Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

I am using Cisco Catalyst Switches for my network.

The most valuable features of Cisco Catalyst Switches are that they are very common. If you talk to someone most likely they will have a Cisco Catalyst Switch, they will not mention other names, such as Juniper, ProCurve, Dell, or anything else. The most common product in networking in my country is Cisco. Everywhere you go they talk about Cisco.

The overall performance of Cisco Catalyst Switches is very good.

The management of Cisco Catalyst Switches could be improved. 

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for approximately seven years.

Cisco Catalyst Switches is a stable solution.

This solution is scalable.

Cisco has superior technical support, but it has to be paid for.

I have used other solutions in the past similar to Cisco Catalyst Switches, such as Dell Switches.

Cisco Catalyst uses the standard CLI and you get used to it if you take some courses, such as CCNA, CCNP, and CCIE. They are all the same, but for Dell, they have their own commands. They differ a bit from Cisco.

You have to have someone with extensive knowledge to do the implementation of the Cisco Catalyst Switches. You have to read a lot of manuals and the manuals, are segregated. It's not only one small manual that you need to read and you have all the information you need. 

You need someone with experience to implement this solution.

If you compare Cisco to other products, Cisco is more expensive. If you choose a 7000 series switch it will be a very pricy system. The support from Cisco is an additional service.

Cisco Catalyst Switches uses jargon that is very much different from other vendors. If use a ProCurve solution or others, it seems every vendor has its own dialect of the command. There is no common ground, there are some similarities between each other, but in real management, they differ from each other.

Those wanting to implement Cisco Catalyst Switches should read a lot about them.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a ten out of ten.

We use Cisco switches as part of our network infrastructure. We have a LAN and we will be implementing an SD-WAN in the future.

The most valuable feature of Cisco equipment is reliability.

As we are a Cisco-based company, the interchangeability with other switches is something that is valuable for us.

These switches should have better compatibility with software-defined technology.

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst Switches for approximately 25 years. Our current Cisco equipment is about five years old.

This is a stable product, which is why we use it. The majority of our equipment is more than five years old.

Cisco switches are very scalable.

We have two organic employees and we outsource between six and ten.

The technical support that we get is great. We have another partner for support, rather than contact Cisco directly.

I have been working with similar products from Dell EMC for approximately 15 years. Our most recent Dell product is about five years old. There have been improvements made with some of the newer products that have been released since then.

The initial setup was easy. We do have experience with Cisco products and also, our setup is not very difficult or complex. It's just a simple setup.

I cannot say that the pricing is reasonable because it's a little above our expectations. If we consider the recent price increases, it is not acceptable anymore. They are trying to price us out of our budget.

We want to adopt SD-WAN technology at the switch level. We will be expanding the software-defined capabilities of Cisco equipment to the LAN side of our network. We expect that Cisco will be the primary vendor for the equipment we use to initiate that move. This is not just for the wide-area network, but also the local area network.

In summary, Cisco is a good vendor but they're quite pricey at the moment.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use it to provide a hierarchy in the data center, enterprise solutions, and high availability solutions.

The performance of this equipment is much better than other options. The warranty on offer is perfect for me as they attend to issues in a maximum of four hours or within the next business day.

The solution is easy to implement and quick to deploy.

The solution is very stable.

I found the scalability to always be good. 

The technical support, in some cases, should be faster and could improve.

I've been using the solution for ten years. It's been a decade. I've dealt with Cisco for a while. 

The product is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability potential is very high. I can put many types of equipment on it and the solution will keep in the same level performance. It doesn't dip. 

Currently, we have 1,000 people on the solution. 

I do plan to implement the solution in future projects, as, so far, it has been issue-free and works very well. 

Technical support could be a bit more responsive. 

in terms of the initial setup, and how easy or hard it is, it depends on the technical knowledge base and on the person that will be implementing the solution.

I was working with data center providers, and, for us, with our level of knowledge, every time it was very easy to implement this equipment.

The deployment is pretty fast. After a couple of hours, you should have it up and running. We had a big team as well, which helped ensure it didn't take us long.

We have about 15 people at three technical levels that can handle maintenance tasks. 

