Cisco FabricPath vs Juniper QFabric comparison

"Cisco FabricPath is highly beneficial for network performance and relatively easy to implement. It also offers straightforward monitoring capabilities."

"The solution has excellent stability."

"The tool makes it easy to manage multi-layer networking and increases network efficiency. I haven't faced any challenges in integrating it into our existing infrastructure."

"It's very stable."

"The product's most valuable feature is its ports."

"Cisco is the market leader in this space and it is a product that I recommend."

"Cisco FabricPath is very fast, stable, extendable, and scalable. It doesn't have issues with patches or problems because it's built on the stable NXOS operating system. In a scenario using FabricPath, the spin and leaf architecture is beneficial. For example, we can use two separate spine switches like 9980s and multiple leaf switches as access switches. These leaf switches are connected using VPC between them, with each switch separated and not directly connected to the spine. This setup improves data center architecture by allowing two ways to arrange destinations, connecting the first connection to the first spine and the second to the second spine. The spines are configured as a virtual chassis. In FabricPath, we can enhance VXLANs, VPNs, and integrate with Cisco ISE for user authentication. It can also be configured with WLC to manage wireless technology, depending on the client's architecture."

"The most beneficial feature of Cisco FabricPath for network performance is its reliability."

"QFabric supports redundancy and includes all of the enterprise and service provider features that customers would want in data center or service provider network."

"Juniper QFabric has various advantages including scalability, simplicity, performance, and flexibility."

"The vendor maintains the product well."

"The most valuable feature of QFabric for network performance is its stability."

"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."

"The solution is stable."

"The solution is easy to use and has good performance."

"The solution should offer better reporting."

"Improvements could be made on specific technical issues such as implementation."

"It's important to note that the graphical interface often relies on Java, and compatibility with different versions of Java can be a factor."

"The solution is costly."

"Layer 3 does not have higher availability."

"Cisco FabricPath's pricing is expensive."

"The prices for FabricPath are very high, and Cisco also takes a long time to deliver products (in Mexico, the delivery time is eight months)."

"The management features are in need of improvement."

"The stability needs to be improved."

"I do not use GUI's very much for switch stacks. I am always in the CLI. However, I do know that Juniper in the past has lacked on their GUI's, but they have been working on it."

"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."

"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."

"It works too much on rebooting and there is some memory leakage."

"Improvements could be made to QFabric's life cycle management, particularly in maintaining stable versions and extending product support."

"I rate the product's pricing a ten out of ten. Cisco switches cost around 15,000 dollars, and DNS licenses cost around 25,000 dollars. The total amount is 45,000 dollars, which is too expensive."

"Cisco is expensive but offers good-quality features, so I would rate it high on the pricing scale."

"It is very expensive."

"I rate it seven out of ten on pricing as it's a bit expensive. It would be better if the price were lower, but we prioritize quality over cost."

"The pricing for this product is good."

"The price of Cisco FabricPath could be reduced, it is expensive in the market here in Sri Lanka. The solution is subscriptions based, if the customer wants any future integrations, or if there are any future enhancements they will have to pay. There are different license options available, such as one or three years purchases."

"The pricing of Cisco FabricPath can be quite high depending on the architecture, but it's justified by the stability it offers."

"The solution falls under the pricier category, but it provides value for the price charged."

"The pricing is high and it is possible to find better pricing option solutions on the market, but the licensing model is quite flexible."

"Juniper QFabric is a high-level solution but it could be less expensive."

"The price for Juniper QFabric could improve. There are subscription, maintenance, and add-on feature fees."

"In terms of price, the QFabric solution is going to be probably in the middle of the road for a fabric solution."

"The pricing is high."

"The price is relatively high, but it offers an advantage over its competitors by providing better performance and functionality."