High Density WiFi Performance Test Report

Report on
High Density Tests & Comparative Study conducted on Ubiquiti Access Point
UAP-AC-SHD with Cisco-3802i, Meraki-MR52, Aruba-AP325, Mist-AP41,
Ruckus-R720
(version 1.3)
Submitted to
Ubiquiti
By
Alethea communications Technologies
2
info@alethea.in
Strictly Confidential Version: 1.3

Alethea Communications Technologies Pvt Ltd 2019-04-30
3
Contents
1. Introduction 5
2. Executive Summary 6
3. Rankings 7
3.1 Ratings @ single client 7
3.2 Ratings @ 32 Clients 7
3.3 Ratings @ 100 clients 8
3.4 Aggregate Ratings & Ranking 8
4. Test Setup 9
4.1 Access Point Configuration 10
4.1.1 Firmwares Used 10
4.1.2 Power Calibration 10
4.1.3 Settings & Configuration 11
4.2 Client Load Single client location 12
4.3 Client Load 32 clients location 13
4.4 Client Load 100 clients location 14
5. Detailed Results 15
5.1 Throughput Downlink 15
5.1.1 Test Method 15
5.1.1.1 Client Load Single 16
5.1.1.1.1 Android Test Results 16
5.1.1.1.2 IOS Test Results 17
5.1.1.1.3 Windows Test Results 18
5.1.1.1.4 Ubuntu Test Results 18
5.1.1.1.5 Ratings for single Client 19
5.1.1.2 Clients Load 32 22
5.1.1.2.1 Test Results 22
5.1.1.3 Client Load 100 23
5.1.2 TCP_DL Comparison between Client_Load 1, 32, 100 24
5.2 Throughput Uplink 25
5.2.1.2 Clients Load 32 30
5.2.1.3 Client Load 100 32
5.2.2 TCP_UL Comparison between Client_Load 1, 32, 100 33
5.3 Latency 34

4
5.3.1.2 Client Load 32 39
5.3.1.3 Client Load 100 41
5.3.3 Latency Comparison between Client_Load 1, 32, 100 42
5.4 Video Streaming 43
5.4.1.1 Client Load 32 43
5.4.1.2 Client Load 100 45
5.5 Mixed Traffic 47
5.5.1.1 Client Load 100 47
Appendix 50
Results Table 50
a) Client Load Single 50
b) Client Load 32 51
c) Client Load 100 54
Revision History 57
IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
After the first version of the report was published, R720 was found to be incompatible
with the PoE+ switch we used and hence the tests for R720 were done again. This
report version (1.3) carries the revised data after Ruckus Retest.
Please feel free to reach out to info@alethea.in for further information and
clarification

5
1. Introduction
Alethea took the task of evaluating the end user WiFi experience with the market leading 4*4
Enterprise grade access points. The list includes UAP-AC-SHD, Cisco-3802i, Meraki-MR52,
Aruba-AP325, Mist-AP41, Ruckus-R720 access points.
To evaluate wifi experience, various popular application types were chosen and Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) were measured for each one of them. The traffics include
Video Streaming, Voice Over IP, Latency, Mixed Traffic and Uplink and Downlink
throughput.
The tests were conducted at different client load levels of single client, 32 clients and 100
clients. This helped study how the access point could scale at the increasing load levels.
Single client results were captured with all OSs to have the baseline and peak performance
numbers and to serve as a starting point to see the impact of scaling on each OS.
Real life users use different devices, phones, tablets, PCs and Laptops. We also mixed the
clients between Apple devices, MAC devices, Android phone/tabs, Windows and Linux. Also
the device capability were mixed from low end to high end. There is a mix of MIMO type as
well from 1*1 to 3*3. Both wave 1 and wave 2 devices were present.
All the environment parameters and configurations were kept similar. All Access Points were
loaded with latest firmwares as on February 2019.
This report captures the findings and the results. We analyzed which AP did better than
others at a given client load and the impact of scaling on each AP.

6
2. Executive Summary
A. TCP Downlink throughput tests at the client load levels of 1 client, 32 client and then 100
clients.
a. Cisco-3802i perform best in throughput, followed by UAP-AC-SHD
b. Ruckus-R720, Meraki-MR52 and Aruba-AP325 perform well and closely follow
UAP-AC-SHD
c. Mist-AP41 is fine till 32 clients but degrades heavily at 100 clients
B. TCP Uplink throughput tests at the client load levels of 1 client, 32 client and then 100 clients.
a. UAP-AC-SHD performs best in Uplink throughput, closely followed by Mist-AP-41
b. Ruckus-R720, Meraki-MR52 and Aruba-AP325 performed almost similar in all client
load levels
c. Cisco-3802i does not perform well and shows very low performance at 100 client load
level
C. Latency tests carried out at the client load levels of 1 client, 32 client and then 100 clients.
a. Cisco-3802i and Ruckus-R720 are almost similar and does better than all others in
Latency Tests.
b. Mist-AP41 is fine till 32 clients but degrades heavily at 100 clients and clients
disconnect.
D. Video Streaming tests carried out at the client load levels of 32 clients and then 100 clients
a. Cisco-3802i does best in video tests, followed by UAP-AC-SHD
b. Ruckus-R720 Performed well in video tests but behind UAP-AC-SHD
c. Meraki-MR52 and Aruba-AP325 show similar performance in video tests
d. Mist-AP41 does not scale to 100 clients in video streaming
.
E. Mixed traffic test carried out at the client load levels of 100 clients.
a. Ruckus-R720 holds on to both the VOIP and Video Quality better than others.
b. UAP-AC-SHD perform well in mixed traffic but behind Ruckus-R720.
c. Meraki-MR52 performs good in VOIP but does not keep up to the video performance.

7
3. Rankings
3.1 Ratings @ single client

Rating on a scale of 1 to 5
(5 - High performance, 1- Low performance)
Ratings in the tests

Access Point
TCP_DL TCP_UL Latency
UAP-AC-SHD 5 5 4
Cisco-3802i 5 3 3
Meraki-MR52 4 3 4
Aruba-AP325 4 3 3
Mist-AP41 1 1 5
Ruckus-R720 1 4 5
3.2 Ratings @ 32 Clients


Access Point
TCP_DL TCP_UL Video Streaming Latency
UAP-AC-SHD 2 4 2 2
Cisco-3802i 5 1 5 3
Meraki-MR52 1 1 2 3
Aruba-AP325 1 1 2 3
Mist-AP41 3 5 1 3
Ruckus-R720 2 2 1 4

8
3.3 Ratings @ 100 clients


Access Point
TCP_DL TCP_UL Video Streaming Latency Mixed Traffic
UAP-AC-SHD 3 5 4 4 4
Cisco-3802i 5 1 5 4 2
Meraki-MR52 2 5 3 3 4
Aruba-AP325 2 2 4 1 3
Mist-AP41 1 5 1 0 2
Ruckus-R720 2 3 4 4 5
3.4 Aggregate Ratings & Ranking
Summary of results
1 client 32 clients 100 clients Total

