Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

We use Cisco Catalyst Switches as access switches, for connecting to what we call the last mile within the office. We connect from the patch panel to the wall jack. 

We use layer three switchings to interconnect between branch sites.

It is easy to use. I have only had one course on Cisco Switches.

The pricing needs improvement.

Price stops entries in Africa. We are not at that level where IT is considered a very big business enabler.

When I compare with the competition, MikroTik or NETGEAR I can purchase the switch and use it for whatever I want. I don't have to add the license, or the BGP routing license, and an ERGP writing license. Other switches are the providers that work out of the box without additional hidden fees.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches since 2005.

We have 1,500 end users.

I have only ever contacted Cisco support once in the time that I have been using it, but it was not related to the switches. Rather, I contacted them regarding Cisco ISE.

We started out with Cisco Linksys in 2006, now we are fully using Catalyst.

It was very easy to install. The last switch I implemented took me 15 minutes to install and set up a complete network.

We have 15 admins to manage this solution

We love Cisco, but the price is very prohibitive. We don't require any licensing, we scaled down to 2960.

I would not recommend using this solution in Africa.

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

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.

Our installation is totally on-premises. It is a backend solution supporting the entire campus. This is used as a three-tier network for our overall networking. We use it as a call switch at the backend, it is also used in the distribution, and it is used on the server farm switches. We use them for these three different kinds of purposes in the data center at the same time. All these servers can function on the network through these switches.  

The improvement the product provides to our organization is the backend throughput over all the sites. It can give us about 1.4 TB backend throughput overall. We have variable multi-gate support through the ports. So we can connect on the same switch with the 1G, 10G, 25G, 40G, and 100G. In that way, we get multi-port throughput on the same switch. Because of this capability, scalability is not a bottleneck for us now.  

We have used Cisco Catalyst Switches to achieve our goals with stability and blanket level of performance. The documentation and help capabilities provided for users are transparent and widely available. You can find and read about solutions to fix your own issues. Virtually anything you want to study about the product or if you want to verify something, information about it is available and doesn't require calls to support and potential wait times.  

The volume possible with the throughput is the feature that is most valuable to us. It helps to get things done. For example, we can program the logic and can get more details through the SDM (Service Desk Management) to deliver a better level of support to users.  

The solution is good but the support from Cisco makes it that much better. Even the task of logging into the system is really good. All those things together boost the end user's confidence in the product and performance.  

One thing I think should be improved is that billing should be customizable for end-user. If the customer wants a particular feature or upgrade or does not want the feature or upgrade, it should be their choice. If the user rejects the additional services those should be cut off from the pricing and not forced on the billing. Instead, they just include these things and the end-user has no choice. That is a concern for end-users who are trying to be cost-conscious and know what they need — and what they do not need — in their environment.  

We have been using the Cisco series since incorporating an older series about six to seven years ago. Right now, we are revamping our architecture with the new series that has the Cisco DNA (Digital Network Architecture). It is the latest solution in the Cisco Catalyst Series. We can use multi-gate ports and 100 GM port gate uplinks with the latest high-availability features along with DNA and deploy the latest technologies.  

The stability of the product is quite good. Cisco is a brand that developed a reputation by taking care of the reliability to perform at least as well as any product on the market. The support level also contributes to that stability. Because they give me all the details, all the documentation, all the product details, and they supply that in a good manner, we can get the things that we need to resolve any issues as soon as possible. They are well aware of the product they deliver and we easily benefit from their knowledge and willingness to help keep our systems running.  

My impression of the scalability is that it is there if you need or want it. But some scalability is also built-in. We are getting the multi-gate switches, and the multi-gate can be scaled. If you have a 10G right now, you can change to 25G later, then 40G even after that. You have opportunities to scale out in different always. In our case, we already knew what we planned to do so we had already thought that through. 

As far as handling a volume of users, all the traffic of our whole organization is going to be passing through these switches. These switches are deployed on the call side, the distribution, and the server farm. Because of the setup, the whole of my data center and any user accessing the system is passing through it. We are a large educational organization and we have between 30,000 to 40,000 users total. On a daily basis, there will be 20,000 users on the system.  

Technical support from the support team is good. Overall with the availability of documentation and resources, it is great. For me, on a scale of one to ten, it would be between seven to eight.  

We did not really use a different system. We were using a Cisco solution already and just upgraded to the newest version of the product so we could have its advantages.  

The setup is not very complex. You will spend more time planning the concept than in installation. We need to migrate the things and the migration is not a complex one. We had some new features to incorporate but this was not hard.  
 
If you include all the testing and the proof of concept, the deployment took around about a month. We just needed to get the things for new features tested and working. We did need some support from the OEM team, but it was not on site.  

For maintenance and management, we did not need anything additional as that was already done by our team. We have about two or three people only. One who sometimes shares some responsibilities, so it is two, only, full-time.  

Because we have a good team in the organization already who were already familiar with the previous equipment and we have good access to support materials use an integrator, we did not need a reseller or a consultant to help with the deployment.  

I am not exactly sure of the final cost of the upgrade as we are still just finalizing in terms. The teams have to finalize the pricing and their exact needs. They have not placed the entire order yet. We should have the whole thing completed in one or two months.  

One thing I am sure of is that the pricing is a little higher for the new product on average. 
It is also a little bit higher than its competition. That includes any competition with Cisco in this category of solutions, like Juniper, Dell, or anyone else. But the thing is if the customer wants the kind of reliability, support, and transparency that a solution provides, then they need to pay a premium for it.  

