Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

We primarily use the solution as access switches they get connected to the end-users and access points and IB fronts. 

The solution is fairly simple to use.

We're able to use L2 switches with this product. We are using normal VLANS plus spanning trees.

The installation is very straightforward.

The overall functionality is very good.

The solution is already at the cutting edge in terms of innovation.

There aren't any features that are missing. It's quite a good solution.

There are two different families, the older family is not programmable. The newer family is programmable and everything is there, so for now, most of the improvement is in the capacity and the speed and other items.

They could use more layer trees or VXLAN. Any modern setup which uses the SD axis and other features would benefit from this. It would definitely be more stable as we could remove all spanning trees. It's already technically there in Catalyst 9K.

Any improvements that they make should be in the wireless area of the product.

We could see more 100 GB interfaces and higher speeds in the future.

The access levels could be improved.

I've been using the solution for six or seven years now. It's been a while.

The solution is good in terms of stability. Everything you need is right there. It's reliable.

The solution is very scalable. If a company needs to expand the product, they will be able to do so.

Our whole organization is currently using the solution. If I calculated all employees, it would be over 70,000 users. All of them definitely go through access switches, unless they are on remote access, in which case they don't access the switch.

We do plan to continue to use the solution going forward.

As a Cisco vendor and a company that deploys the solution to our customers, we tend to handle the technical support ourselves. We assist our clients if anything happens with the solution.

I cannot recall using any other switches. We've always used Cisco.

The solution is not complex in terms of setup. It's rather simple and pretty straightforward.

I cannot recall how long the deployment took. It actually doesn't take that much time. It takes a couple of days for the setup and to connect everything.

The number of people you need for deployment depends on the size. For simple use cases, if you just want to plug in a new switch, you do not need many people. However, in our case, we had a campus and that takes a bit more staff.  

I handled the implementation myself.

I'm not sure of the exact version of the solution we are using. It might be version 15.

I'm technically a Cisco vendor.

I would recommend this solution to others.

On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate this solution at a nine.

My primary use case is providing Catalyst switches for the edge and campus networking. You may have lots of IoT switches, like surveillance access points and you need to implement IPE switches that deliver the power and networking through the endpoint sensors. Most of these are considered access switches. We then implement the distribution layer that links all of the access switches and network traffic, then move to the course switches that handle all the packets and connect all the buildings to each other. After, the core is connected to the firewall, from Cisco as well, to get out of building to the internet. So the core portfolio comes from access to the core. I end with the firewall and the routers to the internet.

Cisco's support is called SMARTnet, but we provide support to customers in case of any troubleshooting or if it's on-premises. We act as a mid-layer between the customer and Cisco. Most customers deploy it on-premises, but some prefer to build their own private cloud. 

The most valuable feature is that Cisco comes with built-in software access for network devices. You may use SDN for SD-Access, so you don't need to configure each switch with its own configuration, but can deploy the configuration from a single point of management. You can also monitor the traffic and access for the users. Especially if they are using their own laptops, you can make a VLAN for each switch. Cisco is a very stable portfolio format considering the network features and the heavy duties of traffic.

The prices could be improved. Cisco is dedicated to providing their customers with the latest technology, but it comes with a price. It's very expensive and when compared to competitors' products, like HP or Aruba, this is the most expensive one. 

I can't think of any additional features I would like to see in the next version. The features included are sufficient. 

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

Cisco is famous for its stability and operating system. It's a very stable platform for heavy-duty network traffic. 

Catalyst is easy to scale, especially because of stacking. The stack member can reach out to each member per the tech stack group as well as for Catalyst. As long as you have a sufficient number of ports in the core and distribution, you can scale and connect as much as you need in the access layers. If you exceed the number of ports existing in the distribution, you can add another distribution layer and connect them together to extend the number of endpoints. 

I have been satisfied with technical support. Especially when it comes to hardware attachments, their response is very fast, and almost by the next business day, we're able to go and replace it on-premises for a customer. 

The process was simple and straightforward. Most of us started our first year by taking Cisco courses, so we are talented at implementing and configuring Cisco switches. It depends on the project, but if you are looking at full premises with maybe 20 switches, the setup should take around three or four days. 