Rating Rating Rating Rating Overall
(Max 15) (Max 20) (Max 25) (Max 60) position in
test
UAP-AC-SHD 14 10 20 44 1
Cisco-3802i 11 14 17 42 2
Meraki-MR52 11 7 17 35 4
Aruba-AP325 10 7 12 29 5
Mist-AP41 7 12 9 28 6
Ruckus-R720 10 9 18 37 3

9
Our Ranking method is as follows
- For each test case, KPI measured (e.g. Data rate in Mbps for Throughput) is noted
down for each Access Point.
- Different between Lowest value and Highest value is divided in five equal
sub-ranges.
- Each sub-range corresponds to a grade on five-grade scale. (5 is highest and 1 is
lowest)
- If there are multiple KPIs for a test, then rating is arrived for each KPI and average is
taken, to get the rating of the test case.
- The Ratings are aggregated from all the Tests to arrive at overall Score.
- Based on the score, Rankings are given.
4. Test Setup
Test setup consists of 100 clients of different makes, which connect over wifi with the SSID
broadcasted by the Access Point.
The Access Point is powered by a POE+ gigabit switch. The same switch is connected to the
traffic generator. This establishes a gigabit link behind access point, between access point
and traffic generator.
All the tests done in the test event are such that the traffic originates and terminates in the
traffic generator. It does not go out to internet. All required servers for different applications
are hosted in internal traffic generator.

10
There is a controller PC, that is also connected via the same switch.
Note:-> Please note that POE+ Switch used is DLINK DGS 1008P POE+ Switch, for all the
Access Points, by default. For Ruckus R720 retest the POE switch was changed to Cisco
WS-C3850-48P.
Extensive tests were done with all the Access Points to measure the impact of change of
switch. Only Ruckus performance varied with the switch, and there was no difference of
performance recorded for any other Access Point. Hence, it was verified that the
performance numbers of other APs are still the same and comparable.
4.1 Access Point Configuration
4.1.1 Firmwares Used

All Access points are updated with the latest firmware at the beginning of tests. Tests were
conducted from mid Feb to mid March 2019
i) UAP-AC-SHD - 4.0.21.9965
ii) Cisco-3802i - 8.8.111.0 (Mobility Express)
iii) Meraki-MR52 - MR 25.13
iv) Aruba-AP325 - 8.3.0.5_68279
v) Mist-AP41 - 0.3.15151
vi) Ruckus-R720 - 200.7.10.2.339
4.1.2 Power Calibration

Similar Power Level at different Access Point may translate to different Received Signal
strength (RSSI) at client. Since RSSI has considerable impact on performance, specific

11
power calibration procedure is followed to maintain fairness and to achieve comparable
results.
The method is as follows

- Set the AP at nominal Power Level
- Measure RSSI at each table. Each Table has 4 clients of different make. RSSI is
measured on Ubuntu client on each table.
- Average RSSI is computed by aggregating RSSI values from each Table
- If Average RSSI is different from the reference value (Kept between -45 to -43 dBm)
then AP power is adjusted accordingly.
Note:-> Specific AP power levels derived using this method, are mentioned for each test in
the Appendix along with the test results.
4.1.3 Settings & Configuration
All APs are freshly loaded with the latest firmware and default configurations are used by
default.
Following are the additional changes done at each Access Point, if not part of default
configurations
a) Only 5GHz band is enabled. 2.4GHz band is disabled
b) Channel is selected manually which has least interference. It was chosen to be
Channel number 149 for each Access Point.
c) Bandwidth setting
i) For Single Client Tests bandwidth is set to 80 Mhz.
ii) For 32 and 100 client test is set to 40 Mhz.
d) All APs are ceiling mounted in the center of the Test Lab
e) All APs are configured using security type WPA2-PSK
f) All APs are configured to handle 100 clients and very high throughputs, if there is a
setting available to change that.
Note:-> All tests were done with low external channel occupancy of 2 to 3 %

12
4.2 Client Load Single client location
Clients used in single client test in four different os types are
Client Type Quantity Details OS Type Spatial Streams

Dell Latitude E7470 with Intel 8260
Laptop 1 Chipset Ubuntu-16.04 2x2
Laptop 1 Chipset Windows-10 2x2
Mobile 1 iPhone XS ios 12.1.1 2x2
Mobile 1 Samsung Galaxy S9 Android 9.0 2x2 (Wave 2)
AP Power Calibration with single client test
Power level of AP is set based on ubuntu client RSSI, ensuring that ubuntu client RSSI are
same across all APs.

13
4.3 Client Load 32 clients location
Clients used in 32 clients test are 8 clients in each different OS type which are as below

Desktop 2 Apple Mac Mini Late Sierra 10.13.6 3x3
Tablet 4 Apple iPAD (6th Gen, 9.7 inch) ios 12.1.1 2x2
Mobile 1 iPhone 6S ios 12.1.1 2x2
AP Power Calibration with 32 clients test
Power level of AP was set based on average ubuntu clients RSSI, ensuring that average
RSSI of ubuntu clients are same across all APs.

14
4.4 Client Load 100 clients location
Clients used in 100 clients test are 25 clients in each different OS type which are as below

Desktop 4 Apple Mac Mini Late Sierra 10.13.6 3x3
Tablet 8 Apple iPAD (6th Gen, 9.7 inch) ios 12.1.1 2x2
Mobile 1 iPhone 6S ios 12.1.1 2x2
Mobile 2 iPhone 6 ios 12.1.1 1x1
Mobile 9 iPhone SE ios 12.1.1 1x1
Mobile 7 Samsung Galaxy S5 Android 6.0.1 2x2
Mobile 3 Asus ZenFone 2 Android 5.0 1x1
Tablet 1 Samsung Galaxy Tab A Android 6.0.1 1x1
Mobile 4 Nokia 5.1 Plus Android 9.0 1x1

15
AP Power Calibration with 100 clients test
Power level of AP was set based on average ubuntu clients RSSI, ensuring that average
RSSI of ubuntu clients are same across all APs.
5. Detailed Results
5.1 Throughput Downlink

Throughput is the basic and most popular criteria to test the Access Point Capability before
testing any other traffic like Video performance, VoIP etc. It sets the expectation for the rest
of the tests.
5.1.1 Test Method
We used iPerf3 to measure Throughput, since iPerf is one of the most popular and trusted
applications.
Firstly, we start the iPerf server in devices. Once all servers start, we also start iPerf clients
on the endpoint to communicate with each server.
Upon completion of the iPerf3 traffic, each device will have a reading of Throughput that it
could achieve. Cumulative Throughput can be calculated by adding the readings from all
the devices. However, when we are testing with a more number of clients, all iperf3 sessions
do not start exactly at the same time. Due to client load some clients may start early & finish
early and some may start late & finish late. At the beginning and the end of the test, there is
a time period when all clients are not running. Clients that run during this time record high
throughput because only few of them are running. So adding all the readings may give the
inflated Throughput.
So we have a method to measure the Throughput for small intervals. We ignore the initial
and end intervals when all clients are not running and take the average of the intervals when
all the clients are running.
Iperf duration is 180 seconds. We take only the intervals when 80% of the clients are
participating for the computation.

