We performed a comparison between Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN and Ubiquiti Wireless based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN and Ubiquiti Wireless are similar to one another. Overall, PeerSpot users found that both solutions have unique features, including great scalability and stability. Users found Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN to be more expensive, but were generally happy with its service and support. Meanwhile, users of Ubiquiti Wireless are less satisfied with the customer service but happier with the price.
"The artificial intelligence feature is very good."
"The most useful feature of Juniper Wireless AP is the reporting Marvis."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is Marvis, the AI-driven network management system."
"The solution is stable."
"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."
"You can easily monitor, manage, and cover all your IT equipment."
"The simplicity is great."
"With Mist, every Wednesday they roll out new features."
"I have found the scalability to be very good."
"Multiple access ID capabilities, meshing, and the quality of the product itself are all valuable features."
"There are many valuable features of Cisco Meraki, including the switches, stacking, and layer 3 routing."
"The initial setup of Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN was very easy."
"Its ability to be cloud-managed is the most valuable feature so if there's a reconfiguration or an issue, we have excellent visibility into the network and we can usually resolve the problem online without having to go onsite."
"The solution is very stable. It is a very manageable and secure system."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of deployment."
"I like that it's cheaper and inexpensive. It's also easy to use."
"The stability and performance are great."
"One of the nice features is the backup version control."
"The range is usually pretty good, which is the most important thing to use because more or less, all wireless access points are the same."
"We have found the product to be scalable."
"The main strength of Ubiquiti Wireless is the ease of use it provides to users."
"The most valuable feature is more access points."
"It's very easy to deploy."
"Juniper Mist Wireless Access Points’ support services need improvement."
"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."
"If you want to do more specific stuff, it's a bit limited."
"The price could be better."
"The product should include adaptive Wi-Fi to show a more accurate location."
"There is room for improvement in terms of support and installation."
"They should include SD-WAN features to it."
"The customization needs to be improved because it's pretty locked down."
"There's nothing that special about it."
"Licensing is, in my opinion, the least appealing component. It can be difficult to keep licenses up to date in order for the system to function properly."
"The licensing could be a bit better."
"Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN could improve by having more granularity in terms of the data displayed. However, I understand that with Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN, you need to have a compromise point to what are the functions that you're going to provide to the users versus ease of use. More granularity in terms of the data and the things that you can do to the devices would be helpful. For example, when we wanted to make a change, restriction, or segregation within Palo Alto, we can go to the level of detail that we want. The amount of detail provided is amazing, it is very granular. However, it comes with much more difficulty, it requires a technical understanding of the environment compared to Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN."
"There needs to be some work done on security because, with time, some viruses may emerge that one may not know about."
"The logging sometimes doesn't give us the granularity needed. Some of the rules are a bit more complicated. The switch ports on the routers are not individually addressable, in the sense that with a switch you can tell what MAC address is on what port but with the security appliances, you can't, which would be beneficial for troubleshooting."
"There could be more functionality."
"The Unifi controller software has a small issue."
"I would like to see more cloud features that some of the other competitors such as Cisco Meraki have that are very nice."
"The documentation and support provided by the solution areas of concern where improvements are required."
"We'd like the solution to be more stable and have fewer firmware upgrades."
"Tech support is mostly remote and could be better."
"I would like local support from the parent company."
"The technical support services need improvement."
"The product lacks to offer reliability to users."
More Juniper Mist Wireless Access Points Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is ranked 4th in Wireless LAN with 115 reviews while Ubiquiti Wireless is ranked 1st in Wireless WAN with 68 reviews. Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN is rated 8.2, while Ubiquiti Wireless is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Meraki Wireless LAN writes "Offers good mobility, stability and scalability ". 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 Meraki Wireless LAN is most compared with Aruba Wireless, Ruckus Wireless, Mist AI and Cloud, Cisco Wireless and Huawei Wireless, whereas Ubiquiti Wireless is most compared with Ruckus Wireless WAN, Cambium Networks Wireless WAN, Aruba Wireless, ExtremeCloud IQ and Fortinet FortiWLM.
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.