We implemented through an in-house team. We are partnered with Cisco and have our own professional service team certification in data center, networking, security, and collaboration systems. 

This is expensive, even when compared to competitors' products. 

The Catalyst doesn't come with licensing, but it comes with models. It comes with nine key series, each with its own purpose: some are for access, some for distribution, and some for the core, so it's not a matter of licensing. The only licensing that you are using with Catalyst is either the Essential or Advantage licensing, which represents Layer 2 or Layer 3 switches. If you are going to use Layer 3 for routing, use the Advantage license. Otherwise, use the Essential license, which is meant for the access switches. 

Dell EMC has a magnificent working portfolio, but customers still may not trust its durability and reliability. Most customers will choose Cisco rather than Dell EMC, even though Dell EMC has a reliable reputation and is very cost-effective. Yet, from my side as a partner and someone who works a lot with technology, I would recommend Dell EMC for customers with a smaller budget that needs a flexible and a cost-effective solution, rather than picking a small solution from Cisco. I would commit to buying a large solution from Dell EMC, then going with a reliable solution provider. 

I would recommend Cisco Catalyst for its abilities, durability, and the support. Cisco is very familiar—all engineers know Cisco very well—and we can handle the troubleshooting and configuration. 

The Advantage license is suitable for large companies. All of the oil and gas sectors use the Advantage license for their switches. Even they are not going to use all the layers or access switches, but they invest a lot and have a huge budget for networking. For a small or medium company, you could use and split the Essential license and the Advantage one based on building needs in order to optimize the cost and make sure your solution is cost-effective.

I would rate Cisco a nine out of ten. Not a ten because of the high price. 

We use the solution for its switches. It's very similar to Dell or HPE - only much stronger. 

The product is very strong. It's much stronger than other options on the market, for example, Dell and HPE.

The software is excellent. 

Overall, the solution works very well and we don't have any real complaints in terms of its capabilities.

The product has been very stable and extremely reliable over the years.

You can scale the product quite well.

Technical support is always very helpful and fast to respond. 

The stability has been great over the years.

The product should work on its pricepoints. It's an expensive solution. It's the main complaint I hear from people.

At this point, I've been working with the solution for seven or eight years. It's been quite a while.

The solution is quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable. We've been happy with its performance and its stability.

The product can scale very well. When it comes to doing something like stacking - for example, stacking switches, of course, it is very simple to accomplish. It's very easy to stack two or more switches in order to expand the solution out. A company shouldn't have any issues with doing so. 

We have a client that has 800 users and up on the solution.

We do plan to continue to use the solution into the future.

Technial support responds quickly. They're very good at being timely. They also have a very good forum where you can ask your questions if you want to. 

Overall, it's very easy to get in touch with them and to find the answers you need to resolve issues. We're quite satisfied with eh level of support they provide to us. 

Veeam Backup and Replication High-Rated Course

https://bit.ly/2Ut3rVS

The initial setup is not too complex. It's pretty straightforward. For setting up the access layer, it takes about half an hour, which isn't that long. However, for the correlator - and that includes designing and drawing the map of the network and tasks such as that, it takes a few days.

We're actually consulting and doing a project for a state company in Tehran, for more than 800 switches. We can assist clients in the implementation process if they would like s to.

Veeam Backup and Replication High-Rated Course

https://bit.ly/2Ut3rVS

The solution is quite expensive. There are less expensive options on the market. The pricing can be a pain point for some companies.

I work often with the 3,000 and 4,000 series versions. It's not necessarily the latest version all the time.

I'd recommend this solution to other organizations.

Overall, we've been quite satisfied with their level of service. I would rate them ten out of ten. They've worked perfectly over the years.

We generally work with small, medium and sometimes government organizations. We do layer 3 switches, as well as 9200 as layer 2 switches. I'm an integrator and we are customers of Cisco. 

We don't use any specific protocols. For us, the hardware and the security are the product's valuable features and performance of this solution is good. 

