Cisco Aironet 3800 Series Access Points vs. Cisco Aironet 4800 Access Points

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.

Incentivized

Cisco Aironet 4800 Access Points are well suited for a larger office or organization that has multiple buildings that require a larger-scale wireless network. The controller makes it easy to discover and deploy radios in a timely manner. The Cisco Aironet 4800 Access Points are probably not well suited for smaller offices where one radio will suffice.

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized

• Ease of setup
• Area of coverage
• Device life

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

I give this rating because right out of the box we were able to configure multiple radios in the console and deploy them to our environment in a very short amount of time. The only issues we had was there was a bad radio, which was replaced quickly and easily.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

We are not using any other Cisco products at this time.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

I gave the rating I did because, in my opinion, this product scales very well. We are able to add as many radios as we need to to expand our network to more sites, as we need them. So far, I have not had any issues when installing new radios.

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized