Aruba Wireless Reviews

We are a system integrator that specializes in providing complete network infrastructure for wireless solutions. This includes Aruba Wireless, Huawei Enterprise Solutions, and Extreme Networks. 

The customers are seeking cloud implementation. Currently, all our deployments are done through the cloud, which is a strong selling point for positioning Aruba Instant access points. As a result, companies with multiple branches often prefer deploying Aruba Instant access points via the cloud.

With Aruba Instant, we can use the access points independently, allowing us to position them in many places. This is a great feature as it helps us save costs on access controllers and licenses.

The Return Material Authorization procedure is time-consuming and needs improvement.

I have been using Aruba Wireless for six years.

The solution is stable and I would rate it an eight out of ten.

The solution is scalable, especially with cloud implementation, which has not presented any challenges for me thus far. I would rate the scalability at eight out of ten.

The technical support is excellent, but the Return Material Authorization procedure is time-consuming.

Neutral

I would rate the initial setup an eight out of ten. While the implementation may not be instant, it is relatively simple.

The deployment time depends upon the organization. So, even if it's a big organization with multiple branches, their network, availability, and other factors can differ. However, if it's a single-site implementation, it will not take much time. The only thing that we need to ensure is that the prerequisites are ready, which may take a few days. That's it. Two to three people, including a project manager and one or two engineers, are required for deployment.

We implement the solution for our customers.

I would rate the cost as an eight out of ten, with ten being the most expensive. Aruba Instant is more affordable compared to other solutions, and we also appreciate its features.

Some of the products from Aruba Networks are covered by a Limited Lifetime warranty. To ensure customer support, we maintain extra stock and include this in our integrator fees, which are separate from the product cost.

I give Aruba Wireless an eight out of ten.

We currently have six clients using the solution. My clients include small, medium, and enterprise-level organizations. 

Aruba Instant is highly recommended for organizations with multiple branches and office locations. Based on client feedback, it is easy to implement and configure, making it accessible anytime and anywhere. The solution is expensive for a single-entity organization.

The hospital's internal network is used for communications between staff, including emails and direct point-to-point access. One of the most challenging features of the network is its ability to facilitate live video communications between staff in different parts of the world that can view operations live. We use Aruba Wireless to help facilitate the three requirements of always on-time, on-live, and on-direct. In certain cases, I have to communicate with another surgery room, whose call may be back to back or parallel in that same venue.

The most useful feature of this product is the configuration that allows us to have several areas covered with one unit. However, when we have to make maintenance to that unit, the other units can go back and support the one that we have in maintenance. This back-to-back service or this come-alone service is the best thing for us. If I have to remove the unit that we have in surgery, I know that another unit or two can take its place.

The most important thing that needs to be improved is the internal web feature. This allows all our units to use this as an internal GPS to locate somebody or some elements. However, the problem is that they need another unit different from the 535. This point is not good because we put that on this unit, and changed it from 515 to 535. For this unit, just to enable the possibility of locating equipment, we have very expensive equipment in the hospital and we put a GPS stack, so the system can track. We put them in all the time, but we need another unit to make it functional. Aruba can improve this by including the GPS stack in each unit. This would reduce our maintenance work.

Aruba Wireless needs to provide more visibility into the differences between their models so we can better understand them. The changes between the 515 and the 535 are just scalable in one step; We don't feel that one unit is going to be better in so many ways. Instead, it is just one change. The scale from one model to another is very short and because of this we are going to try to save money, we're going to pick up the lowest model because the newer model, doesn't have many additional features.

The bad things about the product are the price, the information about the product, and the time it takes to deliver the product. 

I have used the solution within 12 months.

The heat map is already running and it is very stable. There are no issues with the corners of the building, except for the sign, which I think is covered well. I give the stability of the solution a nine out of ten.

I give the scalability of the solution a nine out of ten.

As we had to present our submission or change a model to another, the technical support was very bad. The work I have to do to research the difference between the models and compare them is all manual. When we asked the factory, what the differences between the models are and what is going to be the advantage from one another. The training can't support me. I have to do all the research myself. We asked the representative, and we had conversations with the factory, and nobody tells us it is a small change, instead they say it was a software issue. When we have to present the submission, the presentation has to be very complete with all the technical information, with all the features and we have to say this is a processor that works in this area, this works at this speed. The technical support could not help with any of our required information.

Negative

The initial setup is very easy because we change all the models. We have around 1,000 units and we changed all of them in one week.

