Cisco Ethernet Switches Reviews

Generally, we use the product just to switch traffic.

They just work. Their reliability has been great for our organization.

We just need them to run. There's not any feature that we sought out and we bought them. We bought them due to the fact that we needed switching capabilities and Cisco is pretty reliable.

The solution can scale.

Technical support is helpful and responsive.

They can make the licensing model a little easier. I know they've made some recent changes, it's a little confusing. It's more complicated than it once was.

I've been using Cisco switches for 20 years. It's been a very long time.

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

They're doing the job fine. We have upgraded them when we needed to. We can scale as necessary.

I can't speak to how many users are currently on our switches.

Tech support has always been good. They are helpful and responsive. I'm quite satisfied with their level of service.

We also use Aruba switches and Dell PowerConnect.

The implementation process has a moderate level of difficulty. It's not straightforward or complex; it's somewhere in the middle. Sometimes they change the iOS around, and that lends itself to a bit of complexity. You have to work on updating items.

There were a couple of versions early on where we buy a different model switch and the operating system was different, with different commands and stuff.

We didn't really have a specific implementation strategy.

Initially, some of the switches took about an hour to implement.

I take care of the maintenance aspects of the product. You don't need a lot of people to do it.

Occasionally, we've gotten outside help when we've needed it, however, most of the time I take care of that myself.

When we have gotten outside help, the experience has always been positive.

I haven't specifically witnessed any ROI while using this solution.

The licensing model is difficult to understand.

We get the SMARTnet and one of the switches has that Cisco ONE licensing. It's probably running about $12,000 a year right now. There aren't any add-on costs on top of that that I am aware of.

We're just customers and end-users.

We've had several versions over the years, mostly Catalyst switches.

It's just a really solid product. I'd give the product a rating of eight out of ten as they are really good switches.

On-premises

Cisco is our backbone. This includes switches, main office, links - all Cisco. For the one between branches, we have Riverbed to speed it up. For internet analytics, we have Palo Alto, Fortinet Security. For application delivery, Citrix. Database, Microsoft SQL, and Oracle. We also have business tools and developer bots with Oracle. That is a lot of products!

We keep Cisco for normal switches for corrective flows and the data center. But they are not so good with the firewall so we use Palo Alto and FortiGate. 

In terms of the most valuable feature, I would say the user interface. We also have Citrix XenApp for the remote service. And Exchange and other Microsoft solutions.

We have other software for software control, for users and help desk. For security, we have RSA Netwitness and Netwitness Security Analytics,

We are only using Cisco for switches and for the IP telephony call center. 

It needs to be manageable, easy, and fast with Windows and other GUIs. They must improve their interface and stability.

We have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches since 1997.

Yes, it is stable. That's why we've stuck with it. It's very stable.

The IT department is more than 55 people. But the server team has three teams of four people. The security team, four people. Database team, five people. We have one supervisor, the head of the team, and two or three under him for his team. I am the head of the security team and the infrastructure team, for servers, switches, and security. So I can tell you that it takes five to seven people to handle Cisco and the security.

In terms of scalability, it is scalable. With Cisco we have built-in stacks and stackable switches. And it has a stackable fiber from the main office to the Catalyst and the Nexus switch.

The problem with customer support is that they give you beginners. We need the experts after the first, second, or third call. Only after a week do you get the expert after you explain and complain about it.

We are the Qatar government authority. So with Cisco, we are dealing with all types of gateways. Cisco is in Kuwait. Many times when we are building something with Cisco we design the infrastructure, everything. Then we go to the Cisco dealers. Because this is our strategy, we work with Cisco directly. With the firewall, I work with Palo Alto or FortiGate or any other brand. Who will give good support, good installation? The solution for installation will be provided and approved by the center itself. That is our strategy. We are happy with this. Before we develop a solution, we sit down directly with the vendor.

Our IP telephony is all Cisco. I would consider another data component.

Cisco is very good and stable. But the problem is that it is costly. It's a very good service but it would be costly for small companies. They should go for lower-end, cheaper switches. Because we are the government, we are stuck with Cisco. But the small and medium-sized businesses must go lower, such as with Huawei or another brand.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco Ethernet Switches a nine.

The main problem is the support in the Middle East. This is a problem for all products, not just Cisco. When you contact support, they don't give you the expert at first, they give you the beginner. Only after going around in a circle do they give you experts. Why don't they just give the expert from the beginning?

