Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers vs. Cisco Embedded Wireless Controller

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers
Score 9.4 out of 10
N/A
The Cisco Catalyst 9800-80 is a modular wireless controller with optional 100 Gigabit Ethernet (G) modular uplinks boasting seamless software updates for large enterprises and campuses, and security with ETA and SD-Access.N/A
Cisco Embedded Wireless Controller
Score 9.1 out of 10
N/A
The Cisco Embedded Wireless Controller on Catalyst Access Points (EWC-AP) is a next-generation Wi-Fi solution, combining an advanced controller – the Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless Controllers – with a Wi-Fi 6 access point – the Cisco Catalyst 9100 Access Points – to create a wireless experience for evolving and growing organization.N/A
Pricing
Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless ControllersCisco Embedded Wireless Controller
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless ControllersCisco Embedded Wireless Controller
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless ControllersCisco Embedded Wireless Controller
User Ratings
Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless ControllersCisco Embedded Wireless Controller
Likelihood to Recommend
9.7
(0 ratings)
9.9
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
6.4
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Availability
9.1
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Performance
7.1
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
9.1
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Cisco Catalyst 9800 Series Wireless ControllersCisco Embedded Wireless Controller
Likelihood to Recommend
I really like central switching. Central switching is converging all of the tunnels, fewer people can administer the product. It's much easier to scale, it's much easier to configure and it's much easier to get predictable results out of that. I have run FlexConnect before under AireOS. I'm proficient with it. But yeah, I think as a centralized controller it works very well. And I think as building redundancy with regard to not just HA-SSO but with an N plus one design, I think the scheme and logic and architecture of the platform is very well thought out and I don't know what use cases I would find it to be lacking. There's a few things when you drill into it, it actually is not that simple. AireOS I feel like was a lot simpler. I think the catalyst, how it breaks out the hierarchy of configuration requires each of these tags and profiles and policies and how you bring them together. Actually, even though they've decoupled a lot of these elements from how AireOS did it, I think fewer of those features, even though it was less extensible, it was not as easy or intuitive to deploy. So I think the intuition and how you actually construct a 9800, an entry engineer would struggle a lot more in a 9800. So I would not recommend the product if somebody did not already have a good foundation of network engineering.
Read full review
Overall I could see myself recommending these to others if they have the right set of circumstances at their place of business. Those would be like ours, if they had a location that couldnt be served by a WLC. Once setup they are easy to manage and self healing as in they wont go down when one is offline.
Read full review
Pros
  • It is good kind of design with the multiple flow profiles and also location base whereby the long very, I think the traditional controller doesn't have this, so we need to have that specific. Every day is getting the same profile but this have a little bit difference. It's very good with the site tagging and also designing all the location-based requirements.
Read full review
  • They seem solid and well built, hardly ever fail
  • Once you get a hand of the setup they're easy to add/remove
  • Automatic failover is seamless and super helpful
Read full review
Cons
  • If possible, please add a column for WAP Name and WAP Model within the 2.4/5/6 GHz radio sections, as we have different models of WAPs in the fleet, and it would be easier to identify WAPs within a building.
  • We conduct digital exams for our students. If there is a way to identify clients and block traffic for applications like ChatGPT, it would be greatly appreciated. Currently, there is no filter for ChatGPT or generative AI.
Read full review
  • The GUI is difficult to understand
  • The process of setting up the Cisco Embedded Wireless Controller is cumbersome, but I like its reliability
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Despite common software and hardware issues this is still the best product on the market for large scale enterprise deployments. Cisco has worked with us extensively to reduce the amount of bugs in every iteration however new bugs are introduced or new incompatibilities always arise with major releases. Thus, while I'm hesitant to recommend the product it's still much better than all the other competitors such as Aruba and Juniper in the WIFi space. There is also extensive integration with DNAC/Catalyst Center and ISE in an SDA deployment. Recently there has been a number of critical issues with the controller software and Cisco has proved themselves to be incapable of timely troubleshooting and diagnosis. This has reduced our confidence in the product and it's current and future stability and maintainability. At it's current state the product is taking up too much of our engineering resources to maintain despite also paying for premium support from Cisco. As such I have reduced by rating as we are likely to look at alternative vendors for our long-term wireless management solution
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Usability
Very good product
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Reliability and Availability
Due to our HA set up we have always managed to access our wireless networks without problems, when issues occur. When we have lost access to the GUI, due to internal network problems, console access is always welcomed and brings with it the normal Cisco CLI syntax. From previous versions of CLI, it is now a lot simpler and reflects other Cisco products, making it easier to troubleshoot and navigate when necessary.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Performance
Monitoring is very good Seamless integration with Cisco ISE RRM configuration very easy. It has REST API support IOS-XE is very powerful operation system. Multicasting and mDNS features are really good and very easy to configure. It supports Pyats and Genie so getting constructed data from python script calls very helpful.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
When it's a config issue, TAC is usually useful. If it's some bug and BU needs to be involved, it might take forever.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Implementation Rating
You need to understand wifi basics
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
We are moving into a more unified and centralized design, and the benefits offered by the 9800 compared to the above listed 5520 series and 8500 series of wireless controller is much preferred. The staggered upgrade option is again another feature much improved moving to the new model and management through DNAC
Read full review
Cisco Embedded Wireless Controller provides the ability to manage and deploy the wireless network from a web UI or mobile application, and without the expense or complexity of a wireless controller appliance.
Read full review
Scalability
There are different vesrions for different requirements, there's HA as well.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Return on Investment
  • I mean, return on investment is really hard to quantify. Being in a healthcare scenario, it definitely has very good uptime, very good performance. It's easy to manage, fairly trouble free with a few issues not withstanding. There's really no income based off of it, but it does allow our nurses, nursing staff, our physicians to take care of patients better and more reliably and enables a lot of communication options that we wouldn't have had we not had that controller.
Read full review
  • Money saved not needing a WLC and separate APs.
  • Time saved during setup if you're using a Cisco DNA.
  • Long term it may be more time spent diagnosing issues.
Read full review
ScreenShots