16
5.1.1.1 Client Load Single
5.1.1.1.1 Android Test Results
Performance goal Aggregate TCP DL throughput should be above 500 Mbps
Access Point Performance (DL TCP Throughput in Verdict on performance goal

Mbps) measured
UAP-AC-SHD Aggregate = 618.64 Mbps Exceeds Goal
Cisco-3802i Aggregate = 579.78 Mbps Exceeds Goal
Meraki-MR52 Aggregate = 571.26 Mbps Exceeds Goal
Aruba-AP325 Aggregate = 573.05 Mbps Exceeds Goal
Mist-AP41 Aggregate = 505.60 Mbps Meets Goal
Ruckus-R720 Aggregate = 514.92 Mbps Meets Goal
Points to Note
● UAP-AC-SHD exceeds the goal
● Cisco-3802i, Meraki-MR52 and Aruba-AP325 also exceeds the goal but slightly
behind the UAP-AC-SHD
● Ruckus-R720 & Mist-AP41 meets the expectations

17
5.1.1.1.2 IOS Test Results

Mbps) measured
UAP-AC-SHD Aggregate = 555.81 Mbps Meets Goal
Aruba-AP325 Aggregate = 551.08 Mbps Meets Goal
Mist-AP41 Aggregate = 468.52 Mbps Does not meet Goal
Ruckus-R720 Aggregate = 393.62 Mbps Does not meet Goal
Points to Note
● Cisco-3802i exceeds the goal

● Meraki-MR52 also exceeds the goal but slightly behind the Cisco-3802i
● UAP-AC-SHD and Aruba-AP325 meets the expectations
● Ruckus-R720 & Mist-AP41 downlink throughput does not meet the expectation.

18
5.1.1.1.3 Windows Test Results

Mbps) measured
Cisco-3802i Aggregate = 344.29 Mbps Meets Goal
Points to Note
● UAP-AC-SHD and Meraki-MR52 exceeds the goal

● Cisco-3802i and Aruba-AP325 meets the expectations
● Ruckus-R720 & Mist-AP41 downlink throughput does not meet the expectation.
5.1.1.1.4 Ubuntu Test Results

19

Mbps) measured
Meraki-MR52 Aggregate = 544.92 Mbps Meets Goal
Ruckus-R720 Aggregate = 605.20 Mbps Exceeds Goal
Points to Note
● Cisco-3802i, Ruckus-R720 and UAP-AC-SHD exceeds the goal

● Aruba-AP325, Mist-AP41 and Meraki-MR52 meets the expectations
5.1.1.1.5 Ratings for single Client

20
UAP-AC-SHD Cisco-3802i Meraki-MR52 Aruba-AP325 Mist-AP41 Ruckus-R720
Average
Throughput 545.09 534.07 521.95 513.13 459.63 460.29
Rating 5 5 4 4 1 1

21

22
5.1.1.2 Clients Load 32
5.1.1.2.1 Test Results
Performance Aggregate TCP DL throughput should be above 230 Mbps

goal
Performance (DL TCP Throughput in Mbps) measured Verdict on

Access Point performan
Android IOS Windows Ubuntu Total ce goal
UAP-AC-SHD 92.49 59.08 45 33.35 229.92 Mbps Does not

meet Goal
Cisco-3802i 70.68 70.22 75.93 40.05 256.87 Mbps Exceeds

Goal
Meraki-MR52 71.73 55.73 40.69 50.91 219.07 Mbps Does not

meet Goal
Aruba-AP325 75.54 46.53 49.84 45.12 217.01 Mbps Does not

meet Goal
Mist-AP41 109.12 61.65 15.54 47.26 233.56 Mbps Meets

Goal
Ruckus-R720 61.76 48.57 58.91 55.74 224.99 Mbps Does not

meet Goal
Ruckus-R
UAP-AC-SHD Cisco-3802i Meraki-MR52 Aruba-AP325 Mist-AP41 720
Average
Throughput 229.92 256.87 219.07 217.01 233.56 224.99
Rating 2 5 1 1 3 2

23
Points to Note
● Cisco-3802i exceeds the goal
● Mist-AP41 meets the expectation
● All other APs Performed almost similar and does not meet the expectation
5.1.1.3 Client Load 100
Performance Aggregate TCP DL throughput should be above 140 Mbps

goal
Performance (DL TCP Throughput in Mbps) measured Verdict on

UAP-AC-SHD 25.19 18.3 18.99 80.36 142.89 Mbps Meets Goal
Cisco-3802i 14.68 19.65 57.51 108.87 200.71 Mbps Exceeds

Goal

meet Goal

meet Goal
Mist-AP41 2.24 18.84 21.32 56.03 98.43 Mbps Does not

meet Goal

meet Goal

24
Ruckus-R
Cisco-3802 Meraki-MR5
UAP-AC-SHD Aruba-AP325 Mist-AP41 720
i 2
Average
Throughput 142.89 200.71 134.33 136.54 98.43 135.72
Rating 3 5 2 2 1 2
Points to Note:
● Cisco-3802i Performed really great and exceeds the goal
● UAP-AC-SHD meets the expectations
● Ruckus-R720, Meraki-MR52 and Aruba-AP325 slightly behind UAP-AC-SHD but
does not meet the expectations
● Mist-AP41 does not meet the expectations due to it’s lagging behind in Android
clients
5.1.2 TCP_DL Comparison between Client_Load 1, 32, 100

25
5.2 Throughput Uplink
5.2.1 Test Method
Test Method is same as Throughput Downlink, only the direction got changed.
Performance goal Aggregate TCP UL throughput should be above 500 Mbps
Access Point Performance (UL TCP Throughput in Verdict on performance goal

Mbps) measured
Meraki-MR52 Aggregate = 439.33 Mbps Does not meet Goal
Aruba-AP325 Aggregate = 455.38 Mbps Does not meet Goal

26
Points to Note
● Ruckus-R720, UAP-AC-SHD, Cisco-3802i and Mist-AP41 meets the expectations

● Meraki-MR52 and Aruba-AP325 uplink throughput does not meet the expectation.

Mbps) measured
Aruba-AP325 Aggregate = 585.11 Mbps Exceeds Goal
Ruckus-R720 Aggregate = 625.84 Mbps Exceeds Goal

27
Points to Note
● Ruckus-R720, Meraki-MR52 and Aruba-AP325 exceeds the goal

● UAP-AC-SHD and Cisco-3802i meets the expectations
● Mist-AP41 uplink throughput does not meet the expectation.

