We performed a comparison between Cisco SD-WAN and Juniper Session Smart Router based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The tool is stable, and its troubleshooting capabilities are good. It helps us identify and fix any issues. It simplifies VPN setup for both side-to-side and multisite connections. This allows for easier data sharing between main and branch offices, creating a local network feel even for distant sites."
"Cisco SD-WAN is a highly stable solution."
"So far, the feature that I like best is the policy configuration manager."
"I have found the performance and the Zero-Touch provisioning helpful which makes it easier for us to develop."
"There have been no issues with stability."
"You can easily scale the product."
"It is very simple to deploy. It's a point-and-click type of deployment, so it's fairly simple."
"It's very easy to manage and monitor the network's health and security using the solution."
"As compared to the other major vendors in the SD-WAN market, such as VeloCloud, Cisco, and others, the tunnel-free and secure vector routing technology is its major USP, which gives plenty of room to discuss with the customer why IPSec from 1998 is a bit outdated."
"The most valuable feature of Juniper Session Smart Router is its unique SDR channel."
"The solution is especially Session's smart, application-aware, AI-based."
"The price could be better. From a technical side, and everything's working smoothly. Cisco SD-WAN could be cheaper."
"The bandwidth limitations would be good to remove, but it is a policy and license situation for Cisco because the cost is very high. It would be good to have OTP implemented with VRF. It can have support for EIGRP Over the Top (OTP) VRF. I saw some limitations in regards to the VRF protocol and the advertisement between VRF configuration. EIGRP Over the Top basically was quite limited with the VRF configuration. If you wanted to do rollback in VRF by using the EIGRP OTP protocol, the formation was not populated across. Cisco got back and confirmed that it is a configuration that I need to wait for until the next release, which is going to happen in one year. Cisco documentation is not the way it used to be before. It just gives an easy way to configure, but it doesn't go into the details of the configuration. The information that you need is there, but sometimes you want to go further and get more information, but the information is quite limited. It would be good to cover a few business cases or configuration cases. They used to be there in the past."
"We had some issues with Cisco SD-WAN but somehow we troubleshot it and things are going well. The issues have not been a large problem."
"An area for improvement lies in enhancing the integration with the security functions of the SD-WAN."
"Customers require features that are secure for endpoints, on-premises, and for the cloud."
"The technical support is a bit slow."
"The cost is too high for certain countries, for example, those in Africa. The solution needs to be more cost-effective."
"What I find should be improved is the possibility of really separating the software layer from the hardware layer since today the current offer is not well adopted by the service providers"
"Juniper Session Smart Router could be better in terms of software performance."
"Juniper Session Smart Router can improve the integration for Wi-Fi devices and add additional Sassy deployments."
"The UI of the SSR conductor is the main part where improvements can be done. Today, for every configuration step, you have to do a series of clicks. What we are missing there are wizards. For example, I have two applications, and I want one application to be prioritized against the other. In such a case, a wizard for assigning policies to a service without configuring each step by hand would be very helpful. There should be an overhaul of the GUI of the conductor. The functionality they have got in the Mist portal should be baked into the conductor itself. It would be really great, but as we all know, that won't happen."
Cisco SD-WAN is ranked 1st in Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions with 86 reviews while Juniper Session Smart Router is ranked 14th in Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions with 3 reviews. Cisco SD-WAN is rated 8.0, while Juniper Session Smart Router is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco SD-WAN writes "A solution for integrating services to enhance up-time, performance and lower costs". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Juniper Session Smart Router writes "Tunnel-free and secure vector routing technology is its major USP, and as a partner, we get good support from them". Cisco SD-WAN is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Meraki SD-WAN, VMware SD-WAN, Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform and Cato SASE Cloud Platform, whereas Juniper Session Smart Router is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Aruba EdgeConnect SD-WAN Platform, NFX Series Network Services Platform, Prisma SD-WAN and VMware NSX. See our Cisco SD-WAN vs. Juniper Session Smart Router report.
See our list of best Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions vendors.
We monitor all Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions 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.