Cisco 8540 Wireless Controller vs. Cisco Embedded Wireless Controller vs. H3C Wireless LAN (WLAN)

[Cisco 8540 Wireless Controller's] software quality has been shed in recent years. The only problem I have with it is its inability to work with older Cisco Access Points. However, that's to be expected for any deployment. While the controller's UI works well, some areas could be improved. API integrations lack flexibility. [I feel] it's time for policy redesign. It can be a little difficult to determine coding quality.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

• 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

• Offers enterprise-class security that keeps the network protected
• Cost-effective connectivity
• Deploying WiFi 6 network without complexity or added expense
• Controlling access points and clients

Incentivized

• 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

• Some bugs in the interface.
• Issues with licensing and Cisco DNA integration.
• Frequent software patches needed,

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

Giving this rating as i have recommended and configured EWC for many customer where they don't needed much AP and on-prem controller was also not needed. most of features available on 9800 WLC is also available on EWC

Incentivized

It is a better product. The evolution is positive.

Incentivized

We have [done] some work before with the Cisco 3504 product, but the more recent Cisco 8540 Wireless Controller provides a wider range of capabilities for managing the wireless network and each individual device [and] also being able to handle more users. Unfortunately, we didn't test and deploy equivalent products from other concurrent companies.

Cisco EWC is better to all its competitor as it provide same robust solution which is available to its hardware based controller, Customer experiences are similar to what other 9800 hardware based devices provides.

Incentivized

• The Cisco 8540 Wireless Controller allows you to reduce your hardware footprint of wireless controllers deployed in your environment. Instead of having a controller per site deployed, you can have a couple of 8540 controllers in your data center that can handle up 6000 Access Points.
• Some of the savings on hardware cost is offset by the cost of redundant WAN circuits. The access points will continue to function when connectivity to the Cisco 8540 Wireless Controller is unreachable, but it will not allow any new connections in that wireless environment.

Incentivized

• Makes having remote sites less problematic when it comes to managing AP's
• Saved money on managed AP's as they're found cheaper
• Takes more time to manage additional controllers versus a WLC

Incentivized