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."We find the product to be stable."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The technical support we have experienced has been good."
"Cisco Wireless WAN's best features are simple management, the cloud base, dashboards, and reliability."
"The most valuable features are user and handling capacity, indoor and outdoor access points and antennas, and the inbuilt intrusion prevention system."
"Our most valuable feature involves the 802.11ac, which operates at a very high level and has updated technology."
"I am impressed with the tool's packet tracing so that connection with the devices is always consistent."
"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."
"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."
"I have found the most valuable features to be how user-friendly it is and how simple it is to do the configurations."
"I would say that the user experience is pretty good in this solution as well as the roaming solution part of it."
"Setting it up wasn't so complicated. It is reliable. Security-wise, we didn't have much trouble, but that could be due to our environment. We haven't had so many attacks, at least up till now."
"It is a highly scalable platform."
"Overall, it's a straightforward solution."
"I like the price, quality, and consistency of manufacturing."
"The indoor WiFi connection works well."
"The pricing is a bit high."
"The new platform of Cisco Wireless WAN I did not like, there weren't many features available. The online platform has more options."
"The solution could be more stable."
"It can be complicated to configure the solution."
"The network management system is not great."
"Improvements can be made in the wireless fabric."
"It needs to increase its strength in capacity."
"The tool's speed and IP address acquisition from the domain controller should be improved"
"Its stability could be better."
"The control system can be improved by making it easier."
"Everything needs to be professionally done."
"The solution needs to improve its features and offer more to the customer."
"The network setup could be a little easier and more straightforward."
"Ubiquiti could develop a more elaborate firewall solution. Their firewall solutions at the moment are entry-level. Maybe they don't want to bring those products in because many people prefer putting a third-party firewall into a solution like that. We usually do."
"I would like a better explanation or better documentation on how to use the onboard spectrum analyzer."
"We have an issue with Ubiquiti Wireless every three to five months for one of the access points."
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.