Meraki MS Switches Reviews

We are using Meraki MS Switches for our LAN users.

Meraki MS Switches are amazing. Whoever built it is a genius. I like that it's a plug-and-play solution.

It could be more advanced and secure. Meraki MS Switches are ideal for a mid-sized enterprise. But you can't work with this appliance if you need more security or want to do complex or advanced things. Technical support could be better.

I have been working with Meraki MS Switches for the past six months.

Meraki MS Switches is a very stable product.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give stability a ten.

Meraki MS Switches is a scalable solution.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give scalability a ten.

Technical support is not good at all. Even those guys struggle, and they work on a US time zone. Whenever we raised a ticket, we had to wait one or two days to get a status and move the case forward to the next level.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward. You just need the Internet, and you're good to go.

We implemented this solution. You only need one person to install and deploy this product.

Cisco Catalyst is far more expensive compared to Meraki. That's the reason we are using more IT systems.

I would tell potential users that it's an ideal solution if they don't have a complex network and don't want to do much IT work.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Meraki MS Switches a ten.

We primarily use the solution as a switch.

It's better for small businesses.

The solution is well-managed and easy to deliver.

Its cloud feature and cloud management are great. They are the most valuable aspects.

The setup process is simple.

It is stable. 

We can scale the product.

Cisco gives very good support.

The pricing is very good. 

If they added the option to manage it locally, not in the cloud, it would be better. 

Cisco has to make improvements to the ordering page CCW. If it could be the same as Cisco Switches, it would be way better.

For example, Cisco has a page called CCW where you can put in and order the switches and all other items from Cisco. Meraki has some difficulties in terms of adding its products to this page. You cannot enter it. You can memorize the product number ICQ by name. Other Cisco Switches, without memorization, you can put in them in.

I've been using the solution for five years. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

Technical support is very good. Cisco offers the best technical support.

I'm working with Cisco. That's all.

We found the initial setup to be simple and straightforward. It's not overly complex.

This is an easy product to scale. 

We only use it for a small business, for a branch offices and remote workers. There are maybe 50 users at this time. 

The pricing is reasonable. I'd rate it four out of five in terms of affordability.

The licensing and support last up to seven years. You pay for it once, and it lasts for around that long. 

We did not compare the solution with another vendor as we only work with Cisco. 

We're a distributor and reseller.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

We are using Meraki MS Switches for a company responsible for elections, in our country. We've set up the network for all the servers to work in the same network and they have different sites. We have set up some VPNs between those sites.

The most valuable features of Meraki MS Switches are simple deployment and administration. You can have all your switches in one place and manage them.

Meraki MS Switches could improve if it was an SDN. It will be more flexible and WWE can use one link for specific traffic and another one for other traffic.

I have been using Meraki MS Switches for three years.

Meraki MS Switches is stable.

The scalability of Meraki MS Switches is good.

I have used HP and Ubiquiti switches. I prefer Cisco solutions.

The initial setup of Meraki MS Switches is straightforward. The full deployment took about three months. We have different sites all over the country and this is why it took a while to do the deployment.

The maintenance of the not difficult. However, when we order some cards, it's difficult to have them when we want because the hardware supply time is long.

My advice to others is for them to get prepared before starting the adventure with Meraki MS Switches because they are different and the logic behind them I different than what someone would typically use.

I rate Meraki MS Switches a nine out of ten.

I use the MS series when I need to add power over ethernet (PoE).

This product has QoS, decent visibility of what's going on, and it's a managed switch.

Mandatory maintenance is an area that needs improvement.

I have been working with Meraki MS Switches for between five and ten years.

These switches are really stable.

I've used their lower-end products, and I haven't really looked at the larger units with additional ports. As such, I can't really say, although I think that there are some level 3s and even some level 4s.

At each location, there are between 15 and 20 users.

The technical support is very good. They are responsible and knowledgeable. On the Meraki side, you get through right away, whereas, on the Cisco side, you put in a call, and then it is difficult to predict when they will return it.

I work with a variety of Meraki Switches including the MS series, MR series, and MX series.

Prior to using Meraki, I was using a lower-end switch from Cisco. It didn't have any support requirements and my boss wanted me to get rid of anything that required maintenance. For this same reason, we will be getting away from using Meraki switches, as well.

The initial setup is easy.

As a one-person operation, I manage 15 or 16 locations.

The yearly maintenance fee is $100 and you can purchase used switches for about $200 each.

My advice is that this product may work well for a smaller shop, where they do not have many devices to pay maintenance fees for. I have 15 or 16 locations and combined, these have many switches and access points. For example, I have more than 45 devices in total, and paying $100 for each, annually, surpasses the amount of my initial investment. This is the reason that I am changing to another product.

In summary, this is a good switch but I just don't like the ongoing cost.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

I am a system integrator and my company is a partner for Cisco.

The ease of use and manageability from anywhere, whether it is from your mobile app or anywhere else with an Internet connection, is a unique selling point. It helps reduce network overhead by not requiring engineers to support the system.

The most valuable feature is the cloud management architecture from Meraki. The control plane is in the cloud, and the data plane is local, allowing manageability from anywhere.

Meraki requires more models, especially with respect to PoE Switches, to support Wi-Fi 6 capabilities. Meraki should also consider improvements in stacking features, particularly in the lower-end models like NS130, where stacking isn't supported, unlike with Cisco traditional switching.

The ease of installation and configuration saves time. Most things are automated, allowing for pre-configuration and readiness even before the delivery of equipment.

The network overhead is reduced as they don't have to hire engineers for support. The ease of use has helped reduce overall support costs.

Meraki pricing is a little premium compared to other vendor products. However, considering the features and ease of use, they are seen as pioneers in cloud management.

