Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Reviews

As a company, we are a Cisco Premier Partner and we work as a system integrator and reseller. As for myself, I currently work simultaneously with Cisco and Fortinet for SD-WAN solutions.

Because we're only an integrator and not an ISP-level company, we haven't engaged with that many SD-WAN projects, and our typical line of work involves using Cisco products in bank solutions, such as for branch connectivity.

From my observations, Cisco has been rolling out new features every other day, so I would say their speed of innovation is one of the most valuable aspects for me.

I would also point to their superior features when it comes to general connectivity, configuration, and reporting.

One of the major areas that Cisco can improve on with their SD-WAN offering is their security features. When compared with Fortinet, who have what they call their 'security pillars' (e.g. firewall and security features built-in to their SD-WAN solutions), Cisco generally comes up short. With Cisco, if you need a security component, you have to pay more to get it done. So if they could add more security features that come part and parcel with their existing solutions, then I think Cisco could be very aggressive in the market.

Essentially, they have to incorporate different security features on top of their SD-WAN box. At the end of the day, I should be able to give one single box to the customer which includes SD-WAN and all the necessary features such as security.

When it comes to IoT edges, they could possibly incorporate their SD-WAN features into the LAN side together with Cisco's DNA networking, just as Aruba is doing with their ESP solution. If Cisco could come up with a similar solution to that, then I think they will have the upper hand in the market compared to their competitors' brands. They have to come to a point where they can better integrate WAN and LAN into one single platform.

Regarding the data center sites, when we're talking about software-defined networking, Cisco has the SD-WAN segment, software-defined access for the LAN segment, and application-centric infrastructure for their data center segment, and they have to combine all three segments into one platform. Just like how the other guys are doing it. Again, if they can accomplish this, then technically they have a fair share in the market.

Otherwise, Cisco could also integrate more features on the cloud side of things, like with SD-WAN in the cloud, or SD-WAN in AWS, some of which I believe they have implemented already.

Beyond that, I can't say too much about what I'd like to see when it comes to new features because almost every day I've seen Cisco add more features to their SD-WAN and SD-LAN portfolios. At the rate they're going, it could be only a few months before they add the security features I've mentioned. So from my perspective, I think they're doing okay.

Finally, in terms of stability, there could be some improvement. In my experience with our current project, there have been some instances where stability has been an issue. But I can't speak for everyone here; other partners who have completed more projects may disagree and this is only my own observations so far.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for two to three years. 

I can't say that Cisco SD-WAN is incredibly stable, especially since Cisco has acquired Viptela and they are now busy with trying to improve Viptela's features and tools. So in some situations, it has been my experience that Cisco's SD-WAN is solid but it does succumb to stability issues at times.

So far we have completed only one project with Cisco, while other one is still ongoing. With that experience, I can say some stability improvements are needed, but I don't know about the other partners who have completed ten or more projects, for example.

Scalability-wise, it's good, because when the customer's application load or data traffic increases, I can easily scale out the same product to match the increase.

Technical support is good. When it comes to Cisco's TAC (Technical Assistance Center) and solutions support as a country in the Asian market, they are doing good. 

Alongside Cisco, we also use Fortinet. If we have a firewall or edge/perimeter security or other security measures in place already, we can simply go with Cisco. This is because the interconnectivity, branch connectivity, configuration level, solidness, and other features of Cisco are already adequate and, in some cases, superior. So when it comes to the networking components alone, I prefer Cisco.

But if the customer is asking for networking plus the perimeter level security, then I have to look into products like Fortinet, because with their lower pricing and so on, Fortinet comes out on top. Fortinet is much cheaper than Cisco. And for configuration, Fortinet's interfaces are also very comfortable to use when it comes to complex configurations.

Cisco's pricing is not entirely satisfactory when you compare the SD-WAN solutions in Asian markets — like the South Asian market in Sri Lanka — because there are several competing brands including Fortinet and Citrix, who provide much the same product for a generally lower price. And when it comes to firewall vendors like Palo Alto and SonicWall, they're also selling here. It's the same with VMware, too; they have much the same features.

So when you do a comparative showdown among these giants, you can see that Cisco and their customers could benefit from adjustments in terms of pricing. Fortinet, for one, is much cheaper than Cisco currently.