Mbps) measured

28
Points to Note
● All APs meets the expectations and performed almost similar with Windows OS.
● Ruckus-R720 doesn’t meet the expectations

Mbps) measured

29
Points to Note

● Aruba-AP-325 and Meraki-MR52 meets the expectations and performed almost
similar
● Ruckus-R720, Mist-AP41 and Cisco-3802i meets the expectations and performed
almost similar with Ubuntu OS
Ruckus-R
Average
Throughput 485.28 455.85 453.33 462.12 428.38 467.30
Rating 5 3 3 3 1 4

30
5.2.1.2 Clients Load 32

31
Performance Aggregate TCP UL throughput should be above 70 Mbps

goal
Performance (UL TCP Throughput in Mbps) measured Verdict on

UAP-AC-SHD 24.35 4.33 7.98 52.26 88.92 Mbps Meets Goal
Cisco-3802i 16.96 2.01 1.88 31.72 52.56 Mbps Does not

meet Goal

meet Goal

meet Goal
Mist-AP41 18.71 10.66 15.15 55.37 99.89 Mbps Exceeds

Goal

meet Goal
Ruckus-R
Average
Throughput 88.92 52.56 55.30 49.94 99.89 61.40
Rating 4 1 1 1 5 2

32
Points to Note
● Mist-AP41 Exceeds the Goal

● UAP-AC-SHD meet the expectations
● All other APs uplink throughput does not meet the expectations.
Performance Aggregate TCP UL throughput should be above 20 Mbps

goal
Performance (UL TCP Throughput in Mbps) measured Verdict on

Access Point performance
Android IOS Windows Ubuntu Total goal
UAP-AC-SHD 10.63 0.57 1.62 34.83 47.66 Mbps Exceeds

Goal
Cisco-3802i 0.11 0 0.63 2.71 3.46 Mbps Does not

meet Goal
Meraki-MR52 11.48 2.16 0.53 25.50 39.66 Mbps Exceeds

Goal

meet Goal
Mist-AP41 1.77 3.97 2.22 36.06 44.02 Mbps Exceeds

Goal
Ruckus-R720 1.77 3.97 2.22 36.06 22.45 Mbps Meets Goal

33
Ruckus-R
Average
Throughput 47.66 3.46 39.66 16.42 44.02 22.45
Rating 5 1 5 2 5 3
Points to Note:

● Mist-AP41, Meraki-MR52 and Ruckus-R720 meet the expectations
● Aruba-AP325 & Cisco-3802i does not meet the expectations
5.2.2 TCP_UL Comparison between Client_Load 1, 32, 100

34
5.3 Latency
Various new improvements are introduced in the technology to increase the most popular
measure Throughput. However at times, it may negatively affects Latency. E.g. MU-MIMO
is known to degrade Latency, while improving throughput. Latency has important role to play
in user experience e.g. in VoIP & Browsing. So as a balancing factor over throughput,
latency should also be measured.
5.3.1 Test Method

We run ping for three minutes in all clients simultaneously. Each client measures the latency
and packet loss, while pinging the end point. Then we calculate the average latency and
average packet loss from per client information. Ping is done with the interval of 1 sec, with
packet size of 64 bytes. This is repeated 180 times from all the clients.
Access Point Average Latency (ms)
UAP-AC-SHD Latency = 13.58

Packet Loss = 0 %
Cisco-3802i Latency = 9.93

Packet Loss = 1 %
Meraki-MR52 Latency = 14.04

35
Packet Loss = 0 %
Aruba-AP325 Latency = 13.94

Packet Loss = 0 %
Mist-AP41 Latency = 10.16

Packet Loss = 0 %
Ruckus-R720 Latency = 10.53

Packet Loss = 0 %
Points to Note
● Cisco-3802i is best with the lowest latency but Mist-AP41 is slightly behind
Cisco-3802i

Packet Loss = 0 %

Packet Loss = 0.56 %

Packet Loss = 0 %

Packet Loss = 0 %

Packet Loss = 0 %

36

Packet Loss = 0 %
Points to Note
● Mist-AP41 is best with the lowest latency with ios device
UAP-AC-SHD Latency = 2
Packet Loss = 0 %
Cisco-3802i Latency = 6
Packet Loss = 0 %
Meraki-MR52 Latency = 3
Packet Loss = 0 %
Aruba-AP325 Latency = 2
Packet Loss = 0 %
Mist-AP41 Latency = 4
Packet Loss = 0 %
Ruckus-R720 Latency = 3
Packet Loss = 0 %

37
Points to Note
● UAP-AC-SHD and Aruba-AP325 are best with the lowest latency with windows
device

Packet Loss = 0 %

Packet Loss = 0 %

Packet Loss = 0 %

Packet Loss = 0 %

Packet Loss = 0 %

Packet Loss = 0 %

38
Points to Note
● Meraki-MR52 is best with the lowest latency with Ubuntu device
Ruckus-R
Average
Latency 8.04 7.58 8.33 8.59 7.03 7.36
Rating 4 3 4 3 5 5

39

40
Access Point Android IOS Windows Ubuntu Average Latency (ms)
UAP-AC-SHD Latency = Latency = Latency = 2 Latency = Latency = 7.12

8.443 12.812 Packet Loss = 5.223 Packet Loss = 0.035%
Packet Loss Packet Loss = 0% Packet Loss =
= 0% 0.14% 0%
Cisco-3802i Latency = Latency = Latency = Latency = Latency = 5.42

7.555 7.734 1.429 4.437 Packet Loss = 0.05 %
Packet Loss Packet Loss = Packet Loss = Packet Loss =
= 0% 0.213% 0% 0%
Meraki-MR52 Latency = Latency = Latency = Latency = Latency = 7.06

9.258 9.268 3.375 6.354 Packet Loss = 0%
=0% 0% 0% 0%
Aruba-AP325 Latency = Latency = Latency = Latency = Latency = 7.11

9.335 9.865 3,143 5.604 Packet Loss = 0.019%
= 0% 0.075% 0% 0%
Mist-AP41 Latency = Latency = Latency = Latency = Latency = 5.07

7.173 7.845 1.429 3.388 Packet Loss = 0.054%
= 0% 0.21% 0% 0%
Ruckus-R720 Latency = Latency = Latency = 2.29 Latency = 3.89 Latency = 5.92

8.22 8.83 Packet Loss = Packet Loss = Packet Loss = 0%
Packet Loss Packet Loss = 0% 0%
= 0% 0%
Ruckus-R
Average
Latency 7.12 5.41 7.06 7.11 5.07 5.92
Rating 2 3 3 3 3 4

41
Points to Note
● Mist-AP41 latency is good followed by Cisco-3802i and Ruckus-R720

● All other APs performed almost similar
Access Point Android IOS Windows Ubuntu Average Latency (ms)
UAP-AC-SHD Latency = Latency = Latency = Latency = 4.28 Latency = 12

13.871 23.449 6.382 Packet Loss = Packet Loss = 0.005%
Packet Loss Packet Loss = Packet Loss = 0%
= 0% 0.022% 0%
Cisco-3802i Latency = Latency = Latency = Latency = Latency = 8.23