The implementation is completed in-house by our team for our customers.

Aruba Wireless is expensive. The balance between quality and price is there, but the cost is still high.

I give the cost of the solution a seven out of ten.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

Eight IT people are required for the maintenance of the solution.

The first thing I'm going to do is check all the features to make sure they meet our requirements. The step from one model to another is very important. There are little changes, and we have to review a lot to know the difference between the models, and what the major advantage between them are. In PeerSpot, we've seen the difficult differentiation, but the compliment of the functionality, how does it work, what is the benefit that I get with each model in the field? What is the difference between the software, and the versions? Is it throughput out? It's a factor that we need to consider. It doesn't address the major concerns, and I check every single specialized page and I don't see anybody saying, "Okay, five megabytes is a huge improvement in throughput out."

We use Aruba 7010 controllers to deploy our wireless system infrastructure. We're planning to use Aruba for our wired network, including the core switches. We're waiting for the upgrades of existing wired infrastructure to be delivered.

One advantage is the built-in Zigbee-based IoT functionality. You don't need an additional dongle to enable that option. 

Aruba is missing some features that are available in other solutions, such as the email notifications. It's a bit complex to configure the notification part. Mainly I'm talking about the rogue WiFi detection. 

This email notification is crucial for us, but it isn't possible to configure with the built-in software. You need something else, like an external system log collector or another Aruba software. These notifications are essential in hospitality for PCI compliance. My colleagues in famous luxury hotel chains need that report.

One of the requirements for PCI compliance is rogue WiFi detection. When a rogue AP is discovered, they need a notification sent to a certain email. If there is no built-in feature, you need either to purchase an additional software to make sure that you are notified through that software. This feature is built into Ruckus.

We've been using Aruba Wireless for a year now.

We haven't conducted any upgrades to the latest version, but Aruba support suggested we upgrade. We need to schedule the time because it will cause downtime, but it is stable. 

Some access points have frozen a few times. We restart them, and that resolves the issue, but we've never had significant issues with the APs, controller, or the software itself. No one has complained about the system and the infrastructure in general.

It's scalable depending on the number of licenses you buy. We two people in the IT department managing the controller and access points. In a hotel, the usage depends on the occupancy. It can be up to 1,000 people, but let's say about 500 people.

Aruba support is knowledgeable. We never had an issue contacting support, but I I've had the chance to troubleshoot the same system in a little different environment. They're responsive, and you never feel like you're on your own with them.

We were using an older generation of the AP, and it was outdated by the time we upgraded. I also had some experience with Ruckus. It wasn't extensive, but my colleagues say that Ruckus is more reliable in a hospitality setting, and the coverage is better. 

Aruba lacks functions like the rogue Wi-Fi notification, but it's a good product. It just requires fine-tuning to get what you need and a good experience. Ruckus can do everything out of the box. You have an initial input, and it does everything for you. You can get the same from the Aruba.

The Aruba partner deployed the solution. I was partially involved, though. It wasn't that difficult, but it took a while because we have complex corporate standards. It was maybe three weeks plus testing in the lab. 

Aruba is cheaper than their competitors in our market since we don't have a full Ruckus presence of the Ruckus here. There are no licensed modules, so it's a one-time purchase. 

We have a five-year care plan, and the access points have a lifetime warranty. We had one or two access points malfunctioning. It looks like a factory issue, but local support replaced them pretty quickly, considering the problems with logistics worldwide.

Once you factor in the lifetime warranty, it's cheaper and not bad feature-wise. At some point, some of their products were not available, like WiFi 6, but that was last year. 

I rate Aruba Wireless eight out of 10. It has good support and solid options for the access points. However, if the Ruckus solution were the same price, I would go for Ruckus. We have some budget limitations, so we ended up going with Aruba and fine-tuning it.

In general, we have no issues with coverage. It works fine, and it's WiFi 6. At that point, there was no WiFi 6 hospitality version of the access points from Ruckus available in our market. That was one of the biggest advantages in addition to the price. We also got an IoT-enabled solution by default. If you don't need these notifications, you can go with Aruba product. Otherwise, you need to consider that in advance.

The primary use is for facilitating client communication.

Its graphical user interface is designed to be user-friendly, making work more efficient.

There has been a recent decrease in the level of support. When issues arise, we often require additional support, and this aspect should be enhanced.

I have been using it for more than three years.

