Alcatel-Lucent OmniAccess Wireless Access Points vs. Cisco 8540 Wireless Controller vs. Cisco Wireless LAN Controllers

One of best use cases for using OmniAccess Wire Access Point is where we have dense no. of users as client associated capacity is very good. Also one of the use case is when administrator wants different PSK for each user for authentication. OmniAccess WAP supports in better way.

I recommend using Cisco 8540 Wireless Controller as an economical solution for assurance of best wireless connectivity across departments and cloud resources. It can resolve most of the networking and cloud connectivity-related issues. It can also eliminate the issues related to bandwidth. It can provide uninterrupted connectivity to cloud resources and databases at high speed with security.

Incentivized

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.

• Flexibility in terms of deployment, management
• Better security feature
• Application awareness ,WIPS
• DPSK
• Better client associated count

• The GUI on the Cisco 8540 WLC is much better designed than other Cisco products. Its easy to navigate between the different settings to find what is needed.
• The AP groups allows touching multiple APs at one time.
• It also allows us to create standard SSIDs that can be used at all sites that connect back to it, this saves a lot of time instead of hitting each site with a local controller.

Incentivized

• 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

• No of Interfaces
• must have a variety in terms of MIMO
• better throughput

• Code quality is a bit hit and miss. This will be great for a while, then things will be bad for a while, then we'll do it again. The UI of the controller works, but could do with a refresh, and I would like to see some improvement on layout and organization.
• The constant code/firmware upgrades and the QA of new code could be better.
• Maybe the compatibility with old Cisco Access Points could be improved, but it's normal in all kinds of deployments.

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

8/10 it's an appropriate rating because we can't just refresh a Cisco Wireless LAN controllers with the new model. We have to make a RFP, comparate multiple vendors etc. For sure Cisco stay a strong leader in this domain !

Incentivized

Very feature rich, easy enough for beginners to understand layout and initial setup. Need a good training (online, Cisco Leaning Network, etc.) to fully understand all features and product capabilities. Strict power requirements for APs are only major drawback for our specific implementation.

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

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

It is a better product. The evolution is positive.

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

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

Have used Cisco Meraki access point earlier having management on cloud and is on license (subscription basis). But Alcatel OmniAccess Points have management on cloud, on premise as well which means to say flexibility in terms of management. We had one requirement where we number of user is large which is going to connect on access point but Cisco Meraki only supports 200 users per radio whereas OmniAccess point have better client associated capacity with 524 per radio.

Cisco products offer an unrivaled experience that outperforms the majority of other alternatives. This is a long-term investment that will provide a great return on investment. The Cisco 8540 Wireless Controller, on the other hand, is more powerful and has more features for managing each device and the wireless network.

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

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

• Better Roaming
• Ease of Management
• Better performance

• Network engineers find it easier to [manage] high-stress levels since they're more reliable and robust.
• Their initial cost is very high compared to other router providers, such as Juniper.
• Their hardware dependability can be a big drawback if you run on a budget.

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