always coming up with new ideas and improvements. 

But you want to know where they see themselves going in the future. 

When they release new products, you should know if there backward compatibility, or do you have to replace the entire forklift, It is useful to understand their strategy and where they are headed.

During the configuration, we cannot get information on the network level from the regular interface. A few other vendors, like Fortinet, Zoho, and Azure, provide an option to switch to a power shell console directly. It has a hyper installer to make the process quick. There could be a similar option for the product for easier implementation.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 product’s bandwidth could be better.

Ubiquiti WLAN is not a cheap solution.

The solution could improve by having a cloud version. A cloud version is the easiest to configure anywhere in the world.

The product's area of concern revolves around its lack of support. With the tool, you cannot do an RMA. My company has never seen a Ubiquiti representative visit our premises. Once you buy the tool, you are on your own.

The product must provide better warranties.

I think the coverage could be increased.

The app and software should be more reliable. When we compare other solutions in the market, they seem more stable. When we talk about management, Ubiquiti's efficiency is not as good as other solutions in the market.

It would be good to see some cloud management features in future releases.

I cannot recall coming across any missing features. It already has so many to work with. 

When I started to upgrade, the controller for Unbuntu was really struggling to start up, however, that has since been solved. 

The new user interface could be improved - some of the features in the old UI are missing in the new UI.

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.

The strength of the signal from the access points could be improved.

The stability isn't so good. I didn't find it very stable due to the fact that we have had troubles with them every once in a while.

The main problem we encounter is that sometimes when we struggle, it's due to the fact that the equipment is always looking for the controller. When the controller is not there, not detectable, the equipment is unavailable, and the connection is not available. When that happens, the users are complaining. There seems to be a drop in service sometimes. It's definitely a reliability or stability issue we face.

Ubiquiti lacks troubleshooting tools. For example, there aren't tools that your clients can use to gather input on the AP itself. There's no visibility in the application layer or reporting. It doesn't have a lot of management features.

Managability and customization

I'm just looking around, as I take over the position in the company. I haven't evaluated the different solutions in detail. I need more time to see if there are items I do not like.

The statistics you can get on it are a bit limited from what I have seen so far.

Ubiquiti WLAN only supports 2.4GHz Wi-Fi radio and would be improved by including support for 5GHz.

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. 

There are some connectivity issues that need to be resolved. Additionally, the frequency has to be improved.