We performed a comparison between Cisco Wireless WAN and Ubiquiti Wireless 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 most valuable features are coverage and reliability."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's best features are simple management, the cloud base, dashboards, and reliability."
"The performance of the solution is valuable."
"The most valuable features of Cisco Wireless WAN are the dashboards, security functionality, and Cisco DNA center. The way the solution has integrated within the fabric of the environment with automation is very good."
"It just gives you the ability to use it around the office without being tied up to an actual physical connection."
"The product can scale well."
"The devices are all of good quality."
"We don't see many troubleshooting issues. Normally, it's a user error when it comes to the JSS or the VPN. Once they log into the system or they get on the internet, then they log directly into the JSS, so they can do their work."
"In general, the setup process is straightforward."
"Ubiquiti outdoor access points in particular, are really stable, and if there are no obstructions, Ubiquiti works well."
"The most valuable feature is more access points."
"The most valuable aspect of Ubiquiti is the ease of setup. It's easy to set up, secure, and use. It works on an adoption basis. I can pull the system up, design a network, and pull 20 different Ubiquiti units into it."
"I would say that the user experience is pretty good in this solution as well as the roaming solution part of it."
"One of the nice features is the backup version control."
"The scalability of Ubiquiti Wireless is very good. We can add and transfer access points, it is highly scalable."
"It's an excellent option for small businesses."
"If there's a problem, it's usually when Cisco pushes out updates. The users don't always push the updates to their computer, and it causes some issues. It's reliable as long as everyone is doing what they're supposed to."
"The firewall integration is not great."
"Documentation is an area that needs review. It should be more dynamic and it should be easier."
"We feel that Cisco is quite expensive, so we're looking for a reasonable alternative. We are considering Aruba and some other brands that are less expensive. Cisco works fine, but the issue is the annual licensing and support costs."
"The price could be better."
"We cannot use wireless for the servers due to potential performance issues. They must be connected via fiber."
"I hope Cisco can improve the capacity to service a high density of users in a small area, as currently we have difficulties with this."
"The setup of Cisco Wireless WAN needs an expert. You need someone with experience to be able to work with Cisco Wireless solutions. It took approximately one to two weeks to implement the solution."
"The external devices, the outdoor devices, are not so rugged. For example, for the weather that we have here in Florida, it doesn't hold up well even though it is supposed to be designed for outdoor use."
"This might not be the best solution for a very large organization."
"The technical support is less than stellar."
"The accessibility to technical support could be better."
"They should make more advanced features for the power users. I am a technician and I am functional, but I do need some features that I find only in Microsoft."
"In Ukraine at least, it's a problem when it comes to buying the hardware. For example, I made a request for 20 switches a few months ago. The solution needs to have worldwide availability."
"The solution should offer simpler management for guests. That would be helpful in the hospitality industry, for example."
"Difficult to see error logs and locate the problem."
Cisco Wireless WAN is ranked 4th in Wireless WAN with 61 reviews while Ubiquiti Wireless is ranked 1st in Wireless WAN with 68 reviews. Cisco Wireless WAN is rated 8.2, while Ubiquiti Wireless is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Wireless WAN writes "Widely available and has a straightforward setup". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ubiquiti Wireless writes "It's cheap and easy to use but isn't suitable for large deployments or complex use cases ". Cisco Wireless WAN is most compared with Cambium Networks Wireless WAN and Fortinet FortiExtender, whereas Ubiquiti Wireless is most compared with Ruckus Wireless WAN, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, Cambium Networks Wireless WAN and Aruba Wireless. See our Cisco Wireless WAN vs. Ubiquiti Wireless 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.