Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

It's easy to configure. The forum is good. We can also get help from the forum and Cisco support. Many people use it, so we can get help from anyone if you have any issues.

There is no GUI. Nowadays, many other switches provide GUI features and options that can be configured through the GUI. The Cisco Catalyst series doesn't offer that. It should be configured only through CLI mode. If another GUI option or feature allows configuration through the GUI, that would be beneficial.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for 15 years.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

It is scalable and provides good performance. It is suitable for enterprise customers.

Support is also good.

Positive

The initial setup is easy. It depends on the larger network. Due to the backbone infrastructure and other passive components we need to complete, such as cabling and structured cabling, it may take time. If the cabling and architecture are already in place, it will take only a few hours.

It provides efficiency followed by cost setting.

The solution is cheap.

Cisco Catalyst Switches handle the network traffic very swiftly during peak loads.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for live support systems.

The stability and performance are extremely good.

The solution could be cheaper.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for 20 years.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten.

The solution’s scalability is good. 200 licenses of support systems are used.

I rate the solution’s scalability a ten out of ten.

The initial setup is straightforward and takes half an hour to complete.

ROI is of 10-15 years. It's very good for long-term investment.

It provides stability to our life monitoring system. The ease of management and configuration is good.

It is attributing the switches and has accessible IT. There's always a web configuration. I manage the solution.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

We use a lot of security features available with Cisco Catalyst Switches. Cisco Catalyst Switches' output is not bad, and it has a lot of ports.

Cisco Catalyst Switches is an expensive solution and its price could be improved. The lifetime of the equipment is not enough because our customers face problems when they need to change the equipment. As applications and software demand more output, vendors focus on increasing the throughput of newer equipment. However, this often leads to the discontinuation of support and warranty for older equipment.

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst Switches for more than 15 years.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a seven out of ten for stability because sometimes we have problems with the software.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches an eight out of ten for scalability. Cisco Catalyst Switches support the clustering of several switches. Our clients are mostly small enterprises with nearly five thousand employees.

With each passing year, the knowledge of support engineers for Cisco Catalyst Switches is getting worse. Cisco TAC was in Europe and North America but moved to Mexico, China, India, and the Middle East last year. Although work is cheaper in these locations, they don't have knowledgeable customer support staff.

Neutral

We have previously worked with HP, Juniper, and Dell.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a nine out of ten for its initial setup. The solution has no IP address, and you need a special cable to connect to them. This special cable is not free, and without the cable, you cannot configure the solution. The deployment of Cisco Catalyst Switches takes around 60 minutes.

Cisco Catalyst Switches' deployment is very easy. You can use it from the box if you don't need any specific configuration. If we have any deployment-related questions, we open a ticket in Cisco TAC, and their engineers resolve our problems.

Cisco Catalyst Switches is an expensive solution. I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a four out of ten for pricing.

Cisco Catalyst Switches have a lot of features that we don't use, but we pay for them. Most Cisco equipment comes with a subscription, which is not free. However, our customers do not use this subscription. If you have enough money, better use Cisco because the technical support of other vendors is worse than Cisco.

Overall, I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a seven out of ten.

We deploy various Cisco solutions, such as Catalyst 3850 to 4500, 9000 Series, and Nexus lineup for data centers.

We've got various clients, ranging from financial services to hotels and higher education facilities. There are many use cases, such as data centers, disaster recovery.

Our clients are able to get analytics on how often people are in rooms or using a certain area of a building. By doing this, in the future, they can often opt for a slightly smaller space and use multi-purpose rooms instead. They have higher efficiency and lower overhead for rent and other things.

The PoE capability of Catalyst Switches is great for using WAPs and other PoE equipment, such as security cameras.

I would like to see better efficiency. They are powering all the PoE ports 100% of the time instead of powering only when there is a draw on them.

It has too many options. Therefore, there is a reasonably high barrier to entry in terms of learning about this stuff. A lot of times, you need to be a CCNA, which is like your ticket into the industry, but it is not the easiest thing to get.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for five years.

You expect reliability and security when you're using Cisco. If you're getting a switch from some manufacturer on the other side of the world, it may fail after 10,000 hours.

It is pretty good. Our clients are more on the large side. 

With 4500 Series, you can add extra blades pretty easily, which makes things easier. You can also just stack them on top of 3850s or something else, add ports, and connect with fiber or ethernet. You're good to go. It is pretty easy.

I have not used them.

I have always used Cisco.

Depending on the use case, it can be pretty complex, but it is all done by people who are trained on it. The fact that you need somebody trained to do it means that it is pretty complex.

Cisco switches are expensive. Their price range is based not only on what the product does but also the name in the industry. 

They are good at what they do. If you need a better product, there are other lineups available.

Make sure that you buy the right product and it does what you want. Don't get something that won't be what you think it will do.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a nine out of ten.

I design, implement, and troubleshoot networks that use Cisco switches. I am involved in every part of the design, including wireless.