11.159 14.895 1.833 4.791 Packet Loss = 0.06 %
= 0.12% 0.133% 0% 0%
Meraki-MR52 Latency = Latency = Latency = 4.52 Latency = Latency = 13.11

14.023 27.627 Packet Loss = 6.017 Packet Loss = 0.006%
Packet Loss Packet Loss = 0% Packet Loss =
= 0% 0.022% 0%
Aruba-AP325 Latency = Latency = Latency = Latency = Latency = 14.26

16.26 30.512 3.958 5.976 Packet Loss = 0.13%
= 0% 0.519% 0% 0%

42
Mist-AP41 Latency = Latency = Latency = Latency = Fail / Clients

Packet Loss Packet Loss = Packet Loss = Packet Loss = Disconnections
= % % % % Observed
Ruckus-R720 Latency = Latency = Latency = 3.18 Latency = 5.33 Latency = 10.40

15.05 17.47 Packet Loss = Packet Loss = Packet Loss = 0.005%
Packet Loss Packet Loss = 0% 0%
=0% 0.024 %
Mist-AP4 Ruckus-R
UAP-AC-SHD Cisco-3802i Meraki-MR52 Aruba-AP325
1 720
Average
Latency 12 8.23 13.11 14.26 Fail 10.40
Rating 4 4 3 1 0 4
Points to Note:
● Cisco-3802i Latency is good followed by Ruckus-R720
● Rest all other APs results are almost similar
● In Mist-AP41 Disconnections observed
5.3.3 Latency Comparison between Client_Load 1, 32, 100

43
5.4 Video Streaming

Video Streaming is the most popular web traffic today. 80% of the bandwidth consumption
is on Video. This is one of the most important application traffic to measure the User
Experience, for an access point.
5.4.1 Test Method

We want to check if the AP is capable of playing High Definition Video in a high density
environment. But there are a variety of HD videos. An Access Point may be able to play a
simple animation video but not a fast moving sports video. There are different bit rate
requirements for each kind of HD video. We have various video levels and measure the AP
performance at each level.
We mark them pass or fail based on buffering time. We also capture the total completion
time per client in our report.
We make Media Server to run in End Point. Clients access the URL through the chrome
browser. All requests are made concurrently. When the client requests, HTTP streaming of
the video starts, from the Endpoint.

44
Perform Average percentage should be above 78.125%

ance
goal
Access Performance (Video Streaming) measured Averag

Point e
Load_Level_1 (6 Mbps) Load_Level_2 (8 Mbps) Pass
Percen
Andr IOS Windo Ubu Total Andr IOS Windo Ubu Tota tage
oid ws ntu oid ws ntu Pass
UAP-A 8 8 7 6 29 8 7 3 2 20 76.56
C-SHD
Cisco-3 8 8 7 7 30 8 8 6 3 25 85.93
802i
Meraki- 8 8 6 7 29 7 7 2 3 19 75
MR52
Aruba- 8 8 3 7 26 8 6 3 4 21 73.43
AP325
Mist-A 6 8 8 8 30 5 1 7 3 16 71.87
P41
Ruckus 5 8 8 4 25 5 6 8 3 21 71.87
-R720
Ruckus-R
Average pass
percentage 76.56 85.93 75 73.43 71.87 71.87
Rating 2 5 2 2 1 1

45
Points to Note:
● Cisco-3802i performed really good in video streaming

● All other APs does not meet the expectations
Perform Average percentage should be above 42.50%

ance
goal
Access Performance (Video Streaming) measured Averag

Point e Pass
Load_Level_1 (1 Mbps) Load_Level_2 (1.5 Mbps) Percen
tage
Andr IOS Windo Ubu Total Andr IOS Windo Ubu Total
oid ws ntu oid ws ntu
UAP-A 17 18 23 25 83 17 16 12 17 58 70.5
C-SHD
Cisco-3 20 24 24 25 93 20 14 24 22 80 86.5
802i
Meraki- 19 23 8 16 66 17 22 2 5 46 56
MR52
Aruba- 21 15 18 17 71 16 10 14 5 45 58
AP325

46
Mist-A 0 5 6 4 15 1 4 4 2 11 13
P41
Ruckus 20 21 19 23 83 12 19 9 12 52 67.50
-R720
Ruckus-R
Average pass
percentage 70.50 86.50 56 58 13 67.50
Rating 4 5 3 4 1 4
Points to Note:
● With 100 clients also Cisco-3802i leading first compared to all APs
● And UAP-AC-SHD takes second place and Ruckus-R720,Aruba-325 & Meraki-MR52
meets the expectations
● Mist-AP41 does not meet the expectations

47
5.5 Mixed Traffic

The objective of mixed traffic test is to simulate most real life scenario, where clients run
different types of traffic/applications simultaneously. Here we measure, the impact of
increasing load on a network that has a variety of different clients with different types of
traffic, on various QoS.
5.5.1 Test Method

We divided the clients into 4 sets, of 24 clients each. For each set, we started different
traffic, VOIP, TCP DL, TCP UL and video streaming. Each set, further consisted of equal
number of clients from each of the 4 OS types. We expect Access Points to give priority to
voice/video packets over data packets, optimizing performance in mixed traffic environments
where heavy data, voice and video traffic co-exist.
We evaluate traffic at each client based on respective criteria for each traffic. Video, TCP DL
and TCP UL are measured in the same way as mentioned in earlier sections. VOIP
performance is measured using MOS. 12 VOIP calls are initiated between 24 clients. Each
call is of 280 seconds.
We use SIP for VoIP testing. We have SIP server running in End point. When the test
begins we make all clients to register with SIP server. After registration, all of them are in
waiting state. For a call test (where n is 12 calls in the current test), we make n number of
clients as callers and they call other n number of clients. After the call is connected, receiver
of the calls play a predefined audio file to the caller. On completion of the call, caller records
various call statistics - Tx Packet, Rx Packet, Jitter, Latency, Packet Loss and more. Based
on the statistics, we compute MOS. Though it is based on standards, but it is yet a
proprietary way of combining various metrics and making sense out of them. VOIP MOS is a
quality indicator between 1 and 5. 5 being the highest quality and 1 being the lowest. For
more details on VOIP MOS calculation method, please refer the below link. More details of
how we compute MOS can be found at
https://alethea.in/voip-performance-wifi/
For the calls, which do not complete or get disconnected, MOS is taken as 0. Effective MOS
is calculated by taking average MOS of all the calls. Effective MOS is being compared
between different access points for benchmarking.

