We performed a comparison between Cisco Wireless WAN and Fortinet FortiExtender based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Wireless WAN solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The access points and controllers are good."
"The most valuable features are coverage and reliability."
"The most valuable features for me are the ease of operation and scalability."
"The performance of the solution is valuable."
"The most valuable features are CleanAir, Rogue Detection, and the auto-calculation of RF."
"The program is very stable."
"The most valuable feature of Cisco Wireless WAN is the ease of management."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The initial setup was was just beautiful. It was straightforward."
"Management can be carried out from a central point."
"You don't need to have two different vendors to interoperate and get into comparability issues or inter-operability issues."
"We appreciate that this solution can be used as an active secondary link as well as a backup."
"The most valuable feature will be that it works."
"For me, the best feature of Fortinet FortiExtender is its integration with an external solution such as a 5G LTE broadband modem, wired modem, and cellular network. I also like that the product can be integrated into one device or a unified device, and that is one of its best features because it allows you to manage and centralize the control of every device."
"The solution is extremely user-friendly."
"The product is easy to use and easy to integrate."
"It needs to increase its strength in capacity."
"Pricing is very high with Cisco products. It's something that many people complain about. They should work to make it more affordable."
"The tool's speed and IP address acquisition from the domain controller should be improved"
"The cost and support should be improved, and there should be support for the 6E standard."
"There are a number of areas for improvement in Cisco Wireless WAN, including sensitive applications which face issues on wireless stuff and difficulty troubleshooting."
"The worst thing about the Cisco controllers is that they only have two ports."
"There is no centralized management for multiple wireless control deployments or a user tracking feature."
"The console interface is not very user-friendly. It's a bit complex and difficult to navigate."
"The solution would be a lot better if it was a little bit more intuitive. Additionally, the help menu would be a lot better if it was easier to identify the items that I was looking for. I find the graphical interface a little bit difficult to navigate. And I find the font that is used on the HTML interface not conducive to being able to be read in low light situations."
"What most of my clients are telling me is the price is a problem."
"I would like to see them make it smaller in the next release so that it has a smaller footprint for mobile clients."
"We would like to see some improvement in the price for 5G models, as they are currently very expensive."
"The engineering of the solution has some negative points, especially in terms of troubleshooting. It's difficult to troubleshoot when we have a problem. It's not like other products like Cisco or Palo Alto which make troubleshooting much easier."
"There is a huge downside because we need to remove and insert the SIM to get it working."
"Though Fortinet FortiExtender has some security features, the product could still be improved by adding features similar to those in FortiGuard, such as antivirus, intrusion, prevention, and detection, as well as web filtering features. The product is also not as user-friendly, so that's another area for improvement. In the FortiGate UTM solution of Fortinet, there's software-defined or SD-WAN, and in the next release of Fortinet FortiExtender, I'd like to see SD-WAN embedded in the product. Most of the communication in Fortinet FortiExtender is related to WAN and Edge, so having an SD-WAN function in the product would be useful for integrating and controlling WAN communication."
"The support could be faster and more responsive."
Cisco Wireless WAN is ranked 4th in Wireless WAN with 61 reviews while Fortinet FortiExtender is ranked 6th in Wireless WAN with 8 reviews. Cisco Wireless WAN is rated 8.2, while Fortinet FortiExtender is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco Wireless WAN writes "Widely available and has a straightforward setup". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortinet FortiExtender writes "Seamless with excellent integration capabilities and flexibility". Cisco Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium Networks Wireless WAN and Ubiquiti Wireless, whereas Fortinet FortiExtender is most compared with . See our Cisco Wireless WAN vs. Fortinet FortiExtender report.
See our list of best Wireless WAN vendors.
We monitor all Wireless WAN reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.