Cisco Embedded Wireless Controller vs. HPE Juniper Access Points

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 Mist portal-controlled Juniper APs are great in an environment where clients are relatively stationary. Coverage is fantastic, and throughput is really good. I would be more concerned about placing these in a distribution-type warehouse where clients frequently roam between APs. While I've not had any issues, I could see where some APs might become sticky due to the cloud-controlled nature. In my experience, a local controller would be better suited to environments like that. I'm also concerned that support and quality may suffer due to the HPE merger.

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

• Juniper AP45 coverage is great. We have one deployed in a sub-optimal manner (too high, too much space for a single AP), and we still have great coverage.
• The APs are easy to configure via the Mist Portal. You can create sitewide templates, as well as templates for subsets of APs.
• The APs are reliable. We don't have much trouble out of them. I can count on 1 hand how many times I've had to reboot one in the past year.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• I wish there was a mobile app that allows configuration and health status checks
• The MIST UI could use some improvements - some things take more than 1 click to access
• Marvis doesn't impress me. I ask it questions and sometimes it doesn't respond or understand

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

We used a reseller to help set up and initially manage the Juniper APs. Templates are set up and deployed to sites, and at first, it may seem complicated, with a slight learning curve. Once created and deployed, the overall management and usability are great. In summary, the initial setup takes some advanced knowledge of the Cloud Dashboard setup with templates. After that, it's easy to use and manage moving forward.

Incentivized

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

I prefer Juniper. Configuring the extreme environment was odd and clunky. Three years after we deployed Extreme I got informed the virtual controller we were using was end of life. The APs were still good, just the controller was end of life. I had to deploy a new virtual controller and reconfigure everything. I won't have this problem with Mist's cloud controller

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

• Honestly, the best thing I can say is users had no idea we changed the network. We went from a network with little to no problems to a new network with no problems.
• When we deployed the new Access Points, users just connected and went about their day.

Incentivized