We performed a comparison between Cisco ACI and Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Virtualization solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Because of its automation feature, when you configure scripts for Cisco ACI, it reduces human error."
"The biggest benefit has been that it has improved communication between my endpoints in the data center."
"It scales very well. When you increasingly scale with it, it makes the product easier to work with."
"We get a full holistic view of the ecosystem."
"With ACI, if you need more capacity you can just buy more and plug them in without needing to do anything else. All of the sudden that infrastructure is there for me to use, configure, and add stuff to."
"We can implement customer requirements more quickly."
"With Cisco ACI, I can deploy things with a script, then run it in five minutes."
"The integration with vCenter means that when I create something on the network, it only has to happen one time instead of many times for our many virtual hosts."
"The most valuable feature is its user-friendly management dashboard."
"It is easy to manage, easy to maintain, and stable. If you set up everything alright, it will give years without any issues."
"Network Security is one of the most valuable features of Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization."
"The support system that they have in place is very good and they are easy to reach."
"Routing, switching, and wireless network security are the valuable features of Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization."
"Scalability is not a problem."
More Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization Pros →
"For Multipod we need Layer 3 devices that support multicast. Customers ask: "Why can't ACI do that? Why do we need a dedicated Layer 3 device for this?" If they go for Multi-Site there is no need for that, ACI can do it. So Cisco needs to increase the Multipod features in ACI."
"The challenging thing about Cisco ACI was we had to put a lot of effort into providing the customer the full picture, new standards, and new technology that they had to use. This was more challenging than deploying the product."
"It would be better to introduce some wizards to guide you through the whole configuration process instead of clicking through a bunch of menus with no concrete path. It is too easy to forget one or another if you configure it this way."
"Better troubleshooting features would be helpful. In ACI, it can be a big mess, a real headache to troubleshoot a single issue... The troubleshooting part, and the information that ACI gives you, sometimes don't give you a proper, inside picture of what's going on within the fabric."
"I would like this solution to be integrated with Pure Storage."
"We deployed a lot of Fabrics to multiple sites, which was a bit complex."
"Cisco ACI would benefit by providing the option to integrate easily with DNAC in their next release."
"Before version 5, you could manage your firewall or load balancer from the AP. It was very basic and now they removed the whole features in the new version, so you cannot manage your load balance or firewall from your AP on L2, L4, and L7 services."
"The solution's orchestration part could be improved."
"It would be helpful if they offered modularized upgrades, such as additional memory or a faster processor."
"This is a software solution, which is less stable than a hardware solution by definition."
"There is room for improvement in enhancing compatibility with other solutions and vendors."
"In terms of what could be improved, I would say the cost. The SDN hardware especially is much too expensive, specifically 799 and 9000."
"One of the things that can be improved is trimming all mobile numbers so that it aids in swiftly acquiring information for tablets or any necessary solution."
More Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization Cons →
More Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco ACI is ranked 1st in Network Virtualization with 96 reviews while Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization is ranked 3rd in Network Virtualization with 6 reviews. Cisco ACI is rated 8.0, while Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Cisco ACI writes "Stable, easy to extend, scalable, and has a host-based routing feature". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization writes "Versatile, offering flexibility and scalability". Cisco ACI is most compared with VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, Nuage Networks and Juniper Contrail Networking, whereas Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization is most compared with . See our Cisco ACI vs. Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization report.
See our list of best Network Virtualization vendors.
We monitor all Network Virtualization reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
