We performed a comparison between Cisco Wireless and Ruckus Wireless based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: As competitors, Cisco Wireless and Ruckus Wireless come in at a close tie. Both products offer a really strong set of features. However, their pricing is where each stands out, with Cisco being more expensive and Ruckus being affordable. In addition, users of Ruckus Wireless report seeing an immediate ROI.
"Juniper Mist offers valuable features like comprehensive network insight, granular policy control, fast device setup, strong security, and efficient SSL traffic management."
"The solution is stable."
"With Mist, every Wednesday they roll out new features."
"Overall, we've been very pleased with the performance."
"The simplicity is great."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is Marvis, the AI-driven network management system."
"The solution is very secure."
"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."
"The support is very good. Technical support is very helpful."
"The solution is very good at supporting IoT applications."
"The most valuable features of Cisco Wireless are security and the ability to manage everything easily. Other solutions, such as Aruba are not as simple."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The main features are that it's secure and it's easy to distribute the SSID and control it. I also like the controller."
"The integration with Cisco ISE is good, and together we use them to provide services."
"Security is an important feature for my customers, and I am able to offer this to them with our Cisco products."
"Compared to other solutions, captive guest network is one of the best isolation and tunneling."
"The product has some very awesome patents on their radios and their antennas and antenna patterns and how their signaling works. That's why nobody can touch them. If they go head to head with anybody."
"The solution enhances the user experience."
"There can be the same SSID for several devices."
"The solution is very user friendly."
"The solution has an easy configuration."
"We used to struggle a lot doing the connectivity between the branch offices in port. Ruckus offers the flexibility to pull the connectivity and we can actually manage our workflow and application to this connectivity. It is a wonderful way of doing things fast."
"Ruckus Wireless is reliable. The most valuable features are BeamFlex technology, Wi-Fi 6, and channel management."
"The most valuable feature is the signature feature from Ruckus; the feature is called the BeamFlex. BeamFlex adaptive antenna technology takes a more adaptable approach allowing the access point to continually sense and optimize for its environment. The signals can be sent in a particular predetermined direction as desired. The technology allows for electrically manipulated antenna properties creating optimal antenna patterns for each device with which they communicated: the signal is focused, where the user is positioning."
"There is room for improvement in terms of support and installation."
"Improving third-party integration is key for Juniper Mist's next release."
"They should include SD-WAN features to it."
"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."
"Improvement is needed in the user-friendliness of Juniper Mist, particularly in enhancing the interaction with AI features."
"The product should include adaptive Wi-Fi to show a more accurate location."
"Juniper Wireless Access Points (AP Series) could improve if the MIST platform had a built-in master key. This would be an advantage."
"The solution is expensive."
"One of our customers complained about the ripple, that some of the data was incorrect. We opened a ticket and brought it to their attention that maybe some of the data was not correct. As of now, it has been two months since we opened the ticket and the issue still hasn't been resolved."
"Their software's really clunky."
"The licensing models need to be reviewed in some instances. Obviously Cisco's licensing models are quite challenging, and it can be costly."
"Cisco won't work with any other vendors. That is a significant problem with Cisco."
"Its licensing has been very frustrating. There is also the complexity of managing the product. These are probably the two reasons why we're looking at Aruba. The way they license this product is not simple. There are some good features in the latest version, but there are additional license costs as well, which is frustrating for us. It is not really a feature issue for us. It really comes down to cost and licensing. They should make it a bit simpler to manage. We find the overall solution a little bit more complex than we would like to deal with. Its troubleshooting is a bit difficult, and it does require a high skill set. Comparatively, Aruba seems quite simple. One of the benefits of the Aruba product is that it is cloud-managed. We don't have to manage the management platform itself, whereas Cisco is on-premise. Its user interface could also be better."
"The new GUI interface and the newer version OS are a little bit more complex than the older version, however, it just might take some getting used to."
"The software quality could be improved, in particular for the new Cisco Aironet Series 2800/3800 Access Point which is pretty Linux-based."
"In the next release, I would like to have support for Wi-Fi 6."
"The initial setup is complex."
"The pricing needs to be more clear and licensing could be less expensive."
"They have so many products that there are so many different part numbers for the US and other countries. That means it's easy to make a mistake with the licensing. You have to have somebody knowledgeable on the other end with the licensing. If you make one mistake, it can be a $2,000 mistake."
"Most customers revoke the idea of deploying it when they observe the cost per AP license."
"It would be nice if there was a way to compare access points and hardware so you can always get the same level of performance."
"The pricing of the product can be a bit expensive. They should work on making pricing more competitive."
"They can improve the cloud portion. Other vendors have a cloud controller, and they can provide the same so that we can see everything."
"The pricing needs to be more competitive. They need to re-examine their business model and see if there is a way to provide their service at a cheaper cost."
More Juniper Mist Wireless Access Points Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Wireless is ranked 2nd in Wireless LAN with 146 reviews while Ruckus Wireless is ranked 3rd in Wireless LAN with 97 reviews. Cisco Wireless is rated 8.2, while Ruckus Wireless is rated 8.6. 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 Ruckus Wireless writes "Great wireless, good reliability, and excellent connectivity". Cisco Wireless is most compared with Aruba Wireless, Ubiquiti WLAN, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, Mist AI and Cloud and Omada Access Points, whereas Ruckus Wireless is most compared with Aruba Wireless, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, Ubiquiti WLAN, ExtremeWireless and Omada Access Points. See our Cisco Wireless vs. Ruckus Wireless 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.
They both do a great job. But it depends on the application scenario.
For corporate environments probably Cisco will perform better not only because of Cisco Wi-Fi features but especially because you can be integrated with all Cisco infrastructure and manage it all.
In heavy-duty environments, like public hot-spot, stadiums, exhibition centers, etc, Ruckus should be considered. In this type of applications, pure Wi-Fi performance is more important than management features or security, and therefore, it could be the better choice.
If you care more about performance and stable communications, Ruckus Wireless is definitely better.
Ruckus Wireless APs have;
- Adaptive antenna technology (called BeamFlex). This technology analyzes different paths to reach the client and electronically turns itself to a directional antenna, choosing the path that gives the best performance to reach each specific client. If the client is mobile or if the environment changes (such as a warehouse) the selection of paths/direction also changes instantly.
Transmitting in a directional way allows a good Signal-to-Noise Ratio and also causes less interference for other nearby APs outside the path of the directional transmission.
- ChannelFly technology. This technology chooses the best channel based on performance rather than background scanning for noise.
- Polarization Diversity. This technology allows the clients not to lose signal strength when held at different angles (important for mobile devices such as tablets and telephones).
- Better receive sensitivity compared to the competitors.
All these features make Ruckus Wireless a better choice than any other competitor (better performance, better coverage area, more stable and surprise-free communication especially in not so easy conditions such as noise, too many clients, too much traffic).