My overall advice is that if you already have your network security established, then Cisco SD-WAN is a good, solid solution for the rest of the networking components. However, if you require more of an all-in-one SD-WAN solution that incorporates security from the beginning, you might want to look elsewhere.

I would rate Cisco SD-WAN a seven out of ten. 

We have numerous use cases where it can optimize cost savings, particularly in terms of connectivity. By avoiding the need to backhaul traffic through expensive central locations, organizations can achieve significant cost reductions, avoiding unnecessary capital expenditures.

The most valuable features, application awareness, and failover resilience, stand out as key considerations for users.

As the majority of our applications now reside in the cloud, there's a growing need for solutions that revolve around cloud-centric policies. Currently, the convergence between on-premise and cloud policies lacks centralization. The platform that seamlessly facilitates the translation of on-premise policies into cloud-compatible equivalents would enhance efficiency, ensuring that policies are consistent and stable, regardless of the hosting environment, allowing for smoother service delivery. An area for improvement lies in enhancing the integration with the security functions of the SD-WAN.

I have been working with it for a year now.

The stability of the system is quite robust. Initially, there might be some minor challenges, particularly in the first couple of months, regarding certificate issues.

The scalability is highly efficient. When operating on-premises, scaling up involves a comprehensive analysis of the architecture and the provisioning of service resources. The scalability is directly linked to the provisioning of these resources. In terms of licensing, there is a notable benefit as Cisco now offers free licensing.

The technical support experience has been consistently positive. If there are any delays, they are minimal, and the overall efficiency is commendable. Notably, the support structure allows for direct engagement with the assigned support personnel without the need for multiple escalations. Opening a case typically connects me directly with the responsible assistant, avoiding the frustration of having the case passed through various levels. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Positive

Having worked with both Fortinet and Cisco, a notable distinction lies in the user experience. Cisco offers a more sophisticated and customizable experience, particularly evident in meetings. However, Fortinet excels in simplicity, making it a preferred choice for those who prioritize ease of use. In terms of customization, Cisco stands out, providing a more granular approach, while Fortinet is considered more straightforward and suitable for users who prefer a less intricate setup. The choice between them depends on the specific needs and preferences, with Fortinet being a good option for a straightforward approach and Cisco offering more advanced customization possibilities.

The initial setup involves a learning curve that can be steep, especially for local professionals who have direct access to private campuses like OneTrack. However, once you become familiar with the process and navigate through the online procedures, you'll find that it becomes more straightforward and kicks off smoothly.

As a new contractor, the deployment process is expected to take around six months, approximately half of which will be dedicated to virtualization and fine-tuning.

While the initial deployment costs are undoubtedly high, the significant monthly savings are notable, particularly in terms of operational efficiency and online-centric functions. The achievement is at least a thirty percent reduction in overall costs.

The initial cost is quite significant, but the investment is worthwhile.

Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

We use this solution for banks in the private sector. They use it to connect their headquarters to multiple branches with the SQL connection. They previously used different technologies, like MPLS, so we offered Cisco SD-WAN and did the project using this technology.

We are a system integrator and Cisco partner and usually sell products to customers. So we have different use cases, not only in Cisco SD-WAN but for other products. So the use case often differs from customer to customer.

The availability of services and combining different connections is most valuable.

Cisco should pay attention to the software as we recently found some bugs. There should also be better integration with other third-party software for the SD-WAN.

There are some features I'd like to see in the next release, and we have them for the Cisco account manager. First, we would like a single sign-on to be supported on the SD-WAN. Integration with third-party applications, like Active Directory, is not available and is also very important. They should also enhance traffic monitoring.

We have been using Cisco SD-WAN for about a year but are not using the latest version. It is deployed on-premises.

It is a stable solution, and I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the scalability a nine out of ten, and we have approximately 150 users from different departments. We may increase our usage depending on customer and business needs.

The technical support is very responsive and helpful, and I rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

We've used different technologies from different vendors. Some customers preferred the SD-WAN from Cisco, and some preferred other vendors.

