Cisco Wireless LAN Controllers vs. HPE Networking Instant On Access Points

Setup is very quick as it is designed for smaller organizations. Of course, this comes with its own limitations, but it's really the question of what you need. If you can cover your office space with 3 to 4 access points, you got a pretty good alternative to the more enterprise-level of Cisco Wireless products, but you still get excellent throughput and signal strength.

It is possible that we have a bad luck with the deployment. However, It is capable to perform enterprise-level security to fit some of the organization's standards. With Airwave and other tools, it's easy to manage and administrate your wireless environment. Make aware of the IPsec tunnel from each user to the controller if you are using Clearpass for NAC. If you have a remote office with local resources, you will need controller or IAP to route traffic locally. If you have many remote offices, you will need to deploy controllers or IAP in each office, which lead to additional cost and management.

• The WLC are very reliable. In the 10+ years the company has had them installed, we have not had any hardware or component failures.
• No need for reboots. The CISCO WLC is not like a router you may have at home which you may have to reboot every few weeks or months. It can run for months without needing a reboot.
• The Cisco WLC gives you a quick Network Summary when you first log into the system. This is very helpful to get a quick rundown on the status of your wireless network.

Incentivized

• They have the range we need especially in our warehouses were they are mounted up on the ceiling.
• They can all be controlled by a controller, which makes for easy configurations and monitoring.
• The ability to have multiple SSID's is great. We are able to push traffic where it needs to go.
• The built-in Guest network on the controller is top notch, and makes it super easy to give guest internet access but not access to your network.

Incentivized

• Configuring wireless settings is very confusing because various settings are scattered all over the interface in different tabs
• Lots of settings use Cisco's technical verbiage rather than common phrasing, so it's confusing what a lot of settings will do and requires researching the meaning before modifying the setting
• The interface could be easier to use to do simple tasks such as reboot an access point

Incentivized

• Remote access points were a little tricky to get working and requires a controller outside of the two we were currently using. On the plus side they have an inexpensive controller that worked for our needs.
• I feel Aruba needs to offer more training in a hands on lab environment.

Incentivized

Although it is a very good product, support is easy and can manage by Level 1 support persons and downtime is too much less but still there is a cost factor matters which is consider by each organization. Furthermore, organizations also compare with other competitors so it is hard to pursue and defend the high prices.

Incentivized

As I said before, the only thing we miss in our old model is the fact that the management interface never received an improvement in design. It has the same look and feels since it was launched. It's not that it's hard to use. It's just the case of could be modernized.

Incentivized

Aruba Networks Wireless LAN is very intuitive to use. After the initial learning curve for the Aruba OS platform, it is straightforward. Day-to-day tasks, such as deploying an access point with a configuration, are very straightforward. Standard incremental system upgrades are also very intuitive. If you have any past experience with Aruba network switching or Cisco switching, the command structure is relatively similar.

Incentivized

Downtime fear is the first fear which IT persons look and want to eliminate as much as they can but eventually you have to face it as nothing is perfect. Cisco Wireless Lan controller are feasible to use and easy to manage and other than this their issue reported are pretty low so you can get the best up time. now it also depends on scenario as well as environment.

Incentivized

Cisco Wireless Lan controller are feasible to use and easy to manage and other than this their issue reported are pretty low so you get the better uptime. if your get the uptime then it means its a stable product in your environment. Product performance also depends on the product management and Cisco Wireless Lan controller management is easy so you can get the great output.

Incentivized

As usual, the support from Cisco's TAC (Technical Assistance Center) is lacking. Granted, they always get the job done, but the amount of lead time on a non-emergency is enough to make you just handle it yourself. The good news is that if you ask for Cisco's assistance and forget about it, they'll jump on by the time you've forgotten where you were in troubleshooting it and have it fixed for you.

Incentivized

It is a reliable and complete solution for providing wireless network to users. I had no technical problems during those years. The Aruba controller and access points have always worked very well and we have greatly improved the relationship with customers and we now have absolute control over the wireless network traffic. It has quality assurance and support with efficient service as well.

Incentivized

Originally, when we deployed our first controller it was on a very limited basis. We only deployed it to our administration building and our High School. It was pretty straight forward. Because this was new to us we leaned heavily on our Cisco partner to assist us. With our last upgrade, we upgraded the controllers, added redundancy and expanded the building count along with new SSID's and restrictions. It went much easier, but again, we did rely on Cisco TAC and our partner to clarify and assist as needed. Having already been familiar with the product help tremendously.

Incentivized

Not sure why "Ruckus WLAN controllers" is not listed above but that is another major WLAN controller solution I've used in the past. Cisco Wireless LAN Controllers provide the most flexibility when it comes to designing a large WLAN deployment. They also have some of the best reliability and TAC support out of all of the other vendors.

Incentivized

In the past we used Cisco APs. As many may agree, Cisco is not known for their management software and interfaces. Aruba makes this much more user friendly. The cost is also a major factor. The hardware seems to be equal in quality to Cisco, but at a reduced price.

Incentivized

Cisco is a brand name and people trust on it. if any one thing about the networking then Cisco is among those brand which is count as trusted brand and people rely on it. Also it support is good so people can use it. Cisco Wireless Lan controller are easy to use and manage so it requires less effort.

Incentivized

• We have had our [Cisco Wireless LAN Controller] 5508s for a very long time now and although they are getting dated, they have earned us our money's worth with consistency, stability, and ease of use. Users have minimal wireless complaints and when they do seldom are they WLC-related.

Incentivized

• It is a scalable solution, so if the company expands or contracts, the Aruba Instant Wi-Fi Access Points can be added or removed.
• It is an expensive purchase, but you will earn it back because you have less disruptions, which does not cost IT hours. And the wifi users can do their work without interruptions
• Aruba Instant Wi-Fi Access Points require little maintenance.
• High security standards that connect to the existing corporate network, saving you time

Incentivized