reply to rameshrai I prefer Mikrotik because the router's operating system (ROS) is so powerful. When you reach 1000+ nodes you'll be very happy for the intelligence on the CPE. And the MT hardware is modular so upgrades are not as capital intensive.
I had mostly Canopy and bailed on it. To Slow and buggy - forget about the 'Carrier Class' crap. It's propaganda to support high pricing equipment. The job is to build fast, reliable networks and do it economically. MT does that in spades. Ubiquiti is getting there.
But a newbie would be better off with UB IMHO because ROS is a BIG learning curve (and you're going to be doing LOTS of learning as it is) and then they may get in to MT after a year or two.
reply to rameshrai I would disagree with Semaphore. Canopy is extremely reliable and has proven itself over the past 10+ years. The problem is, one pays for that reliability. Canopy is going to cost 3-4x more than Ubiquiti. We are a business-only ISP with an SLA so uptime and reliability is our number 1 concern. Canopy is by far the best for reliability but Ubiquiti is catching up.
We do business class service - all through MT. Redundancy is easy and cheap. Customers get SLA's with 3 nines and we exceed that.
I had lots of Canopy gear in the beginning and ran away from it after year 4. Among other reasons : No Radius. No Syslog. Poor SNMP trapping. No SSH/SCP. No FTP Server. No FTP Client. Bastardized CLI. Cheap Plastic cases. Crappy NAT Daemon. Not Modular. Pathetic packet filtering. No effective Central management. Firmware so buggy it made Cisco look good
Cambium has been trying to fix some of those shortfalls but still it's Stupidly high AP and CPE prices and limited functionality IMHO not a good choice... was once upon a time but not for the past 2 years or more.