Ruckus vs Cisco

8/10/2019 Ruckus vs Cisco

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ruckus-vs-cisco 1/5

competitive

Ruckus vs. CiscoPRODUCT COMPARISON

Why Ruckus?

• We create stable wireless connections in any RF environment• We deliver your business applications without a glitch

• We improve range and capacity with fewer APs and lower cost

• We adapt to and overcome RF interference and reduce support calls and helpdesk headaches

• Everything comes standard and it’s easy to use

Ruckus Core Values• Reliable applications and wireless

connectivity

• RF innovation

• Ease of use

• High performance and capacity

Cisco Core Values• Uni ed networking• Trusted name in routing/switching• Wireless add-on to wired network • Partner ecosystem, professional services,

tech support (TAC)

RuckusZoneFlex 7982

Cisco 3602i

130

56

High Density TCP Performance

B I - D I R E C T I O N A L

TCP THROUGHPUT1 AP, 3 ROOMS, 90 CLIENTS

ALL DISTANCES



competitive

Ruckus BeamFlex Cisco ClientLink

Per-packet a daptive antenna selects the best antennapattern for each client—improves SNR, range, andcapacity, while mitigating interference

• Unique to Ruckus • Works at the same time as spatial multiplexing and

TxBF • 9 dB of signal gain and 15 dB of signal rejection • Works with all clients, stationary or in motion

• Ruckus also supports standarized TxBF

Attempts to phase-align transmitted signals without clientcalibration or feedback • Proprietary form of transmit beamforming

• Cannot do spatial multiplexing with same radiochains

• Does not work with clients in motion • Max theoretical gain is 3 dB

• Does not work without calibration or feedback • Real-world tests show no bene t

Test Description• Performed by Syracuse

University

• Results shown in Mbps

• All tests conducted with TCP

• Detailed test scenario andproduct con gurations arepublic

• Focused on real-worldenvironment withrepeatable, reproduceableresults

(12 tests)

Other

Who Won Multi-Client Tests?

83 %

17 % 0 %

RuckusZoneFlex 7982

Cisco 3602i

228

107

Single AP, Single Client Performance

B I - D I R E C T I O N A LTCP THROUGHPUTFOR DUAL BAND CLIENTSLONG DISTANCE

105’ (32m)

RuckusZoneFlex 7982

Cisco 3602i

143

71

Single AP, Multi-Client Performance

B I - D I R E C T I O N A LTCP THROUGHPUT1 AP, 1 ROOM, 30 CLIENTSMEDIUM DISTANCE

45’ (15m)

RuckusZoneFlex 7982

58’ (17.7m)

Cisco 3602i

275

159

Single AP, Single Client Performance

B I - D I R E C T I O N A LTCP THROUGHPUTFOR DUAL BAND CLIENTSMEDIUM DISTANCE

Ruckus vs. CiscoPERFORMANCE COMPARISON



competitive

Feature Ruckus Cisco

Ease of Use

Intuitive interface for the IT generalist; smartfeatures that self-optimize; RF innovations thatreduce connection headaches. Built-in tools foreasy monitoring and troubleshooting.

Designed for Fortune 500 with large, dedicatedstaff; feature bloat adds complexity; some featuresrequire add-on systems that create additionalcomplexity.

Reliability

BeamFlex increases signal-to-noise ratio,decreases errors, and provides seamlesscoverage . Ruckus features are statisticallyoptimized and immediately adapt to RF changes.

TxBF techniques don’t add signal gain. Staticdipole antennas create signal nulls andinconsistent coverage. CleanAir may detectinterference, but system adaptation is limited.

Security

User onboarding with Zero-IT Activation. Industryrst per-user PSK solution for simple security.Native WIPS support, user directory integration,device ngerprinting and policy.

Advanced features—device policy andonboarding, wIPS, location services, CleanAir—require additional costly appliances (ISE, ACS,NCS, MSE). No per-user PSK option.

Guest Networking

Fully integrated guest services with exible userconnectivity and simple guest access control andisolation. Leader in secure public and SP hotspots

with Hotspot 2.0 and WISPr.

Cisco supports a similar range of guest featuresin their controller and is a primary competitor toRuckus in SP hotspots. Cisco’s preferred guestmodel is to tunnel trafc to an anchor controller inthe DMZ.

Range and Capacity

Directional antenna adaptation ensures highperformance at range and reduces neighborinterference. ChannelFly measures true capacityand selects channels accordingly.

No unique features to enhance range. High densityrelies on static antennas and more APs that causeinterference and add to cost and deploymenttime. RRM is based only on short, passive airtimesamples on each channel.

Interference

Ruckus’ channel selection and rate adaptationmeasure actual capacity and quickly adjust as RFconditions change. BeamFlex also helps to eitheravoid or overcome interference. Native spectrumanalysis tools also aid spectrum monitoring.

