I've used Meraki AP and switches in a large-scale organization and Ubiquiti on a smaller scale. There is a big cost difference, and due to the different sizes and scope of the projects, it's difficult to compare or contrast. Both have worked great for each organization.
We have transitioned third-party partners and our own internal offices away from consumer, prosumer, or SOHO grade systems such as high-end ASUS, TP-Link, and even Xiaomi routers. For the same money, we can have a more properly architected network that has better performance, …
Prior to this, we used Cisco Meraki wireless access points, which did not allow for centralized control, therefore several access points shared the same SSID. Because the client's movement from one device to another was not as seamless and reliable as it is with the current …
Wifi signal and management are superior. I have many SonicWall TZ units with Wifi that are basically useless and added a Ubiquiti unit in place of the Sonicwall Wifi. Netgear nighthawk has a good wifi system but doesn't have the range Ubiquiti does. Netgear is great for the …
In the past, we used D-Link wi-fi devices, where centralized management was not possible, distributing the same SSID through several devices. Which cost configuration time and instability in the use between one point and another, because eventually, this transition between a …
When looking into Cisco options for WWAN, there were two issues we encountered. Up front as well as yearly maintenance costs for each device was considerably more expensive than the Ubiquiti options. And, although the Cisco options have more options to configure, it requires …
amer is literally rebranded Ubiquiti wireless points. They make you pay the annual fee. We cancelled our contract and were able to wipe the firmware and add them back to the Ubiquiti controller. Amer is a big waste of money.