The cost of this product is very high and not all companies can afford it. Government entities can but corporations these days are hesitant to get Cisco. They're looking for other options that can cut their costs by 30% or 40% from the cost of Cisco Catalyst Switches. I think the command line in the platform could be improved because it's divided and can complicate things, maybe they can go direct to GUI. Using all the commands is a bit difficult. 

Cisco is stable. There are no issues with outages or integration. Once it's up and running, configuration is okay, and once it's on the live network, it's fine, no issues. 

Scalability is not an issue. Cisco is their own market and it works.  

If I have Smart Net, I get good technical support. Whenever I have an issue I contact them. They're very good. 

Initial setup can be a bit complex depending on the organization. Deployment time depends on the configuration. I did an installation with around 44 switches of Cisco 3850, which took me around one week to do the installation, configuration, and handover. It depends on the number of switches and configuration required. 

When we propose Cisco to a company, the only issue they are concerned with is price and the yearly subscription. You have to buy Smart Net to get a warranty and that is also expensive. 

Cisco is similar to other solutions such as D-Link. They have the same features. 

I rate this product an eight out of 10. 

Cisco offers DNS features over other vendors.

The product could be simpler and cheaper.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for over 5-10 years. We are using the 9000 series of the solution.

The product is stable.

Switches are scalable in terms of logical configurations at VLAN. It is scalable because it depends on whether it is a manageable or non-manageable suite.

The product is expensive. They charge for support. It comes with many options that are not understandable.

Aruba and Dell are offering switches, too.

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

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.

I use Catalyst Switches in the lines of our local networks. We also use ASR routers from Cisco in one. We have other branches and about 20 or 30 buildings. It's a very large network.

The most valuable features of Cisco Catalyst are the DHCP features that I use in our routers and the PfR connections. Someone said a long time ago that he who buys Cisco is never fired. They have good solutions. 

At present, we are adopting many cloud solutions. We are connected to several cloud platforms and do a lot of business in the cloud. So I think that in general, we don't need many features at the moment unless we want to create some applications on the cloud. But that's not the case right now. We are thinking of moving all the people from these 20 buildings to one building. So with all of them in the same building, we'll need to design a new architecture. We have the ACI in our data centers, so we must see how all of this works. We don't know if we'll go to SD-LAN too. So I don't know if we'll use Catalyst or another solution—a solution with ACI, SD-WAN, or SD-LAN. At this moment, I can't say because we are starting to think about this new design.

I've been using Catalyst Switches for about 25 years.

Catalyst Switches perform very well, and the network is stable. 

Catalyst Switches are scalable.

If we have a major problem, fixing it takes two or three days and six to eight engineers from Cisco. When they escalate a ticket, it goes through too many levels. Every time the issue is passed along to a new person at Cisco support, they ask the same questions repeatedly. However, if we have a problem that requires a quick fix, Cisco support can handle it in one or two hours. But if we need two or three guys from them, it gets complicated. I don't know if the problem is, but it seems like they spend too much time analyzing the problem and passing it along to other people. Other vendors like Palo Alto and Aruba resolve problems more quickly.

Having worked with Cisco for at least 25 years, I think it's easy, but I don't know if someone with less experience would say the same. It's easy because it's very fast. We have some labs where we implement things, and then it's mostly copy-paste — copy the configuration and paste into a new suite. So it's not difficult. Catalyst Switches don't require much maintenance. Sometimes we have problems in our network, but mostly they're not actually problems with the network itself. The business thinks that the problems are in the network, so we must call Cisco to help us prove that we don't have a problem. We can prove that, but if the data service is from Cisco, it's better. All of them. We have about seven or eight people in my company working directly with the Catalyst Switches.

Catalyst Switches are costly. When I started working with them 25 years ago, prices were a problem too. In my opinion, they are good, of course, and they are the answer to all of our questions. I can say that.

I rate Catalyst Switches nine out of 10. I would recommend them to others. I don't know when they will design a new edition of the bigger switches. Because if you have a branch, for instance, you a small Catalyst. You don't need a large Catalyst. But whether it's a small or big installation, I recommend Catalyst.