We performed a comparison between Cisco FabricPath and Juniper QFabric based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two LAN Switching solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is stable and reliable."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable soltuion."
"The best features of Cisco FabricPath is performance and reliability."
"It's a reliable product and you know that it will work in the enterprise environment."
"The setup is straightforward."
"The most valuable features are the lead time and the high quality of the product."
"We can also enhance our service line with disaster recovery."
"Additional bandwidth is available when needed."
"The vendor maintains the product well."
"QFabric supports redundancy and includes all of the enterprise and service provider features that customers would want in data center or service provider network."
"It is known for being agile, flexible, and cost-effective when working with various vendors."
"It's user-friendly."
"The 40 gig backbone InterConneX was valuable for our use case. It is even faster now. QFabric has spine-leaf technology or topology, which basically makes every single hop only one hop away in terms of connecting from one device to another. It is a pretty good and robust solution. It works pretty well in terms of scalability, and their technical support is amazing."
"Juniper QFabric has various advantages including scalability, simplicity, performance, and flexibility."
"The solution is stable."
"The solution is easy to use and has good performance."
"I would like to see better interoperability with other IT solutions."
"In terms of the series, I find that the integration with other teleconferencing applications needs to be more seamless. I have suggested to Cisco that the endpoint device should allow joining calls from Microsoft Teams, Zoom, and other teleconferencing applications. Additionally, I appreciate the recent inclusion of breakout sessions in the Cisco Webex application, which enhances its relevance in the networking field."
"Improvements could be made on specific technical issues such as implementation."
"Lack of security features for which we need to use another solution."
"The solution is costly."
"The product lacks AI...The initial setup of Cisco FabricPath was a bit complex."
"The pricing could be adjusted to make it easier to sell to clients."
"Lacks sufficient integration with SIEM."
"Improvements could be made to QFabric's life cycle management, particularly in maintaining stable versions and extending product support."
"They are working on the virtualization of the actual fabric layer. They are moving away from the original spine-leaf design to a different infrastructure. Instead of having three tiers, which was the director of the interconnected nodes, they cut them back, and they still have that kind of structure."
"It works too much on rebooting and there is some memory leakage."
"The stability needs to be improved."
"The disruptive upgrade was an issue for us."
"The pricing structure could be more budget-friendly."
"It would be nice if Juniper provided the system integrator with training, similar to that of Cisco."
"Having support for all OpenFlow versions would be beneficial."
Cisco FabricPath is ranked 8th in LAN Switching with 22 reviews while Juniper QFabric is ranked 9th in LAN Switching with 10 reviews. Cisco FabricPath is rated 8.2, while Juniper QFabric is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco FabricPath writes "Makes multi-layer networking easy and increases network efficiency". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Juniper QFabric writes "Performs well, is easy to set up, and the vendor maintains the product well". Cisco FabricPath is most compared with Cisco Nexus and Arista Campus LAN Switches, whereas Juniper QFabric is most compared with Cisco Nexus. See our Cisco FabricPath vs. Juniper QFabric report.
See our list of best LAN Switching vendors.
We monitor all LAN Switching 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.