Advice that I would give others who are not using this Cisco solution is that maintenance is not a big deal for Cisco products. They deliver on customer support if it is even necessary at all. The Cisco team is always available to provide you the facts about the root cause of any problem or to answer any question. Because they have an excellent knowledge base, you can even research things and find solutions on your own.  

Whether you need this kind of dependability will have to do with your use case. If you are working on some kind of critical industry or environment, you can trust Cisco to be a reliable solution. But if you do not have very critical operations, you want to review other options. Cisco might be a solution you would pay more for and you do not really need it. If you do not need it, then you can go with another product like Juniper or Dell — or any vendor or solution that can supply the services and capabilities that you actually need. But knowing that depends on evaluating your situation and the reality of what you need to do.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is worst and ten is the best, I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches in terms of technology and all the capabilities as a whole as a seven right now. It is a seven to me just because there are problems that I see. The consideration of the rating is just not about the technical capabilities and documentation which are excellent. The problem is that they charge you for what they have supplied that you wanted as well as what they make it mandatory to buy. In the licensing, they include licensing for architecture, for new parts, for the software design, and for the future scheduled upgrades they have over the term of the contract. All these additional things are bundled in the licensing costs. The end-user can not exclude things from the license when you license the new switch. So even if there are items that you feel are not required for you as an end customer, they go on the billing.  

Cisco Catalyst Switches is used for large networks with 48 ports for example.

More than just a few switches on a small scale, they can be used on the main switch of a small or medium-sized business. It is determined by the size. It's heavy-duty, you only need to configure it once, and it'll keep running for several years. We have run it for ten years with no problems.

With Cisco Catalyst Switches, everything is working perfectly. We have not had issues with this solution. 

Everything I need is available.

For the time being, Cisco Catalyst Switches are working well, but they are not PoE switches, which is why we would consider replacing them.

If I were to change later, I would go with the PoE version.

We have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches in my company for more than 10 years.

Cisco Catalyst Switches is a stable solution.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are scalable.

With the exception of WiFi, we have 40 users connected. We have small switches in some offices, and some users are connected to these small switches via a single cable that leads to the Catalyst.

Currently, we have no plans to increase our usage.

Technical support is easygoing.

We have experience with Cisco and TP-Link.

It is easy to implement on the network, and easy to work with. It is not complicated.

There is little to no maintenance required.

There are no licensing fees required.

I was looking for the UniFi switch or access point because it was the first time I heard of it, so I was looking for feedback on it in comparison to TP-Link and Cisco.

It's one of the best switches, professional and fast. I would recommend these switches to others who are considering using them.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches an eight out of ten.

We are using all the three hierarchal models of Cisco Catalyst: 2960, 4500, and 6800. It is perfect for an enterprise setup where you have multiple buildings and you want to aggregate in a single building. 

I think one switch should go beyond the 10 gig connectivity to 40 gigs.

I've been working with Cisco Catalyst switches for more than 10 years.

Cisco Catalyst switches are resilient.

We can have multiple Cisco switches, like seven or eight, on a stack for 300 users. So it is highly scalable and easy to manage. There are 15,000 users on our campus total.

Installing Catalyst Switches is straightforward, just like with any other Cisco device. For the Alto switch, it hardly takes 20 or 30 minutes. I believe we used a configurator. All in, it takes seven to eight people to deploy because we have a large number of switches. And on the operations team, we have seven to eight people managing them.

I rate Cisco Catalyst switches nine out of 10. I would definitely recommend them to others.

It is an infrastructure tool, so it is just providing a backend service. Its most useful feature is that it operates on a regular basis. It is reliable. 

Cisco is weird about their pricing models, so that's one problem. Their operating system is also a little outdated.

I have been working with this solution on and off for about ten years. We are using the Cisco Catalyst 9000 series.

It is generally a very stable solution.

It is weird in terms of scalability. By the time you get to the point of scaling up any equipment, which it is capable of doing relatively easily, it is usually out of date. You end up having to rip and replace everything anyway. So, technically, it is scalable, but in practicality, it is not.

We're sticking with this one for a while. I am not aware of any plans to increase its usage.

Their tech support has always been very helpful to me. I have no issues there.

If you are trained, it is very straightforward. You have to be skilled in order to get it going. They do provide support for those who don't have these skills.

In terms of maintenance, one person could support a thousand people, but that would be a very busy job. It is better with a team.

The best advice would be to get your training done so that you get a good overview of all the solutions.

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

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.

We use it mainly for access, as an access switch to other PCs.

The greatest benefit for our organization is that our Cisco Catalysts are quite reliable. We can depend on them.

The most valuable features of this solution are that they are quite robust, they hardly ever fail.

In terms of additional features or improvements, I would like to see more fiber ports, more security features, and perhaps the integration of wireless features into the switch.

It is very scalable, because of the stacking features.

Cisco supports this solution quite well. I like the support from Cisco.

I have always used Cisco. I think it is the most reliable solution on the market.

When selecting a vendor, for me the most important criteria are 

• the competency of their engineering staff
• their product knowledge.

As I said, I mostly deployed it as an access switch, and at that level, it is not complex. If you are talking about using it as a core switch, that would be much more complex. But we are only using it as an access switch.

Do a comparison with other brands and look at their features. The main Cisco Catalyst features are that it is scalable and reliable. These are two things you should look into when doing your comparison.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst at eight out of 10. It's reliable, the features are quite full-fledged, and it's scalable.