We use Cisco as a business switch on a small network of about 30 users. We use it for internet sharing, as centralized management for the network and active directories, as a domain controller, and for file sharing.

This product provides us with stable security and configurable VLAN management.

The most valuable part of this solution for us VLAN (Virtual Local Area Network), MAC authentication and security.

For Cisco, the interface between fiscal small business switches and the Cisco Catalyst or Enterprise switch is a little bit different. So, I needed to take some time to understand how this will impact the network if we plan to scale it in the future and to learn the different interfaces. I think it would be better for Cisco to unify the interfaces between their products. It might make it easier for users to use different models concurrently as different versions of switches and improve scalability.

It is not really a feature of the solution itself, but I also think that the technical support directly from the company should be better in the area of handling integrations.

We have been using this product for around 10 years.

I am very satisfied with the stability. We have not suffered any stability issues with the product being unstable on the network and it is not difficult to support. It is a very rare thing to have something happen that is related to the stability of the product.

Once you understand how the product works, it is easy to configure. I do not see any significant limitation on the scalability of the product so long as you have chosen the right product for use in your environment.

In most cases when I need to solve an issue, I search for a solution on Google and in the internet communities. I usually find what I need there. So mostly I don't need any help from support.

When I contact support, most of the time they provide good information and they are helpful, but sometimes they will not help. The problem is with acknowledging the need for integration support. If you call about integration between products, they might say something like "this is Cisco and we do not support this other product, we are supporting only Cisco products." Cisco is not the solution for everything, and they must know that the product integrates or gets integrated into a network. They are aware of that and should have the experience to help users integrate products when their product is involved. 

So, overall I'm satisfied with technical support if I call with an issue that is related only to the Cisco product, but sometimes I'm not satisfied when an issue is related to integrating or connecting with other products.

Technical support could be better in this way.

As I moved around between three or four companies to get better jobs and positions, all of them were using Cisco. In some places, we were using HP ProCurve switches. Having that experience previously is the reason why we went with Cisco for the network at this company. It costs more, yet we get a stable product with the most features. Cisco is more reliable, especially in a critical environment.

For small networks, the initial setup is straightforward. You can simply connect the product to the network and it would work. But the configuration for VLANs, to configure specific ports, and to configure security, the product has a little different interface than other Cisco solutions. So the first time setup it easy. You just have to connect and it is plug-and-play. But the difference in the interface between models makes it harder to understand the version and adapt to the differences from the other types of Cisco switches. If the interface had been the same, it would have been very quick to set up.

Actually, I did the deployment by myself. I didn't need any help or support from the vendors. If I do ever need help, I usually go to the internet and use the community and forums. In extreme cases — and very rarely — I contact the vendor directly. 

It is certainly not the least expensive product for switching, but I think it is the best and if you have the budget it is worth it.

I evaluated other options by my previous experience, so, in a way, we did evaluate other choices, but I had already made up my mind because of what I knew.

Cisco is the better solution if someone is considering it and they are willing to pay for it. The product is expensive to buy. In my current position, the budget is not a problem. If other people are in a similar situation where they can afford Cisco, I recommend Cisco. If they do not have a big budget and they need to be more budget-minded, I can recommend the HP ProCurve (now HP Networking) and D-links (Ethernet Switches) as my first choice for less expensive options.

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Cisco ethernet switches as an eight. It is not a ten because of the differences in the interface and the quality of integration support with other products.

We use these switches to improve client connections.

We're a manufacturing facility — we have POCs and terminals. We have maybe 90 to 100 users with desk phones, and roughly 20 printers.

We don't perform maintenance ourselves. A third-party company handles the maintenance. We also outsource other vendors to help us with some complex configurations that we've had implemented.  

I would like to have a way to access a graphical web interface, but they either have an outdated iOS or they don't work well with Flash. They don't work well or show us enough details. They don't show errors or bandwidth on particular reports. 

I don't know if there were optional models, but the models that we bought don't have a redundant power supply. It would be nice if they had higher wattage for PoE+.

It would also be nice if they didn't have plastic faceplates that break easily.

I have been working with Cisco Ethernet Switches for over 13 years.

These switches are both stable and scalable. 

Cisco's technical support is usually quite helpful.