If there is a controller in place, I would rate its stability abilities at around eight out of ten, as it tends to be quite stable. However, if it's a controller-less setup, using clusters of access points only, I would rate it lower, around six to seven out of ten. The stability tends to vary, especially when there's no central controller, which can make the configuration and management more challenging.

There are around two to three thousand users who rely on wireless connections for their daily work. It demonstrates excellent scalability, and I would rate it around nine out of ten.

I have noticed a decline in performance over the past two years, and I've been working with it for almost four years. The initial two years were quite satisfactory, but the performance has deteriorated since then. I would rate it six out of ten.

Neutral

I have experience using Cisco, HP Comware, Commvault, Palo Alto, and Fortinet.

The initial setup process for these access points tends to be time-consuming. While other products can start up in as little as ten to fifteen minutes, these access points take longer to get going. They are relatively stable once configured. We've noticed that they can remain stable for a year or even longer initially.

When it comes to installing access points, especially the IAPs, I've encountered some issues. These access points don't always remain stable, particularly during reboots or configuration changes. Even when I've configured ten access points, there's no guarantee that they will consistently come back online and perform as expected after a reboot or network interruption. This is a concern I'd like to highlight, and I believe the team should work on improving the stability of these access points.

It offers a lower cost compared to other products, which is a significant advantage. I would rate it eight out of ten.

I would recommend it due to its affordability, which stands out compared to other products. In terms of overall performance and management, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

Our company uses the solution for wireless service. We currently use the latest version but have been using the solution since version six. 

The solution is hybrid because it is deployed on-premises but managed in the cloud. 

Our company currently has 300 users and we plan to grow by 100 more.  

The solution is well designed so you can easily integrate it in an infrastructure network. 

The APs can be implemented as a campus AP, remote APS, or instant APs. As soon as you buy the solution, you can instantly use APs. You don't need anything external because you can use the virtual controller inside the APs.

It is easy to create clusters using the controller that comes inside the AOS of the APs. 

You can add an external controller at any time because the solution is resilient and very upgradeable. 

The security components are very, very, very well designed and strong. 

The Aruba Central portal allows you to centralize all management for your infrastructure and security. It is not a monolithic solution. 

The solution's documentation could be better organized in an information portal. There are many assets on the technical side so there is a lot of documentation. Sometimes it takes work to find what you need because of the vastness of information. You need to know the products to find things. The solution could offer some kind of portal for documentation to better organize things. 

The cloud CHS and remote APs could be improved faster. The solution has already been integrated with the cloud and there are plans for other product integrations but they could occur faster. 

I have been using the solution for five years. 

The solution is very stable and reliable. I rate stability a nine out of ten. 

The solution is very scalable. I rate scalability a ten out of ten. 

The technical support is very useful and good. Every time we need help and open a case, they solve our issues. Technical support is very knowledgeable about the solution.

Most of our issues are regarding upgrading versions or firmware. We sometimes need assistance finding new versions. The process for solving our issues is very straightforward. 

Technical support is rated a ten out of ten. 

Positive

We previously used Cisco. 

The setup is very easy. All the APs come from the manufacturer so you can start right away with configurations. The features make configurations and upgrades very easy. 

I rate setup a ten out of ten. 

Three in-house engineers implemented the solution with help from an integrator. Deployment took one week to ten days. 

There is no ongoing maintenance because the solution is very, very reliable. 

The pricing is fair and similar to other products. It might be a bit cheaper than Cisco. 

I rate pricing an eight out of ten. 

Cisco is a good product but is old and very monolithic. They are working to improve but their mindset is different.

The solution is the future because it integrates with the cloud and addresses new needs. We prefer the design and strategy of the solution over Cisco. 

When you are looking for a wireless option, it is important to pay attention to key points that include resilience, expandability, security, and integration.

The solution is one of the best available and is very valuable for centralizing management. It is very resilient and expandable so you can grow it to the needs of your company. Even if you buy the small solution, the features of the big solution are there. This is a great benefit over Cisco. 

For example, you buy a switch from Cisco that includes 48 ports but only 16 of the ports have licenses. If you need more ports, you need to buy more licenses. With the solution, you don't need to buy additional licenses. What you buy is what you get with all the included features like AOS and security. This is very important because you can start small and grow using the same device with no extra licensing costs. 

It is important to find a solution that already implements security. The solution has all these features included so that is why we moved away from Cisco. 

