Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cisco Catalyst Switches vs Juniper QFX Series Switches comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 10, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Catalyst Switches
Ranking in Ethernet Switches
7th
Ranking in Data Center Networking
1st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
175
Ranking in other categories
LAN Switching (1st), AV Over IP Switching (1st)
Juniper QFX Series Switches
Ranking in Ethernet Switches
18th
Ranking in Data Center Networking
5th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Ethernet Switches category, the mindshare of Cisco Catalyst Switches is 1.6%, down from 3.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Juniper QFX Series Switches is 0.2%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Ethernet Switches
 

Featured Reviews

Joshua Odunsi - PeerSpot reviewer
Ensures efficient performance and supports network growth with optimal speed
Catalyst Switches are efficient and swift, which is valuable for my organization. I experience optimal speed and effective configuration, making them stand out compared to other switches. The PoE switches offer more ports on SFP, and it is efficient in use. Overall, the switches provide me with the value I expect in terms of speed and efficiency.
Abdul  Malik - PeerSpot reviewer
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
In terms of performance, scalability, and other factors, I would rate them around eight out of ten. I've encountered a few issues during deployments based on customer experiences. My first deployment was with the QFX5100-48S for a data center customer. I implemented layer-2 connectivity on them. Overall, I would say they're good for small-scale and medium scale so it seems these problems can persist for some time. However, the QFX series is still generally considered a good product and offers more flexibility than other options. It's very scalable. I haven't heard any customer complaints about scalability. In my experience, even the QFX5110 series extends for many years without needing upgrades. This scalability solves the challenge of needing to upgrade due to unknown internal problems, even when the release is stable.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The technical support is at an expert level."
"Catalyst switches are highly reliable. They have a good product life, they are balanced overall compared to others."
"It is easy to use."
"The warranty and continued firmware support are most valuable."
"The product is convenient to deploy."
"With Cisco Catalyst Switches, everything is working perfectly. We have not had issues with this solution."
"The most valuable features are the Stacking and the capacity of the switches because they have more throughput. Layer 2 is also part of its rich feature set."
"Cisco Catalyst Switches are valuable for their reliability and performance."
"EVPN-VXLAN feature offers the most benefits."
"Support is good and customer-friendly"
"The most valuable features are the VxLAN and the EVPN."
"The QFX series is a good choice for large data centers, particularly for Spine-Leaf architectures."
"It's a stable solution."
"Juniper QFX Series Switches provide a good platform for all of our hardware and are easy to use."
"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."
 

Cons

"It would be good if they added some machine learning which would allow us to abandon the rigid rules for processing traffic priorities and, at the same time, save money, because equipment with similar logic (like DPI) is much more expensive."
"The product must improve its security."
"My company would prefer that the price was more cost-effective."
"Cisco is a bit complex."
"The only improvement I would like to see with Cisco Catalyst Switches is the pricing."
"The product should work on its pricepoints. It's an expensive solution."
"I think that the price should be cheaper and they should include at least one year of basic service for technical support for each product, and not just the 90 days from the time of purchase."
"Their price should be cheaper. We lose a lot of work because of the price that they have."
"I faced issues with the deployment and upgrade. In the QFX5110 series, features like ISSU and DSSQ should be improved. Upgrades should be smoother."
"Integrating QFX switches was the first point of challenge."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model. It is too high."
"It is very costly."
"There have been some issues sometimes. When you upgrade the device, it doesn't come up. It gets stuck."
"The price could be cheaper."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the overall product a six out of ten from a price perspective since it is an expensive tool."
"The solution provides a good balance between the features and the cost structure"
"We are on an annual license to use this solution and the price of the solution could be reduced. We have spent hundreds of thousands on our Wi-Fi network."
"We pay the licensing fees annually because we have an enterprise license agreement."
"The solution is probably the most expensive, but users who want the best need to pay the premium."
"The price must be reduced."
"The price of a Cisco Catalyst Switches license is expensive."
"We are a large company and the price is reasonable because we have received a discount. However, the full price is expensive."
"The price of Juniper QFX Series Switches is expensive because we are running some enterprise hardware. However, they are less expensive than Cisco or HPE hardware."
"The solution is cheap, especially compared to competitors like Cisco."
"The cost is expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Ethernet Switches solutions are best for your needs.
839,319 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
66%
Computer Software Company
6%
Government
3%
Financial Services Firm
3%
Computer Software Company
23%
University
8%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Would you recommend replacing a Cisco Catalyst Switch by a D-link one?
Hello Mesfin It depends on the real scenario, the cisco 2960 is a very good device and they usually have routing functions but there are many different models within the same 2960 line, and on the ...
What do you like most about Cisco Catalyst Switches?
We are a vendor for the healthcare sector, especially hospitals, and normally, we use a full Cisco solution for stability, especially for the stability of the Access Points and the security of swit...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco Catalyst Switches?
Although Juniper is cheaper, Cisco provides unique features that justify their pricing.
 

Also Known As

Cisco Catalyst, Catalyst
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Afni, Anilana Hotels and Resorts, Baylor Scott & White Health, Beachbody, Bellevue, Del Papa Distributing, Explorer Pipeline, Mindtree, Omaha World Herald, Radio 538, Sony Corporation, Telecom Italia, Telenor Arena
Linode, VPRO, West Chester University
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Catalyst Switches vs. Juniper QFX Series Switches and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
839,319 professionals have used our research since 2012.