Meraki MS Switches Reviews

I use it in conjunction with Meraki Firewall and Meraki AP as a package. I am using the latest version of this solution.

We mainly replaced a number of Cisco ASA 5505 Firewalls that had PoE on them. The new Cisco ASA 5506 Firewall and Meraki MX Firewall don't have PoE, but we needed ports and PoE. Therefore, we combined the switches with the firewalls. The clients already had Meraki APs, so we just plugged in Meraki switches. 

The improvements are mainly from the help desk perspective. It has been very useful for the help desk. Previously, the whole setup was Cisco. It was Cisco ASA 5505, so there was no real GUI. We only had the command-line interface to go in and look at it. Now we can look at the entire location in one piece on the dashboard.

A lot of our customers are small to medium businesses, doctors, and lawyers. The Meraki dashboard allows our help desk to quickly view a customer's location.

It is easy to deploy, maintain, and update. It has been trouble-free so far.

I am still a Cisco command-line bigot, but the web interface makes it a lot easier for our help desk to interact with a client. When the clients call in and say that they aren't able to connect, it takes the help desk 10 minutes or less to look at everything in the enterprise or location. They can look at the firewall, switches, or access points in the dashboard. That's why I like the dashboard.

It would be good to include the command-line access someday.

I have been using this solution for a year and a half at the most.

It has been stable so far. I haven't had any problems. 

Its scalability is good. It is good for small and medium businesses and locations. They can scale up to good throughput. 

In terms of the number of users, all employees of a client are the users of this solution. All PCs are plugged into Meraki. All wireless devices are coming through them.

I had to call them a number of times. I always got great support from Meraki. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

We mainly used Cisco products, which could be managed only by using the command-line interface. We switched mainly because of the dashboard. 

If I am going to put something in the enterprise, I'll go with a full Cisco switch. If you buy the full Cisco switch, it comes with a lot of features. I won't put a Meraki switch on top of the rack of a whole enterprise or a whole bunch of blade servers kind of setup. Meraki is great for small and medium businesses and locations.

The initial setup is easy. I can send Meraki Firewall, Meraki AP, and Meraki Switch to a client and have them plug these in. They'll pop up in the dashboard as long as you've done a few things correctly. I can customize a switch in England from Upstate New York. This is what is great. You cannot do this with a full-blown Cisco switch. You have to configure it, put it in a box, put the tray, and roll with Meraki.

Its price is definitely competitive.

I would recommend this solution. It is easy to deploy. You can put it in a box or have it shipped to a client's remote location. Even if they don't know anything, you can talk to them and set it up easily.

I would rate Meraki MS Switches a nine out of ten. I am very happy with all Meraki products that I use. 

We use this solution as a switch.

The features are great.

It's scalable. The expandability and ease of use are excellent. 

We like how easy the manageability is. 

The evolution of the product was also quite good. It's always getting better and better. 

It's very easy to set up.

This product is stable. The reliability is great.

Its troubleshooting features need work. They could adopt a console approach that could be more helpful.

If they offered more advanced management features, that would be useful. It is a cloud service; for example, if I were about to buy such a product, I would be very concerned about having cloud management for my switches. Anyone can have access from all over the world, and you can reload the switches from everywhere. That's fine. However, security is a bit of a concern for the cloud.

I've used the solution for the last five years. 

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

The product can scale well. It's not a problem at all. I've seen the evolution, and the scalability potential is one of the things that makes it more competitive than other products.

This product can work for both smaller and quite large organizations. 

I've been working with Cisco for years now, so technical support was always something that turned us on to solutions with Cisco. We are pretty satisfied.

I've also worked with Fortinet as well as Cisco. 

The solution is quite simple and straightforward. It's not hard to set up.

I'm not sure of the pricing. It's not an aspect I deal with directly. 

If I compare it with Fortinet switches or HPE switches. Overall, the benefits that you gain with the ease of use and the manageability with Meraki are good. Also, many products from other companies are more unstable. That's one of the reasons why our first choice was Catalyst Switches.