48
Access Point Mixed Traffic Performance
VoIP_12 at 24 TCP_DL TCP_UL at Video (1 Result

Clients at 24 Clients Mbps)
Clients at 24 Clients
UAP-AC-SH 11 Calls
D Complete
Aggregat Aggregate = 4 Pass
Pass call MOS -
e = 35.61 23.61Mbps Percentage = Meets Goal
2.08 16.67 %
Mbps
Effective MOS
-1.90
Cisco-3802i 9 Calls Complete
Pass call
MOS - 1.01
e =15.4 5.06 Mbps Percentage = Does not
Mbps 16.67 % meet Goal
Effective MOS
-0.76
Meraki-MR5 12 Calls
2 Complete
Pass Call
e = 25.41 26.83 M
bps Percentage = Meets Goal
MOS - 2.92 0%
Mbps
Effective MOS
-2.92
Aruba-AP32 7 Calls Complete

5
Pass calls MOS Aggregat Aggregate = 5 Pass
e= 12.53 Mbps Percentage = Meets Goal
-1.82
15.51 20.83%
Effective MOS Mbps

-1.06
Mist-AP41 1 Calls Complete
Pass calls MOS - Aggregat Aggregate = 2 Pass

1.0 e = 7.59 28.11 Mbps Percentage = Does not
Mbps 8.33% meet Goal
Effective MOS
-0.08
Ruckus-R72 11 Calls
0 Complete
e= 37.10 Mbps Percentage = Exceeds
Pass calls MOS -
29.15 29.17% Goal
3.55
Mbps

49
Effective MOS
-3.25
UAP-AC-S Cisco-380 Meraki-MR Aruba-AP3 Mist-AP Ruckus-

HD 2i 52 25 41 R720
Effective VOIP MOS 1.90 0.76 2.92 1.06 0.08 3.55
Average DL Throughput 35.61 15.41 25.41 15.51 7.59 29.15
Average UL Throughput 23.61 5.06 26.83 12.53 28.11 37.10
Video Pass Percentage 16.67 16.67 0 20.83 8.33 29.17
Rating 4 2 4 3 2 5
Points to Note:
● Ruckus-R720 Performs best in mixed traffic

● UAP-AC-SHD, Meraki-MR52 and Aruba-AP325 meets the expectations
● Mist-AP41 and Cisco-3802i shows very low performance with mixed traffic compared
to all other APs and does not meet the expectations

50
Appendix
Results Table
a) Client Load Single
Bandwidth : 80 Mhz
RSSI as measured at client : -44 to -45 dbm
External Channel Occupancy : 2 to 3%
UAP-AC-S Cisco-380 Meraki-MR Aruba-AP3 Ruckus-R

HD 2i 52 25 Mist-AP41 720
Power
Power
level 20 Power level
Power level Power level Power level level - Full
dBm 20 dBm
1 (Max) 18 dBm 25 dBm (ch-149)
(ch-149) (ch-149)
(ch-149) (ch-149) (ch-149) Client
Client Client RSSI
Client RSSI Client RSSI Client RSSI RSSI -44
RSSI -45 -45 dBm
-44 dBm -45 dBm -45 dBm dBm
dBm Bandwidth
Bandwidth Bandwidth - Bandwidth Bandwidth
Bandwidth - 80 Mhz
- 80 Mhz 80 Mhz - 80 Mhz - 80 Mhz
- 80 Mhz Firmware -
Firmware - Firmware - Firmware - Firmware -
Firmware - 8.3.0.5_68
8.8.111.0 MR 25.13 0.3.15151 200.7.10.2.
4.0.21.996 279
339
5
Throu
ghput
_DL
Iperf TCP_DL @
Android client
(Mbps) 618.64 579.78 571.26 573.05 505.6 514.92
Iperf TCP_DL @
555.81 605.45 573.19 551.08 468.52 393.62
ios client (Mbps)
Iperf TCP_DL @
windows clients 417.98 344.29 398.43 362.79 315.68 327.41
(Mbps)
Iperf TCP_DL @
ubuntu clients 587.94 606.76 544.92 565.6 548.7 605.20
(Mbps)
Average 545.09 534.07 521.95 513.13 459.63 460.29
Throu
ghput
_UL
Iperf TCP_UL @

51
Android client 523.67 499.42 439.33 455.38 499.01 535.76
(Mbps)
Iperf TCP_UL @
565.37 555.08 595.92 585.11 435.81 625.84
ios client (Mbps)
Iperf TCP_UL @
windows client 368.12 369.54 364.61 365.62 377.02 304.18
(Mbps)
Iperf TCP_UL @
ubuntu client 483.94 399.34 413.44 442.36 401.69 403.42
(Mbps)
Average 485.28 455.85 453.33 462.12 428.38 467.30
Laten
cy
Latency (ms) @
13.58 9.93 14.04 13.94 10.16 10.53
Android client
Packet Loss (%) 0 1 0 0 0 0
Latency (ms) @
11.37 9.41 11.94 12.11 8.68 11.09
ios client
Packet Loss (%) 0 0.56 0 0 0 0
Latency (ms) @
2 6 3 2 4 3
windows client
Packet Loss (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Latency (ms) @
5.21 4.99 4.34 6.32 5.27 4.84
ubuntu client
Packet Loss (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Average
8.04 7.58 8.33 8.59 7.03 7.36
Latency (ms)
Average Packet
0 0.39 0 0 0 0
Loss
b) Client Load 32
Bandwidth : 40 Mhz
RSSI as measured at client : -43 to -44 db
UAP-AC-S Cisco-3802 Meraki-MR Aruba-AP3 Ruckus-R

HD i 52 25 Mist-AP41 720

52
Power
Power level
Power level Power level Power level Power level level - Full
20 dBm
20 dBm 1 (Max) 18 dBm 25 dBm (ch-149)
(ch-149)
(ch-149) (ch-149) (ch-149) (ch-149) Bandwidth
Bandwidth -
Bandwidth - Bandwidth - Bandwidth - Bandwidth - - 40 MHz
40 MHz
40 MHz 40 MHz 40 MHz 40 MHz Clients
Clients
Clients Clients Clients Clients RSSI -43
RSSI - 43
RSSI - 43 RSSI - 44 RSSI - 44 RSSI -43 dBm
dBm
dBm dBm dBm dBm Firmware
Firmware -
Firmware - Firmware - Firmware - Firmware - -
8.3.0.5_682
4.0.21.9965 8.8.111.0 MR 25.13 0.3.15151 200.7.10.2
79
.339
Throu
ghput
_DL
Iperf TCP_DL
@ 8 Android
clients 92.49 70.68 71.73 75.54 109.12 61.76
Iperf TCP_DL
@ 8 ios clients 59.08 70.22 55.73 46.53 61.65 48.57
Iperf TCP_DL
@ 8 windows
clients 45 75.93 40.69 49.84 15.54 58.91
Iperf TCP_DL
@ 8 ubuntu
clients 33.35 40.05 50.91 45.12 47.26 55.74
Iperf TCP_DL
@ 32 Mixed
Clients 229.92 256.87 219.07 217.01 233.56 224.99
Throu
ghput
_UL
Iperf TCP_UL
@ 8 Android
clients 24.35 16.96 8.05 5.32 18.71 8.03
Iperf TCP_UL
@ 8 ios clients 4.33 2.01 1.33 0.28 10.66 5.37
Iperf TCP_UL
@ 8 windows
clients 7.98 1.88 3.22 5.11 15.15 13.1
Iperf TCP_UL
@ 8 ubuntu
clients 52.26 31.72 42.71 39.24 55.37 34.9
Iperf TCP_UL
@ 32 Mixed
Clients 88.92 52.56 55.3 49.94 99.89 61.40
Laten
cy