The initial setup is not complex, but it's not easy either. I know what to do with Cisco switches, but we had one FortiGate switch that we used to connect our firewalls which I liked because it was easy to set up and had a nice interface. 

Deployment was easy. I just took it out of the box and configured it. Deployment only took a few hours. I deployed them myself. 

We haven't seen any gains as of yet.

I am interested in switching over to Fortinet FortiSwitches. I've been checking them out, comparing the price, features, and compatibility compared to Cisco Ethernet Switches. It may be a mixed environment for a while.

We're looking for a better graphical interface and price. 

My advice would be to look at Fortinet. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Ethernet Switches a rating of eight. 

On-premises

The blade module feature which provide the scalability for site expansion.

A Cisco Network Structure consisted of 3 Layers (Core, Distribution & Access). We used the FWSM (Firewall Services Module) to route the traffic and as a gateway to get to the WAN. As a result, we were able to collapse the Core Layer into the Distribution Layer with a few blade modules (FWSM, SUP & Ethernet).

A FoE module would be imminent in the future. This module can communicate with storage devices' and ESXi Servers' HBA (fiber) connection via fibre channel switches (Brocade or Cisco MDS). This can provide a cost effective method in a data center environment without upgrading to a more advanced Cisco Nexus core switch.

5 years

The power supply requires certain sockets and UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply). Each device should require a designated UPS for it. The UPS should not be shared with other devices. An improper termination of the switch's power supply cased a power surge and took out a SUP module during an annual power test.

No extraordinary issues. Just minor day-to-day issues.

The Chassis can run out of slots as the environment expand further along.

Customer Service: Great but Cisco outsources its customer support services to India since most of our issues and outages occurred after hours. Some support technicians have a heavy Indian accent which led to difficult comprehension and time consumption.Technical Support: 4.5 out of a 5 since Tech Support personnels are very knowledgeable of the product.

No, I have not due to our contract agreement with Cisco.

The initial setup consist of the right personnel to set up and administer the product.

All implementation were completed by in-house team members.

Centralized administration and reduced time consumption.

The SUP (Supervisor) module can provide up to 720 GBPS of data transmission compared to a stackable Cisco 3750 switches.

Yes, the Cisco Nexus 7000 Series core switches.

No further comments.

We use Cisco Ethernet Switches in our data center.

The most valuable feature is that we create a network as a villain. For some time, we use a port channel and sometimes, the Spanning Tree Protocol for requests. We search for the user's Cisco Internet switches for small packets.

The technical support has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for six years.

The Cisco Ethernet Switches are very stable and a leader in the market.

The solution is scalable and we have the ability to upgrade our appliances without impacting our services.

The Cisco technical support is good but when compared to other products such as McAfee and Palo Alto they have room for improvement.

For Cisco Catalyst switches, the initial setup was usually automated for large-scale deployments such as Azure, which worked well. However, for newer technologies such as Cisco ACI, the initial setup can be challenging. Once the primary phase is completed, however, the efficiency of the operation requires less support.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

On-premises

The most valuable feature of Cisco Ethernet Switches is their capacity.

The quality of Cisco Ethernet Switches could be better.

I have been working with Cisco Ethernet Switches for approximately 10 years.

We use many different versions.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are stable.

Technical support is good. I would rate them a five out of five.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. It is easy.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are more expensive than Huawei Ethernet Switches.

I compared Cisco Ethernet Switches to those of other vendors, such as Huawei Ethernet Switches. I would say they are equal.

We are partners.

I would rate Cisco Ethernet Switches a ten out of ten.

On-premises

We are using it for user connectivity. We are using its latest version. 

It is deployed on a public cloud and on-premises.

It is very scalable.

If we can have fewer bugs on our switches, that would be great. We had bugs that caused the switch to reboot. There is probably a problem with the software. 

Their technical support can be improved in terms of response time and overall efficiency.

I have been using this solution for about 20 years.

It is very scalable. We have about 8,000 users.

We use their technical support a lot. They are okay. There is definitely room for improvement in terms of response time and overall efficiency.

We didn't use any other solution.

For our setup here, it was pretty straightforward.

I pay a fixed price on it. I'm not the person on the pursing, so I don't really compare.

I would advise others to shop around and maybe compare it with some of the other vendors such as Juniper or Arista.

I would rate Cisco Ethernet Switches a seven out of 10.