Meraki needs more stackable features. It would be beneficial if Meraki had stacking security in more models, especially at the lower end.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

A primary use case involves small to mid-sized offices consisting of under five hundred ports. 

While I do not have metrics to demonstrate how the product has improved the functioning of my organization, I can state that the upgrades to the portal have made it easier to manage the switches and the flexibility of the configurations. As for deployment, as you know, there are obviously multiple configuration styles. If you are going to do layer three at the edge, layer three at the core, the flexibility of the devices is very good. I cannot state to what extent improvements accrue to the investment, although I do know it is getting better.

The most valuable feature of the product is the console. The second most valuable feature is the technical support and the infrastructure behind the console.

Performance is an area in need of improvement. Other systems, such as Juniper switches, perform better for the same or less money. For consistency and ease of use, Cisco is definitely better, but performance is where things fall short. 

Price to performance value when compared with competitors is a feature that should be addressed in the next release. 

I have been working with Meraki MS Switches for four or five years. I try to use the latest models available. I have used the 250 and 450 and will have to check if I used another one. 

The product has good stability. 

The product demonstrates good scalability. 

I want to use the product so that I may plug it in and set it up in fifteen minutes. Then, when I have to troubleshoot something, it's easy. When I have a problem with the network, I call up technical support and they help. They actually help.

With other companies, when asking for something beyond the scope of technical support's outline, I would have the feeling of being deferred and not receiving the necessary help.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

I choose to rate the product a nine out of ten because of the cost. Remember, you and I are not paying for the equipment. Someone is paying for it. Someone has to be willing to pay the premium for this and they have to see the value. I am not a salesman, but if I want to go with Cisco, I need to show the client the better value of buying Cisco Meraki over Ubiquiti.

Another system I evaluated is Juniper switches. 

The use case is small to mid-sized offices, under 500 ports.

The upgrades to the portal made it easier to manage the switches. The flexibility of the configurations is great — there are multiple configuration styles relating to deployment. If you're going to do Layer 3 at the edge, you're going to do Layer 3 at the core. The flexibility of the devices is very good.

The most valuable feature about Meraki is the console. The second most valuable feature, to me, is the technical support and the infrastructure behind the console.

I think their feature set is far better than most

The biggest area that they fall short on is comparing the performance. I don't have the articles in front of me, but the performance of a Cisco Meraki Switch versus some of the other devices that are more expensive or are equally as expensive as Meraki, they're falling short on the performance, because you're paying so much more money and they're not performing better.

That is a big problem when you talk to clients who've researched this. If ease of use and flexibility is important, I usually forego the high-end performance for the money. The performance is not bad, but let's say I bought one of the other Cisco switches or Juniper switches — they perform better for the same amount or even less money. That's a big drawback.

They need to work on the performance. Maybe the chipset that they're using is not as good as Juniper, for example. But their goal is not performance, it's consistency. If you're about consistency and ease of use, Cisco is definitely better. If you're about performance, that's where they fall short.

Keep in mind, that's my opinion; someone may argue differently with me — that Meraki is not better. It's not slower or less performance-optimized, but it's something I come up against when I discuss it and offer it as a solution versus Juniper or some other devices.

I want to use Meraki because I want to be able to plug it in and set it up in 15 minutes. Then when I have to troubleshoot something, it's easy. When I have a problem with the network, I call them up and they help. They actually help. You call up some of these other vendors, they're like, "Huh? Oh, you got to do all this stuff." I'm like, "No, no, no. Let's look at the logs together. Then you tell me what you see. And then I'll fix, or I'll adjust, or we'll replace." I don't want to go through this whole story and song and dance as I did with HP. So it's a problem.

Cisco overcomes that, but performance is where they get hurt. When you talk to any of the other guys that do network architecture, they're like, "Well, we're not going to pick Cisco Meraki. We're going to pick the other Cisco switches, or we're going to pick Juniper, or we're going to pick something else, but we're not going to go with Meraki." I'm like, "Okay." But in a small to medium-sized business, you can't beat them. 

I have been using Meraki MS Switches for four to five years.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Meraki MS Switches a rating of nine. The only drawback is the cost — that's what kills them.

I am not paying for the equipment; someone else is paying for it. Someone has to be willing to pay the premium for that and they have to see the value. I'm not a salesman, but if I want to go with Cisco, I have to show the client that if they buy Cisco Meraki versus Ubiquiti, they're going to do better.

The switches make up part of the network infrastructure in the company.

We primarily use VLANs and Wi-Fi.

The most valuable feature is the ability to segment my infrastructure between phones, security systems, and other tasks.

The dashboard is very easy to use.

Better alerting capabilities are needed because they do not provide enough notification or detail about events. For example, it doesn't tell me if I have lost an access point, or I'm getting packet drops, or somebody is using excessive bandwidth because of a download they are doing. It is very hard to drill down on these problems and sometimes, you might have to use a third-party solution to pull the reports out.

Technical support is in need of improvement.

I have been using Meraki MS Switches for about one year.

The stability is great.

Our company has not had to scale our network. However, some of our clients that use these same switches have scaled up, and it was an easy process for them. This is in part because it is easy to change configurations on the fly.

The technical support for this product is difficult to deal with. With multiple levels, it is very difficult to get through to the right person that can help with the problem. It is disappointing because when you pay a lot of money for the hardware, you expect to get the support that you need to get.

I handle the maintenance of these switches, including firmware updates.

We paid for our switches outright, at a cost of between $15,000 USD and $18,000 USD.

In summary, this is a good product except that the technical support and alerting need to be improved. As it is now with the alerting, I get messages from the firewall before I am alerted by the Meraki hardware. It makes it more difficult to troubleshoot.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.