I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten, and it is straightforward. The deployment time depends on the use case and the number of branches and connections. It could take two or even three weeks because you may have the migration from a new to an old system. First, we had to prepare for the deployment, vulnerability design and migration plan. We then had to migrate branches one by one and check the services. The deployment was also completed in-house, and one person can complete it.

Regarding price, it should be better than S3 to be more competitive than other vendors. I rate the price a seven out of ten, with ten as very high and one as low. The licensing is annual.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten and recommend it to others.

The load sharing in the fabric and the cloud connectivity are both pretty flexible. The solution offers us the correct field mechanisms.

The solution is stable and reliable.

It can scale according to our needs. 

While the environment itself is not a bottleneck, the dependencies and the provisioning and the different parties involved altogether form, complexity and introduce limitations.

The initial setup is really complex.

We've been using the solution for two years. 

The stability is really great. It's definitely reduced downtime. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

For us, the solution scales well. We are far away from its limits. That said, we are not, let's say, a very big company.

Technical support has been good. They are helpful and responsive. 

We did not previously use a different solution. We had a fairly traditional wide area network without any sophisticated connection options.

The initial setup is not straightforward or simple. It's very complex. 

I'm not sure how many staff members are needed for deployment and maintenance. 

We did outsource the initial setup.

I'm on the technical side. I have no idea what the price is and don't deal directly with licensing. I do know that this is an all-in deal, meaning there aren't extra fees associated with the cost. 

We're basically an end-user interacting with Cisco on this, however, the final responsibility is with our ISP.

SD is an enterprise tool and you should not use an ISP for implementation. Better to use an NSP or do it yourself. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

The product helps to aggregate network links. The tool increases security and makes it possible for you to have remote workers. 

The product needs to have more understanding staff in their support team. The tool needs to provide support in every stage of deployment. We did not get the expected support from their team. The product is also not easy to use. 

I have been using the product for two years. 

The product is stable. 

The product's initial setup is difficult and you need Cisco personal to assist you with it. 

The product's license is expensive. 

I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. If you have the money, then you should go for the product. The tool's performance is good. 

The integration to the LAN could be improved. It should be an end-to-end solution, not only on the WAN side but also on the LAN and wifi, so a full end-to-end solution.

The integration of Layer 3 and application routing is great.

The technical support is a bit slow. Regarding additional features, it would be good to have a fully integrated solution with the Meraki solution, leading to a seamless Cisco solution.

We have been using this solution for about six years. It is deployed on-premises, and we are using our own management.

The stability is good.

I think the scalability fits the customer requirements. The number of staff required for maintenance depends on the complexity of the network and the number of sites. A single part does not cover it, so we have about 20 staff running our network services.

I rate the technical support a seven out of ten. They are good but not very innovative, and the feature requests take too long to implement.

We use different solutions like Viptela, VeloCloud and Versa.

The initial setup was complex, and it was completed in-house.

I am unsure about licensing costs.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are network providers. SD-WAN is one of the main options we offer to our customers.

Clients primarily use the solution for three main reasons. The first is for cost savings when accessing the internet. The second is access to the cloud. The third is to allow customers a kind of autonomy with management over the network.

Cisco is an industry leader, so customers have a high level of trust with the brand more-so than with some newcomers that might have some more revolutionary solutions, but no name recognition.

The solution appeals to big companies that are keen on selecting a major vendor rather than an emerging one as there's an assumption of reliability.

Cisco's technical solution in itself is very reliable. From a purely technical point of view, this is one of the best options.

Overall, the solution is very advanced in network configuration and offers excellent automated routine features.

The client portal needs to be improved in order to make the solution much better.

The service care area of the solution needs improvement. That is to say, the ability to have a simplified management system is a key success factor. 

If you could have the ability to raise an SD-WAN capability just by activating a kind of license, it would great. We have too much hardware deployment needed right now. 

In the future, if the solution could make it so that there is nothing to deploy beyond a license and some firmware, it would be great.

I've been using the solution for six months.

The solution is stable. This is the reason why we ultimately chose it as a product. Cisco's experience regarding the complex configuration of networks is perhaps the more mature in the market. 

They have made some improvements to the solution, and I think these advancements make it one of the most stable in the industry. It's not great for large configurations, so it may not be as stable in those cases. However, Cisco remains the most stable on the market.

