Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Reviews

Cisco SD-WAN is used to establish a wide area network, a WAN for LAN, WiFi, and support.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for approximately 15 years.

Cisco SD-WAN is a highly stable solution.

The scalability of Cisco SD-WAN is great.

The technical support from Cisco SD-WAN is excellent.

Cisco SD-WAN is not as easy to deploy as the Meraki and FortiGate solutions. The zero-touch deployment could be a lot better. The deployment and initial setup are complicated and could be better.

Cisco SD-WAN is more expensive than its competitors.

Cisco SD-WAN is a great solution and definitely worth the investment.

I rate Cisco SD-WAN an eight out of ten.

Viptela (router) SDN-based services:

• Hybrid networking.
• Combination of low-cost appliances and virtualization.

While it is not implemented in our organisation, I have been looking in SDN for quite a while and had some concern about hype and buzz words surrounding development of the subject.

With Viptela (Cisco is buying this start up), it is the golden average on what I would like to see in SDN implementation.

I have not used it yet.

Stability (especially running in virtualized environment) is an issue SDN vendors do not talk about until customer learns the hard way. It has to be tested.

Scalability is a strong selling part of virtualized solutions. I hope it is the case for Viptela; something to test.

This is definitely a product worthy of being evaluated and tested.

The attractive part is a combination of low-cost appliances and virtualization.

Cisco SD-WAN is highly secure.

We had some issues with Cisco SD-WAN but somehow we troubleshot it and things are going well. The issues have not been a large problem.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for approximately 18 months.

When we have had power outages for a few hours we have had no issue with Cisco SD-WAN coming back online and functioning.

The technical support is good from Cisco. When we have a problem we notify Cisco and within a day or two, they will have solved the situation. They are very cooperative.

We primarily use the solution for data centers with several providers. We also use the solution for branch offices. We have used it on 20 branch offices in one instance and the other instance has about 90 remote sites.

The security features are very good. We really like the application routing, for example.

The initial setup is quite simple.

The solution offers very good documentation.

Technical support is quite helpful.

The product is very scalable.

There are a lot of exciting features coming out very soon which we are looking forward to working with.

The security features could be improved.

The solution needs to offer better stability.

The product could have improved flexibility.

I've been using the solution for about thirteen months. It's been just over a year at this point, so it hasn't been too long.

The solution could have better stability. It's not ideal right now. It could be quite a bit better.

The solution can scale. If a company needs to expand it, it should be able to do so rather easily.

We typically work with small and medium-sized organizations. I'm not sure if the companies we work with intend to expand their usage in the future or not.

Technical support for the product is quite good. We're satisfied with the level of support we receive from them. 

The documents, manuals, and community support on offer are very good.

The initial setup is not complex. We found it to be straightforward and easy.

The deployment took about six months for one project and a few months for another.

You need about four people for deployment and maintenance tasks.

We tend to implement this solution for our clients if they require it of us.

We didn't look at other options before choosing this solution.

We're partners for Cisco. We're resellers and implementers.

For the routers, we are using versions 73.2 and 16.12.3. We use both cloud and on-premises deployment models.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product at an eight. We've mostly been quite happy with it.

There is a commercial bank here in our region, and they want to eliminate expensive and MPLS lines. They've been looking to implement internet SD-WAN solutions and to have them in their central system as two uplinks. One is service provided and another one is for added services.

The solution's application control and application traffic steering tool are its most valuable aspects in terms of how we utilize the product.

The solution allows organizations to have visibility into the application traffic. After implementing the solution, we can see what types of traffic we have. We can see how users are using the internet and will be able to tell if anyone is downloading something that they shouldn't be or if they are consuming a lot of data.

The whole solution needs to be re-imagined. It's quite complex right now and really needs to be simplified to make it easier for those of us using it. It should offer more simplified management as well.

The solution is expensive. They should adjust their pricing to make it more competitive.

I've been using the solution for about one year now.

The solution is stable enough. We haven't faced crashes, bugs or glitches that would make us concerned that is wasn't reliable.

The solution is quite easy to expand. We find it very scalable.

Regarding technical support, we only really needed them to assist us with the implementation of this solution and we haven't had to open a case since them. We were satisfied with their level of support.

We've also worked with Fortinet. Cisco is better for larger enterprises and for telecom operators. However, Fortinet is a much cheaper solution in terms of pricing. Fortinet is also much easier to implement. Cisco implementations tend to be complicated.

The initial setup is quite complex. The whole system is complex. You have to have a good understanding of Cisco and its products in order to handle the setup properly.

I don't recall how long deployment took for our organization.

