Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Reviews

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.

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.

I primarily use this solution for remote connectivity.

In a software-defined network architecture, it heals itself and the management of the solution is very easy.

This solution is expensive so pricing is a concern.

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

We have had no issues with stability.

This solution can scale from SMB to the enterprise level. It is very impressive.

Scalability in this context does not concern users, but connections between the head office and branch offices. We do not deal with endpoints or end-users.

We do not have plans for expansion or increasing our usage at this point.

I have contacted technical support several times during the deployment phase and while troubleshooting. They are amazing. They are really helpful and the support is perfect.

We have only ever used Cisco solutions.

The initial setup is straightforward.

For a regular customer, the deployment will probably take between 15 and 20 days.

We deploy these types of products for our clients.

This is a good solution. It's a new technology that people should look into because it provides for seamless management of the whole network, including switches. That said, there is always room for improvement.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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.