We performed a comparison between Cisco Wireless and Omada Access Points based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Wireless LAN solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is pretty generic and easy to use."
"The artificial intelligence feature is very good."
"The most valuable feature of Juniper Wireless Access Points (AP Series) is the ability to troubleshoot ports on the network. Additionally, when there is an update on the APs they are able to reboot quickly reducing downtime. Other solutions have a longer downtime when updates are done."
"In terms of reporting, in terms of all the user reports, it's very rich."
"The solution is very secure."
"The solution is stable."
"The AI capabilities of Mist Wireless are superior to other OEMs."
"With Mist, every Wednesday they roll out new features."
"This increased mobility has helped our organization. We can talk to one another from different locations and stay in constant contact and with employees across the enterprise. Everyone has access to up-to-the-minute communications and all documents and applications on our network."
"Compared to other solutions, captive guest network is one of the best isolation and tunneling."
"The ability to deploy wireless access points with templates."
"It is a very stable solution."
"Cisco has good support services."
"The technical support from Cisco is good."
"It's very easy to configure the access points."
"Setting up Cisco Wireless is pretty straightforward. It takes about an hour or two, and we can handle it in-house. To deploy one project, it takes two to three for a single controller."
"Its sturdiness and cost-effectiveness are the most valuable features."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its price."
"We use Omada Access Points for the network and Wi-Fi."
"The most valuable feature of TP-Link Auranet EAP is its high performance."
"When this solution is set up, it is solid. It offers fast deployment."
"The performance and availability of Omada Access Points have met our business needs, particularly in improving network control and facilitating direct access for developers to branch services."
"The solution has been dependable and has kept up with modern technology."
"The pricing is reasonable."
"The price could be better."
"Juniper Wireless Access Points (AP Series) could improve if the MIST platform had a built-in master key. This would be an advantage."
"It would be helpful to have even stronger security features to help protect against interference from other nearby access points that aren't part of our network."
"Juniper Mist Wireless Access Points’ support services need improvement."
"I need a bit more time with it before criticizing the features."
"The pricing is very high in the Indian market."
"Juniper Wireless AP can improve by continually improving its reporting and integration with other systems."
"If you want to do more specific stuff, it's a bit limited."
"The biggest reason why we could no longer continue with Cisco Wireless was because of the high cost to upgrade everything. It was disappointing that Cisco treated us as just another big company, and did not offer any leeway on their pricing given that we are an educational institute. And although the system we had in place from Cisco Wireless was good enough over the last ten years, it started to show its age when pushed to its limit during the pandemic."
"The current issue with Cisco is I don't have centralized management."
"It's end-of-life, it will be end-of-support in the next two years. The APs are also end-of-life."
"The solution is stable but it could be improved. However, this could be because there are not enough APs."
"If needs to provide more visibility. It can detect and do it, but as technicians we don't have a lot of visibility into seeing exactly what's happening. It doesn't give us a lot of log information for us to troubleshoot. They probably have additional software you need to purchase to get that kind of information. But I think not all companies can afford additional software to see those kinds of details. So if the wireless controller already had, built-in, those types of things for the technician or wireless engineer, it would be more attractive for the end-user."
"Their software's really clunky."
"In the next release, I would like to have support for Wi-Fi 6."
"Most definitely the cost."
"We have some issues with stability. It is not so fast. That is the main problem."
"Omada could add some API integrations that would help with our automated solution. We're trying to integrate, and we're having some issues because some of the calls are not there. The API still needs some development."
"There should be more remote support for the mobile application."
"It is less affordable for smaller businesses."
"Upgrading the hardware capabilities to newer versions like Wi-Fi 6 or Wi-Fi 7 would be a helpful improvement."
"The technical support could be improved."
"It's better for smaller organizations. This would not work for enterprises. It is not very scalable."
"Aruba has better scaling capabilities."
More Juniper Mist Wireless Access Points Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Wireless is ranked 2nd in Wireless LAN with 147 reviews while Omada Access Points is ranked 15th in Wireless LAN with 14 reviews. Cisco Wireless is rated 8.2, while Omada Access Points is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Cisco Wireless writes "Allows us to deploy a wide range of wireless products with stable WiFi". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Omada Access Points writes "They have good specs, and the price is lower than competing solutions". Cisco Wireless is most compared with Aruba Wireless, Ruckus Wireless, Ubiquiti WLAN, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN and NETGEAR Insight Access Points, whereas Omada Access Points is most compared with Aruba Wireless, Ruckus Wireless, Ubiquiti WLAN, Aruba Instant and NETGEAR Insight Access Points. See our Cisco Wireless vs. Omada Access Points report.
See our list of best Wireless LAN vendors.
We monitor all Wireless LAN 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.