We asked Cisco's technical support for assistance during the implementation process.

The solution is subscription-based. It is quite pricy, as compared to its competitors, for example, Fortinet. You can see the pricing on the Cisco site, and my understanding is that it's the same pricing across Europe. There are extra costs involved, however, because if you have an on-premises model, you have to buy the equipment. There are also costs associated with technical support.

We're a Cisco Gold Partner.

I'm not sure of the exact version number of the solution we are currently using.

Typically, we work with small to medium-sized enterprises.

The advantage of SD-WAN is that it can eliminate costly MPLS links. That's the big selling feature for us.

I would recommend the solution.I'd rate it seven out of ten. If it was less complicated and offered more reasonable pricing, I'd rate it higher.

The solution allows us to replace the existing routers and to remove the costly MPLS.

The solution is good to use and easy to handle and manage from the centralized location or from the cloud.

This means that no engineer need visit the site to do configurations and it addresses maintenance and upgrade issues, something which frees us up to accomplish more. 

The cost of the solution is very high, when taking into account the customer location and the existence of a single router for routing purposes and security, with a single firewall and license. The license should be cheaper. 

Better pricing and greater security would be nice to see. 

We could replace the solution with Viptela web access and make use of the broadband connectivity.

The security features should also be addressed, such as that which Palo Alto or Check Point provide for the firewall, in which the SD-WAN boxes would contain the same kind of firewall features. This would be great.

I have been using Cisco SD-Wan for nearly two years.

The solution is scalable. This is based on the bandwidth, how the customer makes use of the internet.

Perhaps we will increase usage in the future. 

We are satisfied with customer support. 

Prior to going with the solution we made use of Silver Peak SD-WAN. 

The installation is easy. Within five minutes we can install one Viptela box in the branch location.

Once there is internet connectivity, the management of the solution by the IT administrator from the branch office or the headquarters is easy.

The installation can be done independently. 

The license consists of an annual fee. 

The price could be better. 

I don't know if we evaluated Meraki before going with Cisco SD-WAN. I don't have that much hands-on experience with the other SD-WAN, but I know a bit about the Silver Peak SD-WAN solutions.

We did implementation at the various customer sites and handed things over to them.

We use the solution in an organizational framework and there are nearly 130 users who are doing so.

The solution is recommended for Cisco Viptela. It's great.

I rate Cisco SD-WAN as a nine out of ten. 

We use it to manage hospitals and clinics in my country.

It has improved our connection and bandwidth.

I like the feature that lets you transfer from old devices to new devices without changing the hardware and subscription.

The price could be better. From a technical side, and everything's working smoothly. Cisco SD-WAN could be cheaper. 

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for about one year.

It's very good and stable compared to the others.

It's scalable. We have around 250 sites around Jordan.

Technical support is good. We don't have any issue with their performance.

The initial setup and deployment were straightforward.

I implemented this solution by myself.

It's expensive. If you compare Cisco with Fortinet and Juniper, you'll find that Cisco is more expensive than other vendors.

We don't have Sympatico or Versa in my country. We just have Cisco, Juniper, and Fortinet. But Fortinet doesn't have complete distribution, and the switching solution is very weak. We needed a solution that integrates with others, and we think that Cisco helped. Fortinet doesn't have all the switches, and they have some issues with statistics. This is why we chose Cisco.

I would advise potential users to try Cisco and see if they offer more for their enterprise needs. I would recommend Cisco SD-WAN to new users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco SD-WAN a nine.

We are a solution provider and Cisco SD-WAN is one of the products that we implement for our customers. I am a system integrator.

We use this product for zero-disk provisioning at branch offices. The controllers are at a central location and are used to manage the branches.

The most valuable features are zero-disk provisioning and link load balancing on an application basis. In the case of link load balancing, if an application is not working properly on the primary link, it may be fine on the secondary one. This means that if the first link goes down then it may still be accessible, which is a very good feature.

The process of onboarding the vSmart, vBond, and vManage should be improved to make it easier to manage in general. 

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for one year.

Stability-wise, it is a good product and it works very well.

This is a scalable solution. There are between 1,000 and 1,500 users.

I have been in contact with technical support and my experience with them has been fine.

The length of time required for deployment depends on the scenario, but it usually takes between two and three days to set up.

As a system integrator, I deploy this solution myself.

We need a couple of engineers at headquarters to maintain it, and we don't usually need anybody at the remote sites. Normally, it's plug-and-play.

Licensing is on a subscription basis.

In summary, this is a good product and we plan to continue using it in the future. It is one that I definitely recommend.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.