The solution is scalable, however, it may be less so than Cisco Viptela. SortNet also has a portal that is not completely mature, and quite complex. This is why we developed a customer portal, dedicated to our customers, although some portals are still Viptela or SortNet. This custom portal has the ability to simplify the considerations of SD-WAN features for all of our sign-in customers.

We have approximately nine or ten big customers that are still in the proof of concept phase. Of those, three or four are large scale projects. Those have hundreds or even thousands of users on the network.

I haven't been in touch with technical support. I personally have a strong relationship with pre-sales people, but not technical support itself.

I've worked with a variety of other solutions in the past. They have their own approaches to the industry.

Sophos, for example, approaches their solution from a security perspective. The main premise of the product is its ability to secure the network itself. Others have close relationships with VMware solutions that provide for an easy way to bind the applicable network with the network walls.

In the near future, most will need to provide for UCTE, which will become a must-have for any solution.

Fortinet does not have a UCTE itself, but it has a low segment and basic equipment that is really interesting because it is so cheap. Plus, it's not so difficult to add it in to complete another appliance. This is one thing that we sometimes use to expand security requirements while still being able to have specific SD-WAN equipment.

For Cisco or any other solution, SD-WAN's initial setup is complex. The vendor needs to explain and define the customers clearly. It's not as simple as it sounds. It's better for large clients to do a modest deployment rather than a large one as it's not so easy to deploy. This will be clear after running through a POC.

It's much better for a company to do the deployment with the help of a consultant or integrator, as they understand the solution quite extensively. I'd recommend if a company is seeking out an integrator, that they choose a portal DNA integrator.

Typically, we work to offer our customer autonomy, however, we do offer maintenance packages. Typically, we'll sell co-management packages to clients whereby they choose the priority of the application on the network and we will manage all of what is programmed on the customer's behalf.

The solution works very well for mid-size and enterprise-level organizations.

I would advise others considering implementing the solution to set aside time to strategize and create a proof of concept before diving right in. This will help a company reveal where the solution is relevant and where it is not.

Then, it's important to look at the cost and layout of all of the finances so that the board will have all of the information in front of them. It will help them decide if it makes sense to pursue implementation. The finances and P&Ls must be clear for them. 

Finally, it's important to find a good consultant to assist in the entire process. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Our use cases are mostly focused on the application side and any kind of cloud breakout, like local breakout clouds.

I'm focusing on using the application ware routing.

There's not much that should be improved, but the focus should be on the application side and more cloud applications should be added into the system. Most common sales applications should be supported.

Mostly, I think cutting edge solutions should be included in this product. I'm talking about buzzwords like the cloud, for example. The solution should be more focused on the cloud because, apart from the controllers, everything can be cloud-based and everyone is moving to the cloud. Cyber security should also be implemented in the solution, along with maybe implementation of AI/ML.

I have been using this solution for about ten years.

The stability of the solution is good as of now. 

The solution has great scalability. The people using it are mostly senior management, junior management, and junior engineers. Maintenance for this solution requires about four people: two senior employees and two regular employees.

I have been using Cisco since the beginning. I am familiar with it and it's easy to deploy, so I am sticking with it for now. I have no plans to switch to any other products, but we are looking at integrating this product with other solutions. 

The initial setup was easy and straightforward.

The deployment was done in-house and did not take more than two to three days.

The return on investment is good. I mean, not when compared to the other solutions on the market, but it is pretty flexible and scalable, so you cannot only consider the cost. The solution has flexibilities that benefit you. The return on investment, if you ask me, can be seen in the long-term. If the organizations who are deploying it are looking to grow for a certain period of time, maybe a longer vision of five to seven years down the road, the solution will be helpful to them.

The licensing cost is slightly on the higher side, but some of the customers are large, so they are willing to pay for it. On a scale of one to five, I would rate Cisco's pricing as a three. 

My advice is that there might be some other solutions on the market that are also pretty good, so they need to understand their market and customer requirements. Think about which solution will be easy to deploy and also how scalable it will be. The strategy should be to understand the solution and have an approach and proper plan and roadmap before implementing the solution. Also, compute the information of the devices before implementing the solution.

I would rate this solution as a nine out of ten.