53
Latency (ms)
@ 8 Android
clients 8.443 7.555 9.258 9.335 7.173 8.219
Packet Loss
(%) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Latency (ms)
@ 8 ios clients 12.812 7.734 9.268 9.865 7.845 8.828
Packet Loss
(%) 0.14 0.213 0 0.075 0.21 0
Latency (ms)
@ 8 windows
clients 2 1.429 3.375 3.143 1.429 2.286
Packet Loss
(%) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Latency (ms)
@ 8 ubuntu
clients 5.223 4.437 6.354 5.604 3.388 3.89
Packet Loss
(%) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Latency (ms)
@ 32 Mixed
Clients 7.12 5.41 7.06 7.11 5.07 5.92
Total Packet
Loss (%) 0.035 0.055 0 0.019 0.054 0
Video
_6
Mbps
6 Mbps @ 8
Android clients 8 8 8 8 6 5
6 Mbps @ 8
ios clients 8 8 8 8 8 8
6 Mbps @ 8
windows
clients 7 7 6 3 8 8
6 Mbps @ 8
ubuntu clients 6 7 7 7 8 4
6 Mbps @ 32
Mixed Clients 29 30 29 26 30 25
Video
_8
Mbps
8 Mbps @ 8
Android clients 8 8 7 8 5 5
8 Mbps @ 8
ios clients 7 8 7 6 1 6
8 Mbps @ 8
windows
clients 3 6 2 3 7 8

54
8 Mbps @ 8
ubuntu clients 2 3 3 4 3 2
8 Mbps @ 32
Mixed Clients 20 25 19 21 16 21
c) Client Load 100
Bandwidth : 40 Mhz
RSSI as measured at client : -43 to -45 db
UAP-AC-S Cisco-380 Meraki-MR Aruba-AP Ruckus-R

HD 2i 52 325 Mist-AP41 720
Power
Power level Power Power Power Power
level 20
20 dBm level 1 level 18 level 25 level - Full
dBm
(ch-149) (Max) dBm dBm (ch-149)
(ch-149)
Bandwidth (ch-149) (ch-149) (ch-149) Bandwidth
Bandwidth
- 40 MHz Bandwidth Bandwidth Bandwidth - 40 MHz
- 40 MHz
Clients - 40 MHz - 40 MHz - 40 MHz Clients
Clients
RSSI - 45 Clients Clients Clients RSSI -43
RSSI - 44
dBm RSSI - 45 RSSI - 44 RSSI -45 dBm
dBm
Firmware - dBm dBm dBm Firmware -
Firmware -
4.0.21.996 Firmware - Firmware - Firmware - 200.7.10.2.
8.3.0.5_68
5 8.8.111.0 MR 25.13 0.3.15151 339
279
Throu
ghput
_DL
Iperf TCP_DL @
25.19 14.68 29.5 23.01 2.24 48.96
25 Android clients
Iperf TCP_DL @
18.3 19.65 32.08 12.3 18.84 35.58
25 ios clients
Iperf TCP_DL @
25 windows 18.99 57.51 4.28 17.52 21.32 10.77
clients
Iperf TCP_DL @
80.36 108.87 68.47 83.71 56.03 40.41
25 ubuntu clients
Iperf TCP_DL @
100 Mixed 142.84 200.71 134.33 136.54 98.43 135.72
Clients
Throu
ghput
_UL

55
Iperf TCP_UL @
10.63 0.11 11.48 0.09 1.77 9.53
25 Android clients
Iperf TCP_UL @
0.57 0 2.16 0.06 3.97 0.99
25 ios clients
Iperf TCP_UL @
25 windows 1.62 0.63 0.53 3.61 2.22 2.82
clients
Iperf TCP_UL @
34.83 2.71 25.5 12.67 36.06 9.12
25 ubuntu clients
Iperf TCP_UL @
100 Mixed 47.66 3.46 39.66 16.42 44.02 22.45
Clients
Laten
cy
Latency (ms) @
13.871 11.159 14.027 16.26 15.05
25 Android clients
Packet Loss (%) 0 0.12 0 0 0
Latency (ms) @
23.449 14.895 27.627 30.512 17.473
25 ios clients
Packet Loss (%) 0.022 0.133 0.022 0.519 0.024
Latency (ms) @
25 windows 6.382 1.833 4.52 3.958 3.182
Fail.
clients
Disconnect
Packet Loss (%) 0 0 0 0 0
ions
Latency (ms) @ Observed.
4.28 4.791 6.017 5.976 5.327
25 ubuntu clients
Packet Loss (%) 0 0 0 0 0
Latency (ms) @
100 Mixed 12 8.23 13.11 14.26 10.40
Clients
Total Packet
0.005 0.063 0.006 0.13 0.005
Loss (%)
Video
_1Mb
ps
1000 Kbps @ 25
17 20 19 21 0 20
Android clients
1000 Kbps @ 25
18 24 23 15 5 21
ios clients
1000 Kbps @ 25 6 19
24 8 18
windows clients 23

56
1000 Kbps @ 25
25 25 16 17 4 23
ubuntu clients
1000 Kbps @
100 Mixed 83 93 66 71 15 83
Clients
Video
_1.5M
bps
1500 Kbps @ 25
17 20 17 16 1 12
Android clients
1500 Kbps @ 25
16 14 22 10 4 19
ios clients
1500 Kbps @ 25
12 24 2 14 4 9
windows clients
1500 Kbps @ 25
17 22 5 5 2 12
ubuntu clients
1500 Kbps @
100 Mixed 58 45 11 52
80 46
Clients
Mixed
Traffi
c
12 Calls between
24 Clients,
Effective MOS 1.9 0.76 2.92 1.06 0.08 3.25
Iperf TCP_DL @
24 Mixed Clients 35.61 15.41 25.41 15.51 7.59 29.15
Iperf TCP_UL @
24 Mixed Clients 23.61 5.06 26.83 12.53 28.11 37.10
1Mbps @ 24
Mixed Clients 4 4 0 5 2 7

57
Revision History
Version Date Description
1.0 5th April 1. First Published Report
1.1 13th April 1. Added Disclaimer regarding ongoing investigation

for one of the APs, which may not have worked at
the peak performance with the POE+ switch used in
the setup
1.2 18th April 1. Added Revision History

2. Removed Ruckus 720 information as Ruckus seem
to have not worked at peak performance with the
POE+ switch used.
3. Removed Aggregate Rankings/Ratings from Section
3 as they can be brought back after Ruckus R720
investigation is over.
4. Added Section 4.1, to provide clearer information on
AP configurations in a single section
5. Added more details to the Ranking method in
Section 3
1.3 30th April 1. Added Ruckus Data after Retest with compatible
POE+ Switch
2. Added POE Switch details in Section 4 and updated
Section 4.1 with Ruckus R720 information.


