HPE ProCurve Reviews

My customers are using HPE ProCurve for their network layer two and three connectivity. Each of their buildings has approximately 55 switches, including the core switches in operation.

HPE ProCurve has plenty of features.

HPE ProCurve could improve by making their command more similar to other solutions, such as the access codes. There should be a standard. Additionally, if the configurations could be done from the cloud would be a benefit and the port uplink speed should improve.

I have been using HPE ProCurve for approximately two years.

HPE ProCurve is a stable solution. We have not had any issues with customers that have been using the solution for 10 to 15 years.

I have found HPE ProCurve highly scalable.

Most of the clients we have been in hotels in Saudi Arabia, in Makkah, and Medina. They are large clients. I remember that for eight or nine years HPE ProCurve, or HPE switching, was the most highly sold solution, it was sold out in all hotels in Makkah.  

The support from HPE is very good.

The initial setup is of HPE ProCurve is straightforward. However, it helps to know the language. Cisco has different commands than other solutions, such as Apache. If you know the context and language of HPE, there are no issues with the implementation for the engineers. 

There is a license required to use HPE ProCurve.

I rate HPE ProCurve a nine out of ten.

We use HPE ProCurve as an access layer device in our office environment. It aggregates end-user connections, making it effective for small to medium-sized setups. For example, in an office with 30 to 40 users needing wired network connections, the ProCurve offers a cost-effective solution that meets basic networking needs without the complexity or cost associated with more advanced devices.

The solution has met our current networking needs without negatively impacting network efficiency. It has provided a reliable and budget-friendly option for our organization. However, due to its limited feature set, it may not be suitable for rapidly scaling networks.

The product's most valuable feature is its cost-effectiveness. It allows us to allocate resources more efficiently by offering essential networking features at a fraction of the cost of competitors like Cisco. 

The product could improve scalability and support for advanced networking features. Including advanced interfaces like QSFP and enhanced support for AI-driven network solutions would make it more competitive in environments requiring higher performance and scalability.

The solution has proven stable in our current setup.

The solution's scalability is somewhat limited. While it performs well in small—to medium-sized environments, its restricted feature set may become a bottleneck in larger, rapidly growing networks.

My experience with HPE's customer service for their networking devices has been adequate but could have been more exceptional. The support provided is satisfactory, though there is room for improvement in response time and the level of support for networking products.

I have previously worked with Huawei and am currently working with HPE. The switch was driven by specific project requirements and the need to evaluate different vendors.

The initial setup was straightforward. HPE provides features like zero-touch provisioning and PXE support, simplifying installation. The expertise required is generally medium to low, making it accessible to most IT professionals.

The deployment was handled in-house. The process was efficient, requiring only two people for the physical installation and one person for the configuration, integration, and service provisioning.

HPE ProCurve is competitively priced, with a difference of approximately 30 to 35% compared to other vendors like Cisco. This makes it a viable option for businesses with limited budgets, particularly those that do not require extensive networking features.

I have evaluated solutions from other vendors, such as Cisco, Arista, and Juniper, in addition to HPE. These options were considered based on their advanced networking features and scalability.

The platform is a good starting point for small and medium-sized enterprises. However, as your business grows and requires more advanced networking features, you might need to consider alternative solutions that offer better scalability and support for more complex environments.

I rate it a seven out of ten. 

It's the switch for the network.

Its easy manageability is most valuable. It's easy to manage. It's quite good.

They should learn from other vendors, such as Cisco. They all have a few specific routing features. HPE doesn't have any cheap BGP solution.

I've been using this solution for about seven years. 

It's stable. I'd rate it a nine out of ten.

I haven't tried to scale it. We're giving services to a few companies with a few hundred users.

Usually, it's local support. The support experience varies. I'd rate them an eight out of ten. The response time could be better.

Positive

I've used other products but not at this scale. 

It wasn't exactly straightforward, but good enough. The whole operation took a few days. We had a minor problem. Everything wasn't working as it should, but we had time to fix it.

It doesn't require much maintenance. There are usually no problems. Maintenance usually involves change requests.

I usually have some specialists or consultants for deployment.

It provides quite good value for money.

Overall, I'd rate it a nine out of ten.

We are in the healthcare industry. Most of our switches are modular because we need a lot of ports in one location.

The most valuable feature is reliability.

The pricing could be improved.

I would like to see some kind of packet tracer where people can study how the switch is operating.

White box switching support is something that I would like to see in the future.

I have been working with HPE ProCurve for at least 17 years.

This is a very reliable solution. In the 17 years that I have been using this product, I have had two power supply failures. However, these did not result in downtime because each switch has at least two power supplies. I was never left without the switch working due to a hardware failure.

We have more than 1,000 users in total but on a daily basis, there are 600 to 700 users in two locations.

The technical support from HP is very good. The last time I had a question, not a repair, but just a question of any kind was perhaps 10 years ago. I normally have a good recovery plan in advance of making any changes, which means that I don't have to bother the HP help desk with frivolous questions.

