We performed a comparison between Cisco Catalyst Switches and Juniper QFX Series Switches based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Ethernet Switches solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Their technical support is very good. They know what to do and if they don't know what to do, they give me the person who does know."
"The solution works well with analytics."
"When it comes to Cisco Catalyst Switches, one can say that the legacy switches are stable."
"As far as technology is concerned, Cisco improves the client-to-client business."
"The solution is robust in terms of the equipment provided."
"These switches are flexible and user-friendly."
"The solution is stable."
"I never had downtime with Cisco Catalyst Switches in the last eight years, and I'm pretty impressed with its reliability."
"It's a stable solution."
"The most valuable features are the VxLAN and the EVPN."
"EVPN-VXLAN feature offers the most benefits."
"It's really easy to replicate rules. It's the one that I've used; it was CLI-based. You can implement a large set of rules with CLI. You can just copy a script and add additional changes to the source and destination on the part. And so it's easy to do large zone-based rules."
"The QFX series is a good choice for large data centers, particularly for Spine-Leaf architectures."
"Juniper QFX Series Switches provide a good platform for all of our hardware and are easy to use."
"One feature that I would like to add is for the following: At times, when I add an access-list for a hostname, it doesn't actually add the hostname, it adds the IP address. So in the back-end, if my server changes the IP address I have to go in manually and change the IP address. If the capability was there in Cisco to add a hostname instead of the IP address that would be really good."
"The security of the solution could be improved, it is really important to us."
"The technical response could be faster in the future."
"t is one of the most expensive solutions."
"The product could be cheaper."
"They should be cheaper."
"The pricing needs improvement."
"The only improvement I would like to see with Cisco Catalyst Switches is the pricing."
"I faced issues with the deployment and upgrade. In the QFX5110 series, features like ISSU and DSSQ should be improved. Upgrades should be smoother."
"There have been some issues sometimes. When you upgrade the device, it doesn't come up. It gets stuck."
"Integrating QFX switches was the first point of challenge."
"The price could be cheaper."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model. It is too high."
Cisco Catalyst Switches doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Ethernet Switches with 171 reviews while Juniper QFX Series Switches doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Ethernet Switches with 6 reviews. Cisco Catalyst Switches is rated 8.6, while Juniper QFX Series Switches is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Cisco Catalyst Switches writes "Reliable and stable catalyst switch; can be easily installed". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Juniper QFX Series Switches writes "Offers high port density, including 1/25G/40G/100G and 400 options upto 2 RU and lower power consumption and leverages Broadcom chipsets for enhanced performance". Cisco Catalyst Switches is most compared with Arista Networks Platform, Dell PowerConnect Switches, Cisco Nexus and HPE ProCurve, whereas Juniper QFX Series Switches is most compared with Cisco Nexus, PTX Series Routers and Juniper MX Series Universal Routing Platforms. See our Cisco Catalyst Switches vs. Juniper QFX Series Switches report.
See our list of best Ethernet Switches vendors and best Data Center Networking vendors.
We monitor all Ethernet Switches 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.
