Meru, Aruba top researcher's 802.11n rankings
ABI conducts multidimensional evaluation of 802.11n vendors
Wireless Alert
By
Joanie Wexler
,
Network World
, 06/30/2008
Sign up for this newsletter now!
Joanie Wexler looks at how enterprises can take advantage of wireless LANs and WANs.
- Share/Email
- Tweet This
- Print
A recent, multidimensional evaluation of 802.11n wireless LAN vendors compiled by ABI Research reflects the complexity facing
IT departments as they conduct their own assessments of enterprise-class 802.11n prospects. In what was more or less a photo
finish, Meru Networks edged out its fierce rival, Aruba Networks, as the leading vendor in ABI's latest Vendor Matrix, released
last week. Motorola took the No. 3 spot.
Note that while these vendors received the highest overall rankings, criteria were weighted, and other companies excelled
in certain areas in their own right. So, depending on what’s important to you, you might wish to weigh certain factors differently
and, thus, come up with the same or different “winners.”
For example, if you anticipate bar-coded data only traversing your WLAN and never running voice or video over it, the high
points Meru earned for its “no-handoff” virtual cell architecture and QoS might not carry the weight for you that they did
for the general assessment.
Among the criteria used by Stan Schatt, ABI vice president and networking research director, were weighted ratings of several
“implementation factors” that ranged from channel partner infrastructure, number and size of existing commercial deployments,
value for price, product range, migration strategy from earlier 802.11 networks, power-over-Ethernet support and planning
tools.
Also critiqued were “innovation factors” that covered antenna technology and architectural features such as QoS, high-availability
design, scalability. The evaluation was based on detailed surveys and conversations with each of 13 vendors and did not include
performance testing, Schatt said.
In attempting to create a true apples-to-apples assessment of the 802.11n market as it stands today, ABI examined a wide range
of variables. It also normalized pricing. For example, it accounted for the fact that some 802.11n access points (AP) might
seem the least expensive, but become more costly if you want to add features that come bundled into competitors’ higher-priced
APs.
You can view the ABI 802.11n Vendor Matrix here (free registration is required), but I’ll also provide some vendor-by-vendor replay in the next newsletter.
Joanie Wexler is an independent networking technology writer/editor in Silicon Valley.
Comments (11)
Aerohive?By Anonymous on June 30, 2008, 9:11 amWhy was Aerohive not reviewed?
Reply | Read entire comment
Another anti-cisco reviewBy Anonymous on June 30, 2008, 11:12 amAnother anti-cisco review
Reply | Read entire comment
How can Meru get points on "virtual cell" when virtual cell isn'By Anonymous on June 30, 2008, 2:24 pmHow can Meru get points on "virtual cell" when virtual cell isn't even supported on the 802.11n products (as you yourself reported recently)?
Reply | Read entire comment
Guess We Know Who Paid For This.....By Anonymous on June 30, 2008, 4:46 pm.....Meru wins, though virtual cell doesn't exist on 802.11n. Some vendors not included. Extricom has same architecture as Meru but is #10. How can we take these...
Reply | Read entire comment
POEBy Anonymous on July 2, 2008, 1:26 pmDoesn't the Meru N solution requrie either a power supply at each AP or a second CAT5 cable run to boost the power? Hardly a smooth transition to N...
Reply | Read entire comment
Where is CiscoBy Anonymous on July 9, 2008, 9:20 pmYou guys make me laugh,,, how is it that you didn't even review Cisco or Aerohive. I have a Meru wireless deployment that has gone south because their stupid virtual...
Reply | Read entire comment
View all comments