High Density WiFi Performance Test Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

High Density WiFi Performance Test Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report on

Strictly Confidential Version: 1.3

Strictly Confidential Version: 1.3

Strictly Confidential Version: 1.3

Strictly Confidential Version: 1.3

Strictly Confidential Version: 1.3

3.1 Ratings @ single client

Ratings in the tests

3.2 Ratings @ 32 Clients

Ratings in the tests

Strictly Confidential Version: 1.3

3.3 Ratings @ 100 clients

Ratings in the tests

3.4 Aggregate Ratings & Ranking

1 client 32 clients 100 clients Total

Strictly Confidential Version: 1.3

Our Ranking method is as follows

Strictly Confidential Version: 1.3

4.1 Access Point Configuration

4.1.1 Firmwares Used

4.1.2 Power Calibration

Strictly Confidential Version: 1.3

The method is as follows

4.1.3 Settings & Configuration

Strictly Confidential Version: 1.3

4.2 Client Load Single client location

Clients used in single client test in four different os types are

Client Type Quantity Details OS Type Spatial Streams

AP Power Calibration with single client test

Strictly Confidential Version: 1.3

4.3 Client Load 32 clients location

Client Type Quantity Details OS Type Spatial Streams

AP Power Calibration with 32 clients test

Strictly Confidential Version: 1.3

4.4 Client Load 100 clients location

Client Type Quantity Details OS Type Spatial Streams

Strictly Confidential Version: 1.3

AP Power Calibration with 100 clients test

5.1 Throughput Downlink

5.1.1 Test Method

Strictly Confidential Version: 1.3

5.1.1.1 Client Load Single

5.1.1.1.1 Android Test Results

Performance goal Aggregate TCP DL throughput should be above 500 Mbps

Access Point Performance (DL TCP Throughput in Verdict on performance goa​l

UAP-AC-SHD Aggregate = 618.64 Mbps Exceeds Goal

Cisco-3802i Aggregate = ​579.78 Mbps Exceeds Goal

Meraki-MR52 Aggregate = 571.26 Mbps Exceeds Goal

Aruba-AP325 Aggregate = 573.05 Mbps Exceeds Goal

Mist-AP41 Aggregate = 505.60 Mbps Meets Goal

Ruckus-R720 Aggregate = 514.92 Mbps Meets Goal

Strictly Confidential Version: 1.3

5.1.1.1.2 IOS Test Results

Performance goal Aggregate TCP DL throughput should be above 500 Mbps

Access Point Performance (DL TCP Throughput in Verdict on performance goa​l

UAP-AC-SHD Aggregate = 555.81​ Mbps Meets Goal

Cisco-3802i Aggregate = 605.45​ Mbps Exceeds Goal

Meraki-MR52 Aggregate = 573.19​ Mbps Exceeds Goal

Aruba-AP325 Aggregate = 551.08​ Mbps Meets Goal

Mist-AP41 Aggregate = 468.52​ Mbps Does not meet Goal

Ruckus-R720 Aggregate = 393.62​ Mbps Does not meet Goal

● Cisco-3802i exceeds the goal

Strictly Confidential Version: 1.3

Access Point Performance (DL TCP Throughput in Verdict on performance goal

Cisco-3802i Aggregate = 579.78 Mbps Exceeds Goal

Access Point Performance (DL TCP Throughput in Verdict on performance goal

UAP-AC-SHD Aggregate = 555.81 Mbps Meets Goal

Cisco-3802i Aggregate = 605.45 Mbps Exceeds Goal

Meraki-MR52 Aggregate = 573.19 Mbps Exceeds Goal

Aruba-AP325 Aggregate = 551.08 Mbps Meets Goal

Mist-AP41 Aggregate = 468.52 Mbps Does not meet Goal

Ruckus-R720 Aggregate = 393.62 Mbps Does not meet Goal

Access Point Performance (DL TCP Throughput in Verdict on performance goal

UAP-AC-SHD Aggregate = 417.98 Mbps Exceeds Goal

Cisco-3802i Aggregate = 344.29 Mbps Meets Goal

Meraki-MR52 Aggregate = 398.43 Mbps Exceeds Goal

Aruba-AP325 Aggregate = 362.79 Mbps Meets Goal

Mist-AP41 Aggregate = 315.68 Mbps Does not meet Goal

Ruckus-R720 Aggregate = 327.41 Mbps Does not meet Goal

Access Point Performance (DL TCP Throughput in Verdict on performance goal

UAP-AC-SHD Aggregate = 587.94 Mbps Exceeds Goal

Cisco-3802i Aggregate = 606.76 Mbps Exceeds Goal

Meraki-MR52 Aggregate = 544.92 Mbps Meets Goal

Aruba-AP325 Aggregate = 565.60 Mbps Meets Goal

Mist-AP41 Aggregate = 548.70 Mbps Meets Goal

Ruckus-R720 Aggregate = 605.20 Mbps Exceeds Goal

UAP-AC-SHD 92.49 59.08 45 33.35 229.92 Mbps Does not

Cisco-3802i 70.68 70.22 75.93 40.05 256.87 Mbps Exceeds

Meraki-MR52 71.73 55.73 40.69 50.91 219.07 Mbps Does not

Aruba-AP325 75.54 46.53 49.84 45.12 217.01 Mbps Does not

Mist-AP41 109.12 61.65 15.54 47.26 233.56 Mbps Meets

Ruckus-R720 61.76 48.57 58.91 55.74 224.99 Mbps Does not

UAP-AC-SHD 25.19 18.3 18.99 80.36 142.89 Mbps Meets Goal

Cisco-3802i 14.68 19.65 57.51 108.87 200.71 Mbps Exceeds

Aruba-AP325 23.01 12.30 17.52 83.71 136.54 Mbps Does not

Mist-AP41 2.24 18.84 21.32 56.03 98.43 Mbps Does not

Ruckus-R720 48.96 35.58 10.77 40.41 135.72 Mbps Does not

Access Point Performance (UL TCP Throughput in Verdict on performance goal

UAP-AC-SHD Aggregate = 523.67 Mbps Meets Goal

Cisco-3802i Aggregate = 499.42 Mbps Meets Goal

Meraki-MR52 Aggregate = 439.33 Mbps Does not meet Goal

Aruba-AP325 Aggregate = 455.38 Mbps Does not meet Goal

Mist-AP41 Aggregate = 499.01 Mbps Meets Goal

Ruckus-R720 Aggregate = 535.76 Mbps Meets Goal

Access Point Performance (UL TCP Throughput in Verdict on performance goal

UAP-AC-SHD Aggregate = 565.37 Mbps Meets Goal

Cisco-3802i Aggregate = 555.08 Mbps Meets Goal

Meraki-MR52 Aggregate = 595.92 Mbps Exceeds Goal