The biggest advantage of having this solution is that it is easy to find engineers, and they are cheaper than hiring HP engineers. HP engineers are difficult to find and you have to train them, which brings up the price of an HP solution.

Cisco switches are really expensive compared to other solutions, which is something that should be improved. They are almost double in price.

As of late, Cisco has been moving from one technology to the next and they don't support each other. If you want new features then you have to buy a new product and forget about the old one. This is from a licensing perspective. For example, the Cisco DNA license versus then Cisco One license are things that I don't know about.

I would like to see better compatibility between Cisco and other vendors. There are a lot of features that are for Cisco devices only, and when you bring in a second or third vendor there are a lot of problems. Fixing this incompatibility would be an improvement. I have not tried a lot of other brands, but I have connected both Huawei and Aruba Wireless with Cisco. Connecting Huawei with Aruba Wireless works well with no hangs. However, connecting Cisco and Huawei is terrible. Sometimes you have to restart one, whereas other times you have to restart the other. I do not recommend mixing equipment between these two companies.

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst switches for close to 11 years.

If the switch is set up properly in the first place then you don't need to come back to do anything with it. This is especially true with the Catalyst 3750. It is the most stable thing in the world. I have found that some of the newer switches will hang or lose their configuration, but this never happened with the 3750.

For example, I have faced a lot of problems with the 3850, especially if there are Aruba access points. Sometimes, it will just reject the access point, although when I bring a new one, it will allow it. Sometimes the VLAN, itself, hangs. Then you can put in another VLAN and it will work. There are a lot of mysterious things that I could not find an explanation for.

I have not faced any problem with scalability.

In my opinion, the Catalyst switches are for enterprise-level organizations with 5,000 or more employees. If there are 1,000 or fewer employees then any switch will manage.

Some of the places I have worked in had networks with 20,000 to 70,000 users. 

I have not contacted technical support from Cisco. I have friends and colleagues who have received support but I just keep reading, then trial and error until I get it. I wouldn't want to pay for support if I don't use it. The only time I would require support is a hardware failure.

I have worked on two projects in the past where support licenses were purchased for a year. What I found was that I could purchase four additional switches and in total, they would cost less than the support. Those switches then go into storage and if one of the others fails then a replacement is available. Ultimately, it is much, much cheaper.

I have always used Cisco networking solutions, although we are opening a new branch and I think that this time, we will use HP. They do not want to pay one to two million dollars for IT infrastructure. With HP, if they have to pay half a million then they will approve it.

I have experience with a hybrid environment where it was a Cisco LAN and an HP Aruba wireless LAN, and I didn't like it. I was losing some great options. Based on that experience, I think that all of the hardware should be from a single vendor. Either Cisco all the way, or HP Aruba all the way.

It is very easy and very straightforward to set up and deploy. It takes maybe 15 to 30 minutes to get it working.

The price of Cisco equipment is very expensive and you have to pay extra for support.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to design the system well before deploying it. You have to consider all of the aspects and all of the options. Always beware. If there is a 1% chance of failure then consider it to be a 90% failure rate because when it fails, you will have options. Always have a plan A, B, C, and D. In my experience, sometimes all of the plans will fail, and sometimes the first one succeeds.

I can't give them a perfect market but they undeniably are of good quality.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Cisco Catalyst Switches helps us with VPN connection. 

The tool's administration is easy. 

Cisco Catalyst Switches' pricing can be cheaper. 

I have been using the product for a few years. 

Cisco Catalyst Switches is stable. 

The tool is scalable. My company has 20000 users. My company has plans to increase its usage. 

The tool's deployment is complicated due to the VPN. We have a certified administrator who makes the deployment easier. You need ten resources to help with the deployment process. 

You don't have to pay any additional costs while using the product. 

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a nine out of ten. 

We use this solution in our server room for end-user network conductivity.

One of the main features of this solution is it is easy to manage.

The security of the solution could be improved, it is really important to us.

I have been using this solution for two years.

The stability of the solution is good but could always improve.

The solution is scalable and we have approximately 1,000 computers using it.

The support is good.

I have previously used HP and other Cisco switches.

The installation could be easier.

We have five technicians for the deployment and maintenance.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a seven out of ten.

We are using Cisco Catalyst Switches for our office network. We have deployed the 9200 and 9400 series solutions.

Cisco Catalyst Switches have been stable, and we haven't had issues with them for the last five years. They also provide good security at the LAN level.

The most beneficial features for our network management are their stability and good customer support.

Cisco Catalyst Switches could be a little bit cheaper as they are very costly.

I have an experience of working with Cisco Catalyst Switches for about eighteen years.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are stable. I would rate their stability as eight to nine out of ten.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are scalable, and I would rate them eight to nine out of ten for scalability.

Cisco's support is good, one of the best supports that you will get. I would rate their technical support as nine out of ten.

Positive

We have always been with Cisco.

The initial setup is not difficult for me. The new ones that are coming up are actually easy to implement and deploy.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are quite pricey.

I would recommend Cisco Catalyst Switches because they can scale, and they are stable. I don't have to worry once I install them.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.