CleanAir is a nice spectrum visibility tool, but itsbenets are restricted to monitoring. Spectrum

visibility with device classication does notx spectrum problems, nor can Cisco’s APsovercome interference.

ArchitectureRuckus’ architecture is designed to be exible.Centralized management and control with eitherdistributed or centralized data ow.

Cisco’s architecture is designed to be fullycentralized, which requires high capacitycontrollers and adds cost.

Multimedia

Ruckus offers consistent application performanceand RF connections with high data rates and

low errors/retries, as well as unique featureslike muliticast-to-unicast conversion, applicationdetection heuristics, and custom QoS algorithms.

Cisco has some of the same multimedia features,like multicast detection and coversion andstandardized QoS, but these features are built onless reliable and consistent radio per formance.

Cost

Ruckus’ range and capacity benets reducethe number of APs necessary for consistentapplication delivery. Our architecture is alsobalanced and cost effective without addedcomponents and confusing licensing.

As a result of their big business, Cisco chargesa premium for all wireless equipment. Theirarchitecture is ineffecient and overly expensive,and they often need multiple added componentsand licensing for full feature functionality.

Ruckus vs. CiscoFEATURE COMPARISON



competitive

Ruckus Flexible Centralized Cisco Fully Centralized

Ruckus’ controller-based architecture is engineered forexibility. With centralized management and control andexible data forwarding options, Ruckus’ architecture isbalanced, scalable, expandable, and cost effective.

Cisco’s architecture is fully centralized and built for datatunneling through the controller, which is inef cient andexpensive in most networks. Heavy data loads require highcapacity controllers ($$$) and connections, while AP costsremain the same.

Feature Ruckus Cisco

Adaptive Antennas X

ChannelFly X

Zero-IT Activation X

Per-user PSK X

Adaptive Mesh X

Polarization Diversity X

Application-detection Heuristics X

SpeedFlex X

Multicast Conversion X X

Spectrum Analysis X X

TxBF X X

Airtime Fairness X X

Flexible Architecture X

Measuring Wireless Innovation

Ruckus ChallengeDon’t take our word for it. Set up our system andput our rhetoric to the test.

• In your environment

• With your applications

• To meet your business requirements

Investment Awareness• Do important features require extra licensing,

support, hardware, or other costs?

• Do all APs support all features? CleanAir,ClientLink, Mesh

• Are you factoring product lifespan and total costof ownership into your purchase plans?

ControlManagement

Data

Zo n e Dire c to r3 00 0

Internet

AP AP

Controller

ControlManagement

Data

Internet

Controller

AP AP

Ruckus vs. CiscoSOLUTION COMPARISON



Ruckus Wireless, Inc.350 West Java DriveSunnyvale, CA 94089 USA

(650) 265-4200 Ph \ (408) 738-2065 Fx

www.ruckuswireless.com

competitive

In the heart of New York City, Baruch College chose Ruckus Wireless over 10 competing Wi-Fisuppliers to meet the wireless needs of a campus with 17,000 students. To choose a product,Baruch formed a committee of IT staff, faculty, and students to assess the wireless experiencebased on week-long live eld tests; reliability, speed, mobility, accessibility, and ease of usewere among their top evaluation criteria.

Dependable Wi-Fi access helps Baruch attract and retain strong students in a competitivehigher-education landscape. Students and staff needed solid connectivity to enableeducational initiatives like multimedia streaming in classrooms, student-teacher video chat

sessions, high-density auditoriums, and the perennial need for anywhere, anytime access by demanding student

users—each with multiple devices.Baruch’s CIO lamented that their “previous Wi-Fi network did not meet our needs, so students and faculty startedbringing in their own APs or poaching off any local Wi-Fi network they could nd.” But with 802.11n 350 APs managedby Ruckus ZoneDirector controllers, student and staff productivity and satisfaction are no longer an issue.

Baruch noted that “good Wi-Fi in New York in any context just isn’t easy,” but despite the RF hurdles and bandwidth-hungry students, they still needed fewer Ruckus APs to get the job done.

Ruckus Satised Customers

Ruckus Facts• Formed: June 2004

• Revenue growth from 2009-2012: CAGR 65% (pro table)

• Customers: 16,000 andcounting

• Solution partners: 5300

• Fastest growing of the world’stop 5 WLAN suppliers (IDC,Gartner)

• Over 4,400 new customers inthe rst half of 2012

Copyright © 2012, Ruckus Wireless, Inc. All rights reserved. Ruckus Wireles s and Ruckus Wireless design are reg-istered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Ofce. Ruckus Wireless, the Ruckus Wireles s logo, BeamFlex, ZoneFlex,MediaFlex, FlexMaster, ZoneDirector, SpeedFlex, SmartCast, SmartCell, ChannelFly and Dynamic PSK are trade-marks of Ruckus Wireless, Inc. in the United States and other countries. All other trademarks mentioned in this

document or website are the property of their respective owner s.

Ruckus vs. CiscoIN THE REAL WORLD

Documents

Ruckus vs Cisco