Prior to this solution, I was working with Cisco switches, which we still have a lot of. We have physical network layers and for some purposes, the Cisco switches are very good. My preference, however, is ProCurve.

I have experience with switches from Dell. They lack some features but they are much cheaper than HPE.

I find the initial setup to be easy and straightforward.

I perform the implementation, deployment, and maintenance. If I need to clear up the fiber channel, a transceiver, or something else, then I do it myself. If we need to connect and patch one of the switches then I just configure a port, send an email, and the local staff can do the patching.

This is an expensive switch.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to plan well. Most of the reason for error is poor planning. Be sure to ask your vendor questions because there are no dumb questions. Rather, silly mistakes happen when people implement without a full understanding.

This is a good product but there is always room for improvement in these kinds of devices.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use the product for VLAN configuration.

The product is robust. Once I get it working, I'm good to go.

The product could be cheaper.

I have been using the solution for ten years.

The tool is stable.

The tool is scalable. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten. We have approximately 60 to 70 nodes. We have six people in our technical team.

The ease of setup depends on the efficiency level of the person deploying the tool. I use the web to configure my services. We can configure it how we want, depending on how we want to set up the switch and what we use it for.

We work together as a team. We do everything in-house.

The solution is expensive.

We evaluated products from HPE and Dell. HPE is easier to manage.

If an organization is financially capable of buying the tool, they can buy it. It might be beneficial in the long term. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

It does what we want and it is reliable. We have installed hundreds, if not thousands, of these throughout many cities. The failure rate is around 0.001%.

It gives us consistency across every site.

I would like to see more technical troubleshooting information, better logs, and better timestamps. Certain broker switches, when they reboot, default back to 1990. You can only tell how long they have been active and have to figure out dates, by pretending it is 1990 and moving forward from there.

It has been very stable, except for the last couple years. We had more than one broker switch fail, which is rare.

For scalability, it's stackable. If we need more, we put them in, connect them, and add them to the stack.

I have used technical support. Most of the time, it was just for replacements. It was very rare that we get real technical assistance to configure what we have installed.

We were developing a new system for casinos and had to have the network to build upon. We already use HPE and Dell, but were not happy with them. We are not a Cisco house, so we got left with HPE because this is a from-scratch system for casinos.

When looking for a vendor, I look for reliability, price, and features that do what we want. It can be the best and cheapest thing that lasts forever, but we can't use it if it doesn’t have the right features. It has to do what we want.

I was involved in the initial install and have done it hundreds of times. It was straightforward.

We looked at HPE and Dell. At the time, Intersys started this, and Cisco was with it. But they weren't good choices, due to the rising and continuing licensing costs. We went with HPE because it did what we needed.

First, you really need to think about what you want, as opposed to "just because." Then, find a solution that fits the criteria you need to make people just hop on the bandwagon. For us, HPE is the right solution. We considered Brocade, but now that they are being acquired, we're not sure if they are reliable. HPE has been stable.

HPE ProCurve is used mostly in business networks.

The most valuable features of the solution are its stability and the web page that allows me to monitor it.

My company switched from HPE ProCurve to Ubiquiti UniFi since we wanted one solution for our entire network. In general, HPE ProCurve should have more capabilities to offer. HPE ProCurve's web interface is old, and I have to log in on each device separately, making them the product's shortcomings that need improvement. With Ubiquiti UniFi, I have my login page where I can see every network on every company I manage.

I have experience with HPE ProCurve. I don't remember the version of the solution I use, but I know it's an old one, and I still use it.

The product's stability is good. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

The product's scalability is good.

My company does not need to avail of the services from the solution's technical support.

The initial setup of HPE ProCurve is straightforward.

We have carried out the solution's setup phases in our company for the past six to seven years.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

Regarding the solution's installation phase, I can say that it is a PnP device.

Regarding the deployment process, you just need to use the screws to install and tighten the product in your work environment.

There is no requirement for someone to be involved in the maintenance and deployment of the solution.

I am the consultant who carried out our company's product installation process.

There is no need to pay for the solution's license.

My company switched to another brand from HPE ProCurve. The platform we chose has more capabilities for management when compared to HPE ProCurve.

To those planning to use the product, I would say that it is a very good and stable switch.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

HPE ProCurve is used for enterprise.

The most valuable feature of HPE ProCurve is its ease of use and implementation.

The pricing model could be improved in HPE ProCurve.

I have been using HPE ProCurve for approximately 10 years.

HPE ProCurve is stable.

The solution could improve the scalability. However, it depends on the model.

I recommend this solution to medium-sized companies.

The support from HPE ProCurve is good.

I rate the support from HPE ProCurve an eight out of ten.

Positive

I have used other solutions such as Cisco and Extreme Networks.

The solution is simple to deploy. The time it takes to deploy depends on the complexity of the environment. The process can vary from one to five days.

We do the implementation for our customers.

The price of HPE ProCurve can be reasonable. However, it depends on the use case. They could improve the pricing model.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate HPE ProCurve an eight out of ten.