I implemented the solution myself. I did not need an integrator or consultant to assist. 

Likely, after three or so years, you may see an ROI. 

The licensing costs vary. If you buy a lot, the costs are lower, however, if you only need a few, the costs are very, very high. 

You can also pay for additional support that guarantees four-hour or next-day resolutions. 

I am a solutions provider. We're consultants and we help other companies implement this solution. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. 

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations. 

We use this solution as a network switch in banking and financial environments.

The most valuable features are performance, speed, and durability.

In an upcoming release, adding SD-WAN capabilities would be a big advantage for our company.

I have been using this solution for approximately 10 years.

We have found the stability very good in this solution.

The scalability is good.

We have licenses to have 24/7 technical support from Cisco directly. We have been satisfied with the support we have been receiving.

The price of this solution is reasonable.

In the future, we are going to implement the 2960-X next-generation version instead of this legacy solution we are using now which will have some added benefits.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches an eight out of ten.

We use this solution for a full range of layer two and only limited set of layer three services.

We are a backbone company and we provide a public service. The traffic of millions of users traverse Cisco switches, but they are not within our company. It's a public service.

We plan to increase our usage of this solution.

The operating system is great.

They need to implement sFlow, other than that, I can't think of anything else that needs to be improved — I am happy.

We have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for roughly 10 years. 

Cisco Catalyst Switches are very stable. We've been using them for 10 years without any issues. 

We use an old model, they're not designed to be scalable. But in general, the Catalyst networking suite is scalable.

For our application which is rather simple, we are using only 5% of the features that Cisco Catalyst switches offer. We haven't encountered any problems and therefore, we have not had to call technical support.

We used to use other products, but our CTO loves Cisco. 

The initial setup is straightforward and very fast. In total, the whole installation process took two days.

We deployed this solution by ourselves. 

3-years

The price could always be lower.

Arista, Fiber Store, Dell, Extreme Networks

I would absolutely recommend this solution to others. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Catalyst Switches a rating of ten.

We use it to connect our end users. It is used for DMZ connections behind the firewalls and campus network.

All features are very strong. It is very easy to manage. It is also certified and popular.

Cisco has come up with a new management console to manage the switches. I still haven't tried it, but in my opinion, this is the best way forward. You can use software to manage the switches instead of the common line configuration. You can manage it through software, which is very easy.

It can have more security features to secure the access layer.

I have been using Catalyst 9300 Series for the last two years. It is a new model. I have been using previous models, such as Catalyst 3750, 3560, and 2960, for maybe more than 15 years.

It is very stable. You just install it and forget about it for years. I had a switch that was running for more than 11 years without a singular restart. That switch had a running time of more than 11 years.

It is scalable. We have 400 users.

Technical support is great. I was talking to one of my colleagues just two hours back about Cisco technical support. They are brilliant and excellent. If we have any hardware failure, we get it fixed the second day. We get multiple engineers working on the case if it is a critical issue. They are really supportive.

I have been using only Cisco solutions from the beginning. It has been more than 20 years now.

We plan to keep using this solution. We are going to refresh it with the latest model. We are in the process of acquiring the new model and replacing all obsolete switches with the new Catalyst 9K series. The order will be placed maybe next week.

Its setup was easy. It took an hour to configure each switch.

I deployed it myself. We have three network engineers to manage the entire network. 

I would definitely recommend this product to other users. I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a ten out of ten.

We don't personally use the switches; we provide services to our clients, including implementing the switches for them.

Catalyst switches solutions are great. For various customers we have deployed for, business operations run smoothly and without any complain. Troubleshooting and insights are clearer. 

Our customers love working with us. 

Catalyst switches support a variety of features from both layer 2 and layer 3. The fetaures supported depend on the model your dealing with. Though there are various common features such VLAN, MLAG, SDM, STP, Resiliency, PoE, Wireless settings, etc....which Stacking feature happens to be the most common deployment. 

Recently I laid hands on Meraki Switches and what I can say to love is its seamless network services to build high-performance networks. 

The user interface needs improvement. It might make them a bit more user friendly.

