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.
"The AI capabilities of Mist Wireless are superior to other OEMs."
"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 pretty generic and easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is Marvis, the AI-driven network management system."
"The simplicity is great."
"The solution is very secure."
"In terms of reporting, in terms of all the user reports, it's very rich."
"The most valuable feature of Juniper Mist is the Virtual Network Assistant, powered by artificial intelligence."
"All the features of the solution are good. The enterprise environment seamlessly integrates with Cisco Wireless. I have contacted customer service and support about licenses and other technical aspects. I have not faced any issues. The solution is good for our environment."
"Good connectivity and easy to configure."
"I'm very satisfied with Cisco's technical support."
"For me, the most valuable thing about Cisco Wireless is its ease of use and stability."
"The solution is very good at supporting IoT applications."
"Cisco Wireless is quite convenient for mobile and laptop access."
"Creating policies is simple."
"The solution offers very good stability."
"The most valuable features are the coverage and durability."
"I like the price and its capacity."
"Valuable features include Bonjour Gateway and the hardware antenna array."
"For me, the most valuable features are good integration with the customer's existing network and the ease of deployment and configuration. Ruckus products are also easy to learn to manage and deploy for not only our own staff, but also for the IT workers in the customer's organization."
"There is better security on our internal SSID/VLAN due to the use of Zero-IT."
"We rarely had access points fail in the field. They were rock solid, durable, and had the best signal penetration from any we tested."
"Key features are integrated WiFi client performance tools, sophisticated user access controls, and easy and understandable controls and interfaces."
"Once we got it set up and configured we've had little issues and it's been relatively stable. We use it across all seven of our offices and they all have the exact same wifi setup so when I go into any office I can get on the network and access resources."
"Improvement is needed in the user-friendliness of Juniper Mist, particularly in enhancing the interaction with AI features."
"They should include SD-WAN features to it."
"Enrolling into the tool is a tedious process."
"Improving third-party integration is key for Juniper Mist's next release."
"The price could be better."
"I need a bit more time with it before criticizing the features."
"Juniper Wireless AP can improve by continually improving its reporting and integration with other systems."
"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."
"The pricing of the solution is expensive if you compare it to other competitors."
"The stability could improve, there are some issues. We were told the version of the software we are using on all of the controllers is best for Cisco IOS, but we might need to update our software, this might fix the stability issues we are experiencing."
"The GUI could be made more user-friendly. There should also be a dashboard where it can showcase how many end-users are connected to a particular access point."
"There is a problem with the controller. When we have to restart the controller, it does not show the time. We have to manually configure the time when we restart it. I have read about this issue, to get some information, and all answers are about having to connect it with a time server, which is very difficult."
"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."
"It's expensive."
"There should be an option for a wireless bridge that can be used to join two access points."
"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 solution is a bit expensive."
"The solution is sensitive with reference to power fluctuations. This sensitivity should be improved. Additionally, the solution should have more security features integrated."
"o make it a ten I would like the ability to replace it if we do have a faulty device. Getting one faster might be helpful. I would like to have autoconfiguration where instead of having to configure a new network, we would be able to push all configuration out a little easier with the interface."
"It is extremely difficult to send videos in Ruckus live sessions. Zoom streaming, or using Teams Streaming live sessions to send videos, for example, could be more effective."
"Some customers have issues with the price because it's more expensive than Ubiquiti, but they can accept the cost because it's reliable and has more features."
"The initial setup is complex."
"They can improve the cloud portion. Other vendors have a cloud controller, and they can provide the same so that we can see everything."
"In my company, we still has to do some manual calculations on where we should set the access points, which is a time-consuming process as there were no automatic setup functions provided by the tool."
More Juniper Mist Wireless Access Points Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Wireless is ranked 2nd in Wireless LAN with 147 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).