Cisco Aironet 1800 Series Access Points vs Cisco Embedded Wireless Controller

• Until 2018, our Aironets were 1560 series, and each was managed separately. We had about 9 devices, 3-4 per floor, strategically placed on each floor to get a good coverage map over a three-floor environment. Their coverage was greater than expected. With the latest 1852 models we have, they are managed by a controller, and frankly, the coverage is a smaller area, requiring more units. We have worked with support for months and this is the final outcome of all the setting changes - we simply need more devices to cover the same area.
• None of the models I have used have needed reboots. We usually only reboot the devices annually, and they don't have issues requiring restarts.
• With the 1560 series, the connection strength was extremely consistent. With the new 1852 model, which is managed by one of the WAPs as a controller, it is supposed to use smart technology to load balance (optional) and determine which of the WAPs is appropriate to connect the requesting device to - great idea - but it does NOT work well.

Read full review

• 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

Read full review

• On the Mobility Express models, it’s hard to configure all from the GUI, and sometimes the GUI is buggy
• In Mobility Express, the (virtual) controller is not able to push the right image to the APs. This sometimes results in not joining the APs
• Some minor issues with firmware

Read full review

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

Read full review

• We can be in Mobility Express mode where the AP provides the controller functionality to support a small to medium deployment without requiring a dedicated controller.
• Access Points are centrally managed via a WLC reducing the management overhead for deployment, configuration, and upgrade.

Read full review

• 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

Read full review