The solution also integrates very well with nearly every other vendor. 

The solution is a very good product and I rate it a ten out of ten. 

We are using Aruba Wireless for land ports for customs. The inspection guides use the solution while walking around with tablets.

The most valuable feature of Aruba Wireless is the controller. It is easy to use.

We have an issue with the integration of Aruba Wireless with our LDAP servers.

I have been using Aruba Wireless for approximately six years.

I rate the stability of Aruba Wireless a ten out of ten.

Aruba Wireless is a scalable solution.

We have approximately 200 users using this solution.

I rate the scalability of Aruba Wireless a nine out of ten.

The support is good. However, they sometimes take some time to respond.

I rate the support from Aruba Wireless a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I have previously used Cisco and Huawei solutions. The major difference with Huawei is it provides one single platform for the management of all of your features.

The initial setup of Aruba Wireless is of a medium level of difficulty. However, it is not simple to configure. It took approximately one month to deploy.

We installed the devices everywhere on-premise and had the field engineer from Aruba Wireless first power up all the access points. We then tried to integrate it with the LDAP, but they found some problems. They had to change it with another system for it to work.

I rate the initial setup of Aruba Wireless a five out of ten.

Two of our engineers had help from the two Aruba Wireless engineers for the implementation of Aruba Wireless.

Aruba Wireless is the best for the price. Aruba Wireless is the least expensive, the second is Huawei, and the most expensive is Cisco. 

For every device, you need to get a license which is charged separately to add to the control for Aruba Wireless.

I rate the price of Aruba Wireless a nine out of ten.

There is no maintenance required for the solution.

I recommend others who want to use Aruba Wireless should first determine the integration of which server they want. There can be some issues with devices that they connect to the switches.

I rate Aruba Wireless a nine out of ten.

I have implemented Aruba for a few small customers. 

Price is one of the most important factors. We have a solution that's reasonably cost-effective when balanced against all the areas we need to cover. 

Aruba doesn't match some competitors in wireless signal strength. It isn't in the same class as Cisco Meraki, so I would use Cisco Meraki in situations where I need to cover a large open space. Meraki has more powerful signals going out.

Coverage and penetration have been the biggest disappointments. You should be able to connect to a visible Wifi access point. Often, people 20 meters away from an Aruba external access point need to move closer to get into the coverage radius. 

I have used Aruba for the past couple of years.

Aruba Wireless is stable. 

Aruba is scalable. I'm not doing dealing with the management or licensing, so I'm not aware of the costs compared to some other products.

I would be using it through a third party, so I wouldn't go to Aruba for support directly.

I rate Cisco Meraki higher than most others I've used in the same price range. Ruckus is stable, but it can be difficult to implement an external Wifi connection without some kind of problem with the cabling or something else.

Aruba is in roughly the same class as  Ubiquiti, which carries no licenses that I'm aware of. Ruckus is an excellent product to use for local government clients when I'm not planning to go back there. Plus, it has the advantage of being an HP-branded product. 

All wireless solutions are relatively pricey in my experience. The cost of a Wifi access point is only part of it. The implementation cost is bigger. I'm paying just over €200 for an additional internal access point. An external access point costs us €676 plus VAT, so that's about €840 for an external AP.

I rate Aruba Wireless about six out of 10. When planning for the cost of a project, you consider the price of different products, including operational and implementation costs, and make a judgment call. It's different if you have a portal. If you need to invest in a portal, it's difficult to transition away from that portal's brand. For example, if I have Ruckus access points in certain buildings and a Ruckus gateway handling all of those, I'm probably going to stick with Ruckus for any additional Wifi points. I'm not going to deviate from that.

We are using Aruba's high-end switches such as the Aruba 600 and 6000, as well as Aruba access points.

So far, it works well and the product is stable.

The most beneficial feature for network management is stability.

The product should be more affordable, especially the cloud and console for the Aruba product as it is currently very expensive.

I have been working with Aruba Wireless for a few years.

The product is stable, and it has good availability in our country and region.

I would rate their scalability as ten out of ten.

I would rate their technical support nine out of ten. Both for Aruba Instant and Aruba Wireless, technical support would receive this rating.

Positive

I have not worked with any other wireless products before Aruba.

The pricing seems reasonable compared to other brands; however, it is too expensive for smaller businesses.

I would rate the overall solution nine out of ten. I hope for a licensing model that makes it more affordable for smaller businesses.