Aruba Instant On AP Series Access Points vs. Cisco Aironet 3800 Series Access Points

Aruba Instant On AP Series Access Points are well suited for a small to mid-size setup (i.e., from 20 users to 500 devices that need to connect to WiFi). Aruba provides access points for both indoors and outdoors (e.g., commercial spaces and offices, and manufacturing units as well). Aruba Instant On AP Series Access Points can also support controller-based architecture, and I would recommend going for that when the AP devices are more than 30.

As any Cisco Aironet Access Points, the 3800 model is more for power users than beginners. It is for sure very more complex to maintain and trouble shoot than solutions like Cisco Meraki APs.

By the way, there are a lot of settings that can be customized and it is really interesting for difficult environments like industrial factories.

The 3800 model is also robust so it should stay durable and reliable.

But if you want to use the mesh mode or make a wireless bridge, this model is not appropriate as it is not supported for now.

• Controllerless solution
• Users connect to different APs seamlessly (soft handoff) when moving from one region to another
• Stable--we have never faced any downtime with any APs
• Different SSID to segregate internal and guest networks

• Cisco APs are managed very easily from a Cisco WLC controller.
• Cisco APs provide lots of enterprise-grade options such as rogue detection and automatic power configuration.
• Cisco APs have many different mounting options, which makes them very versatile in a healthcare environment.

• Aruba Instant On AP Series Access Points miss having OTP generation--this is must, for guest users at least
• Pricing is high

• Outdoor capabilities. We have actually blown up a few outdoor units. Water got inside the outdoor units and had visible rust
• Costs compared to other AP’s in the market. Ruckus and EnGenius work out a bit cheaper
• Mounting options are limited

We are all happy with Aironet and Prime.

The Cisco 3802 product performance is excellent. Not only for the speed and range of the wireless it provides, but also for the fact that - when deployed in a large scale environment - the performance does not fail. It provides the same network connectivity for users ranging from 1 to 30-plus concurrent connections.

Our selection of Cisco Aironet Access Points versus the Meraki Access Points was entirely on a political basis with our vendor. In the future, we are actually looking to migrate towards the Meraki system. Even though the Meraki feature-set is lacking, we really only require those features, and our cost would be largely cut by this migration. It would be a solid win, but maybe not recommendable to everyone.

Contrary to a solution like the Cisco Meraki access points, the Aironet access points like the 3800 are linked to the Controler. And depending on the version of the controller, it will support only some models of access points.

For big sites, it may be difficult to upgrade the controler to support new ap models like 3800 because we still have old access points.

And it is also the same between new access points and old client devices so it is always a bit tricky.

After that, if the access point model is supported by the controller, it is really simple to install a new one

• Our users' productivity has increased, as they can now connect wirelessly
• We are now centrally controlling users' traffic from firewall and blocking or limiting use of unwanted web apps
• Has helped us in improving monitoring of user traffic

• Users are able to carry on with their work while moving, changing seats, rooms or having an ad-hoc Skype meeting on the way to lunch. It is always hard to justify the value of connectivity but be assured, when it is not working the business impact is immediate.