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

Cisco Elastic Services Controller vs Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Customer Service

No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization's customer support is highly rated, though occasionally experiences prolonged cases and resolution delays.
 

Room For Improvement

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
6.5
Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization requires better scalability, performance, modular upgrades, cost-efficiency, stability, orchestration, mobile optimization, and vendor compatibility.
 

Scalability Issues

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
8.8
Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization excels in scalability for various customer sizes, with users rating it 8-10 out of 10.
 

Setup Cost

No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
Cisco Enterprise NFV is considered expensive, but affordable for larger enterprises, with support charges separate and local partners providing cost value.
 

Stability Issues

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
8.5
Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization is highly stable, reliable, and consistently outperforms competitors, with stability ratings ranging from 7 to 10.
 

Valuable Features

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
8.7
Cisco Enterprise NFV offers stability, security, routing, WAN connectivity, and user-friendly management with efficient enterprise-level infrastructure integration.
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Elastic Services Cont...
Ranking in Network Virtualization
5th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Cisco Enterprise Network Fu...
Ranking in Network Virtualization
3rd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
8.0
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Network Virtualization category, the mindshare of Cisco Elastic Services Controller is 1.0%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization is 1.3%, down from 2.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Virtualization
 

Featured Reviews

Use Cisco Elastic Services Controller?
Share your opinion
Majdi Sabbah - PeerSpot reviewer
Versatile, offering flexibility and scalability
I rely on Cisco Enterprise NFV for various sectors like government, campuses, and hospitality. It is a crucial foundational layer that is mandatory before delivering other services The most valuable feature is its user-friendly management dashboard. It is easy to use and covers everything in one…
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Virtualization solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization?
The most valuable feature is its user-friendly management dashboard.
What needs improvement with Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization?
There is room for improvement in enhancing compatibility with other solutions and vendors. Better integration capabilities could provide more value, especially in scenarios where a mix of solutions...
 

Comparisons

No data available
No data available
 

Also Known As

Cisco ESC
Cisco NFV
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, VMware, Array Networks and others in Network Virtualization. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.