Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

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 use the product to connect computers to the local area network.

The solution is durable. We have a lot of power fluctuations, yet the product works well. It is user-friendly.

The product must improve its security. It should be more intelligent. The optimization features must be faster. It must follow in tandem with technology.

I have been using the solution for around ten years.

The tool is very stable. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a seven out of ten. We plan to replace all our switches. We will choose Cisco.

Cisco has a lot of layers of support. We won’t have a problem with support. The support is very good.

I rate the ease of setup an eight out of ten. It is plug-and-play. The setup is straightforward.

The product is quite expensive.

The solution is good. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Cisco Catalyst Switches is our core switch.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are easy to use.

They are user-friendly.

It's a common product to use.

Cisco Catalyst Switches is the best product that we use.

We have a lot of security modules, but we don't have any problems with switches.

Cisco Switches are more stable in terms of hardware and firmware, rather than Juniper Switches.

We think it's popular. We prefer to use Cisco CLI commands rather than Juniper CLI commands.

Cisco Catalyst Switches could be more secure.

In terms of performance, Juniper switches have a more user-friendly interface and more features than Cisco switches.

The core Cisco Catalyst Switch is 4507.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are stable.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are scalable, and we use them for the entire team.

We don't need an upgrade right now because we're transitioning to another product that's already in place and ready in our infrastructure.

We have 500 users in our company.

We don't have any plans to increase our usage.

We don't have any issues with the technical support.

I believe we contacted support for the core switch once, and they helped us with the firmware, which we upgraded. It was, however, about five years ago.

Years ago, we didn't use any kind of support. But I believe it is working, and they are working threefold with no problems.

We use several products such as Cisco Switches, Access Points, Linksys, and Fortinet FortiGate.

We use an older version of Cisco Access Points, 4400, I believe.

Before Catalyst, we used Extreme Switches. We worked with Extreme Switches for five years.

The initial setup is straightforward. We have previous experience with Cisco switches. We can easily assist with any upgrades or support. It is very simple for us.

The price is fine. 

It is reasonably priced because we have already conducted a tender, allowing Cisco and other vendors to compete for the best price.

We did not renew the support.

It was a good price because, as I previously stated, we held a tender for purchasing and received the best offer.

I would recommend this solution to my colleagues.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a nine 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.

We use this solution for LAN and WAN networking.

We are system integrators, and we provide maintenance services for our clients.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the Virtual LAN.

This technology is completely mature and I don't think anything needs to be changed.

Scaling can be quite costly.

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst Switches for ten years.

We are using the latest version.

It's an extremely stable product.

It's a scalable solution, but at a high cost.

Our clients have large-sized companies.

We have contacted technical support. The support is excellent and they are efficient.

We are using other brands but the volume is very small compared to the Cisco Catalyst Switches.

Cisco has advantages in terms of stability, reliability, and scalability as well.

The initial setup was complex but has since been simplified.

To deploy with one node can take 10 to 15 minutes.

This solution requires long-term maintenance.

The price is in an affordable range and everything is included.

I would advise going with Cisco because they have an outstanding support team.

They can support up to the extent of installation. They have other services as well, such as RMN. 

Your network downtime is minimal, and your business will not suffer in case of any trouble in the network. I would definitely recommend going with Cisco only.

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

We are mainly deploying the tool for client requirements.

The product is convenient to deploy.

The stability must be improved.

I have been using the solution for 20 years.

Sometimes, when we do upgrades, the tool goes down. We purchased a new one, but it didn’t go well.

The tool is highly scalable. Our clients are mostly enterprises.

The initial setup is easy. We deploy the tool mostly in the cloud. Someone in our team will be physically connected to the console and give us access to the network. Then, we deploy it remotely. The deployment can be done in half an hour. We connect the key ports, get the network management configurations, and deploy the product.

We’re a service provider. If people find the price to be competitive, they choose Catalyst. Otherwise, they go with other vendors. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We work on level 2 and level 3 switches to connect many branches.

These switches are stable. They work well and are easy to use.

Cisco switches are expensive.

I have been selling this solution for about 10 years.

They are stable.

I have not contacted their support. Another engineer has contacted them. We have our own two people for support.

We also deal with the HP ProCurve switch, but it is not as good in Libya.

It is not complex now because we have CCNA and CCNP engineers. We have two engineers who are certified with Cisco. Overall, we have three people who work with this solution.

We implemented and finished a big project for a company. The company is still working with the same components that we installed. For deployment, I have two people with me, but in our company, we have a big team of 20 people.

They are expensive.

I would recommend these switches to others. Cisco is a good company.

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

Our network infrastructure uses Cisco devices, including Cisco Catalyst Switches. 

The primary use case is routing traffic between the various sites that we are connected to. We have leased lines connected all over the country for use cases in revenue, immigration, and other government services.

You can easily set up and configure VLANs.

It is easy to set up connections between devices.

Cisco has to lower the price of its products to make them more cost-effective.

The Cisco Catalyst is very stable and it can last for many years. Some of our switches ran up until end-of-life and we are still using them now. We know that it's end-of-life but they still do the job.

We use a lot of products from Cisco.

The Cisco technical support is fine and we are satisfied with it. However, at this time, we are getting our support from another company and there are some issues with our subscription. As such, we are not getting all of our services.

We use Ubiquiti devices for our wireless LAN, and in addition to Cisco, we have routers from MikroTik. Within the last month, we used some Ruckus devices. These were connected to our MikroTik and Cisco devices.

We also bought a Cisco Nexus, but it is not yet configured.

The deployment was done before I joined the company.

I am responsible for network maintenance. It includes updating the routers and adding new devices. I will deploy the Nexus switch that we bought recently.

The prices of Cisco devices are too high.

We currently have the Catalyst 2960 and it is going end-of-life, so I am considering a replacement. They suggested replacing it with the 9200 but I'm currently comparing Cisco and Meraki devices.

In the market, some people are moving away from Cisco and using MikroTik devices because the price of Cisco products is too high. MikroTik products are cheaper and the gap in prices is too big. This is something that Cisco needs to consider.

I am looking forward to learning more about the Nexus that we bought because we are using old technology. There are a lot of new features.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.