The one thing that I came across with the Catalyst 2950-X switch was that I wanted to alter the dashboard, so I connected it to the management interface. I gave it an IP address and I used the browser. However, as soon as I accessed it, I realized that the system of the computer from which I was accessing it didn't support that version. I was using Linux and the OS didn't support the switch. I had to get a Windows computer to access the switch. The dashboard was difficult to manage. It would have been nice if they made it obvious that it didn't work on Linux.

I've been dealing with the solution for more than two years now. 

I wouldn't say that the switches are stable. It depends on the situation more than any fault in the technology, however.

If a customer approaches my company, we provide the best option for the client. Sometimes that's Catalyst. We do work to evaluate the client and their needs quite extensively before making recommendations. Most of the time, clients look only at the cost and not at the bigger picture. Many don't want to spend too much money. Sometimes, however, a better solution may cost more.

While a well-implemented product is typically stable, if a client says that they don't want to spend anything higher than X, you have to work within those parameters and explain what X will get them, which may ultimately be instability.

Very scalable. 

We have dealt with Cisco's technical support in the past. They were especially helpful and very polite. They are always there if we need them and their insights are always excellent. I would say that we have been satisfied with the level of support we've gotten so far.

Of course, we use and still use Meraki solutions. We didn't switch. Like I said, it is based on what customers need. 

The Catalyst switches take more time to implement than Meraki. How long it takes varies for each organization. It depends on the size and requirements. We have spent up to a few weeks on previous contracts setting up switches for companies.

Catalyst licensing varies from a thousand of dollars to 20+ thousands dollars , however, that might depend on the model or version you choose. There are some switches where the licenses are features-based and you need to get a specific license for specific items if you want to use them.

We've looked at Meraki, among other solutions.

While we have used Meraki, it's hard to compare them to Catalyst switches. Meraki is quite good and agile. They've simplified a lot of their processes and have some features that make actions easy to do on Meraki. However, Catalyst offers much of the same features, and are possibly more feature-rich.

Meraki is very much more focused on business needs. While it may be good for their own business model, it doesn't encapsulate everything. Catalyst does a better job in that regard. It has many more features on offer. You aren't limited, although you will want to focus on a particular kind of feature list for your deployment or your integration into your environment.

Cisco happened to own Meraki solutions now. 

Last year, we were Cisco partners, but something happened and Cisco made some changes to its partnership requirements. Right now, we are working on re-establishing the partnership with Cisco. We'd like to be partners again.

We are planning to be a distributor. For the moment, however, now that we are waiting on the partnership, we're more of an integrator. 

We have deployed on-premises mostly and also a hybrid version sometimes. It depends on what the customer wants and what fits best for their needs. It also depends on the model that you are talking about. On the Catalyst switches, as far as I know, the models vary from types of deployments and features. Some features are only available on applicable switches.

In terms of advice I would give to other companies, I'd say that I like both Meraki and Cisco. I don't really prefer one over the other. It depends on the situation which one makes the most sense. Both are very large solutions but I could recommend either.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I really do love Catalyst switches. 

Our primary use case of this solution is for routing, switching, and for interconnecting sites.

It has become easier for us to troubleshoot and find issues faster in the management software for the switches. It saves us troubleshooting time because if the network is down it has a big impact on production.

The stability is the most valuable feature. We have some outages but it's 95% stable. 

The newer models are not so stable. Other products like 6800, 3750, were stable but starting from 3850 it got worse. We have a lot of issues and a lot of bugs. It's a new product so it's understandable but it should be improved. 

Scalability is easy. It's easy to increase the size of our network, we use templates. 

We haven't had to use their technical support. 

We wanted a reliable solution so we chose Cisco. We began working with them ten years ago. We have everything on Cisco and it's not worth it to switch everything to another brand. 

The initial setup is a bit complex but we have templates so we just have to deploy our template configuration. The VLAN configuration was complex. We have STP and different protocols which are not on the V-port so we had to enable it.

We implemented it ourselves. 

Ten years ago we used Avaya and HPE. 

I would rate it a seven out of ten. Not a ten because we are highly satisfied with all of their products but with the newer products, some parts have problems that take a while to fix.

I would say to go for Cisco. It is a stable and quality solution.