Cisco 8540 Wireless Controller vs. Cisco Aironet 1800 Series Access Points (discontinued)

I recommend using Cisco 8540 Wireless Controller as an economical solution for assurance of best wireless connectivity across departments and cloud resources. It can resolve most of the networking and cloud connectivity-related issues. It can also eliminate the issues related to bandwidth. It can provide uninterrupted connectivity to cloud resources and databases at high speed with security.

Incentivized

Dead simple to setup, deploy, upgrade and manage. If a colleague was asking for a solid AP that just runs and runs without tiring out and they dont want to break the bank with the higher end units, this is a great place to look. I would say that you're going to have to deal with Cisco licensing support at some point during setup, but thats par for the course.

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

• 4x4 MIMO 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz.
• 7Gbps at 5Ghz.
• AP with internal antennas. It is ideal for an office environment with reduced design and one that is white in color.
• CleanAir.
• Manageable by a Controller or by an internal controller using the Cisco Mobility Express feature.

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

• Compared to an Aruba AP, Cisco [Aironet Access Points] should have at least 2 Ethernet ports to allow them [to] function as a switch in an event where there is only one Ethernet RJ-45 wall socket for uplink. One port from the AP can serve as [an] uplink, and the other port can serve as [a] downlink to another device like laptops, phones, or even another AP or switch. Aruba IAP 225 and IAP 535 can handle this very well.
• Cisco's [Aironet Access Points] GUI is very poor in terms of look-and-feel, and usability.
• Compared to Aruba APs, a cluster of autonomous Cisco [Aironet Access Points] should be able to function together in such a way that one of the APs can be the virtual controller to manage the other APs in the same cluster.

Incentivized

If Cisco keeps innovating the feature sets on the next 1800 models, I would definitely try it out to improve the experience of my users and to keep them on the latest technologies

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

Pretty straightforward guide, which was built since OEAP600 AP's and never improved, this is a good thing for user to tackle when they configure the personal SSID, but does not reflect how it should be in 2020, where everything is mobile compatible and app ready. Cisco are going to have an app for this, but it comes with greater cost.

Incentivized

I like the performance of the Cisco 1850 Access Point because it supports [a] high density of clients connected at the same time and has no performance dredging. It is a device with great construction, good antennas, good chipset that has intelligence and supports diversities and environments with [a] high user density.

Incentivized

It is a better product. The evolution is positive.

Incentivized

If you are able to identify the problem initially, you would be able to explain it to the TAC. In order for the TAC to understand it, the TAC engineer must be competent enough to understand it, and have the devices already in lab to test with. Each bug I encountered the TAC was able to help. And I was able to file at least 3 bugs on the 1815T and M.

Incentivized

Cisco products offer an unrivaled experience that outperforms the majority of other alternatives. This is a long-term investment that will provide a great return on investment. The Cisco 8540 Wireless Controller, on the other hand, is more powerful and has more features for managing each device and the wireless network.

Incentivized

Cisco's durability and ease of enforcing wireless access security policies with its CleanAir technology, and despite its cost, allowed us to go with Cisco Aironet Access Points. Also, configuring Cisco Autonomous APs via CLI was more straightforward to do than configuring Ubiquiti APs. And Cisco has more documentation online to read from than most other vendors.

Incentivized

For small to Medium deployments the Cisco Aironet 1800 series provide good scalability, but caps out at 50 Access Points on the Cisco Mobility Express Controller. you do have the ability to purchase a dedicated controller which will enhance the scalability and will provide better control and configuration as well as better reporting in the environment.

Incentivized

• Network engineers find it easier to [manage] high-stress levels since they're more reliable and robust.
• Their initial cost is very high compared to other router providers, such as Juniper.
• Their hardware dependability can be a big drawback if you run on a budget.

Incentivized

• If we had it to do over, for the first time ever, we'd choose almost ANY other vendor APs over the Cisco model we have now. They have been nothing but a headache. They have cost us more in user frustration than anything else we've done in a long long time.
• If they functioned better, with better coverage space and signal strength (what Cisco actually claims), they would be great. For us, they don't.

Incentivized