How/where could I compare the Tx/Rx capabilities between wireless Meraki devices?

Mike_P1
Here to help

How/where could I compare the Tx/Rx capabilities between wireless Meraki devices?

Greetings, Meraki community! As the subject suggests, I'd like to compare a few different products' wireless capabilities. The MR36, for instance, has a Tx/Rx table here https://documentation.meraki.com/MR/MR_Overview_and_Specifications/MR36_Datasheet, but I can't find comparable pages for MX*W or Z3 devices. 
 
At a high level (price not a consideration at the moment), the design might look something like this, for a small to medium office:
 
  • MX68W (MX w/ wireless)
  • MX68 + MR36
  • Z3
 
Best guess right now is MX + MR > MX*W > Z3, but I simply don't have the documentation to back that up. Is this outlined somewhere that I might be overlooking? Alternatively, is there a better way to look at this? Thanks, all!
4 Replies 4
Bruce
Kind of a big deal

I’m sure the documentation is there somewhere, but I’ll summarise based on knowledge and experience, as this is likely better than trying to compare statistics from data sheets. 

The first point is that the MX*W and Z3 devices have a standalone wireless solution that does not interoperate with other MX*W/Z3 devices or MR devices. The upshot of this is that if a site grows and you want more coverage then you won’t be able to achieve seamless roaming or the like from the MX/Z to another MX/Z or a MR.

 

Second point, is AFAIK the MX/Z devices are still only Wifi5 devices, there isn’t a Wifi6 option (would love to be corrected here). Whereas most of the current MR devices are Wifi6.

 

Third point, if it was me I’d prefer to use MR devices everywhere so that the user experience is as similar as possible, and the management and troubleshooting is as similar as possible too. You also have many more options with the MR range to get the coverage you require, 2x2:2, 4x4:4 and so on.

 

If it was my choice I’d do MR devices to provide all the wireless capability, then an appropriately sized (non-W) MX (e.g MX64, MX67, MX68, MX75). The only time I’d consider a ‘W’ version of the MX is cost, or if it’s a small office/home office with no more than a few people, and absolutely no chance that it’s going to grow/expand.

Fantastic summary, Bruce! I appreciate you taking the time to provide such a well-rounded answer. Kudos to you!

PaulMcG
Getting noticed

MX+MR is the better option.  To add to what @Bruce already menitonned:

 

-You can place the MR wherever it is needed in the office to improve coverage, whereas an MX(W) usually ends up in the wiring closet or worse, enclosed in a metal box with the rest of the networking gear/ISP modem.

-An MR gives you the flexibility to run a seperate wirless network and template, should you choose to go that route if you have a large number of sites.

Yes! Good points, Paul. I didn't consider it, but there's a high degree of likelihood that two out of three of these devices would end up locked in a box. Kudos to you as well!

Get notified when there are additional replies to this discussion.