I've worked with various Meraki solutions - not just switches. I've used access points, firewalls, etc. 

I'd recommend the solution is problem-free for the most part. However, the cost needs to be taken into account, and new users should work to calculate costs before agreeing to buy. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

I'm a customer and end-user. 

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.

We used Meraki Switches primarily for firewalling.

They help us provide reliable solutions to other customers as system integrators.

The reliability and ease of configuration are good. I very seldom receive complaints about the switches.

The GUI can be improved for a better comfort level.

We have been using Meraki Switches for more than seven or eight years.

The product has always catered to the specifications, and we haven't had any complaints about it.

Scalability is not a problem. We have it on-premises, and it is easy to scale.

Sometimes, we don't get support. That depends on the product warranty and support conditions. As a system integrator, I rate it a six out of ten as I can't raise any tickets without procuring equipment in my name.

Positive

We have worked with Sophos.

It is easy to install and usually requires just one technician.

One technician is usually enough for the installation. We manage the implementation ourselves as system integrators.

As a system integrator, we don't have that parameter for our markings. Return on investment is not applicable to us.

Compared to other products in the market, it is always expensive.

I am not sure about other solutions besides Meraki and Sophos.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

The solution is used for different office locations. The client wanted to have central control from their headquarters on wireless across a number of users, traffic, NMS. It was more of a network and switching type of deployment. They have some applications which they want to track, including how much traffic is going to the user and uptime of devices. For that, they wanted more central management.

We like that it can work on a cloud basis. It gives the customer a choice to be operated from a central location and it can be controlled from there. Our customers mostly opted for having a centralized approach.

It's a proactive approach to networking for IT infrastructure. It will bring better uptime and availability to the network.

The initial setup is easy.

They need more variety in terms of models to satisfy different customer requirements. There are very limited models right now. The range of models could expand.  

They need to work on prioritizing different types of data on the network, whether it's voice, data, video, et cetera. Video needs to be prioritized in a much better way, for example.

If there are certain search protocols added to these switches that make for better network trafficking, that would be ideal.

The lack of availability of hardware is causing issues and bottlenecks. 

We'd like interoperability to continue to be improved. 

We've been dealing with the solution for two years.

The stability is okay. 

I understand Cisco has far more stable products. For example, Cisco Catalyst. That is more stable as compared to Cisco Meraki.

I'd rate the stability four out of five overall. 

The scalability is fine. It's not an issue for us. Cisco is always working on scalability.

I'd rate it four out of five in terms of scalability. This is a new product that is still being refined. However, as they are working on the cloud, it's only going to get better. 

We have around 250 to 300 users based on the switches we've deployed. It's in an international organization with many departments and many levels of people working on it. 

Technical support is good. It is good only for certain areas. Their support needs to be improved to level it out for everyone. Even a premier customer may not get answers within the next business day.

We use Cisco Meraki Switches and Cisco Meraki Wireless.

Cisco has a big problem right now. Their availability of hardware is delayed due to high demand. A lot of system integrators and companies are opting for different hardware providers as they understand that deploying Cisco will take a long time. Cisco needs to work on faster deployment. The manufacturing side needs to speed up deploying hardware to meet demand or they will lose market share.

That said, once you have the hardware, the initial setup is not hard at all. 

We have two to three engineers that can help set up the solution. It depends on the kind of project. For example, if there are four or five switches, so it doesn't take more than two days to settle that. IN that case, maybe we need to have two different engineers: one physically installing the hardware switching and doing the basic configuration and then maybe an L2 engineer who configures things on the cloud and brings different switches alive. We have certified Cisco people. We don't get any problems in terms of deployment. We can also easily handle maintenance tasks. 

I'd rate ROI a three out of five as it is costly. The ROI is not very fast. No doubt they are getting ROI with the cloud-based approach. That said, not everything is on the cloud as of now. The transition is happening very slowly. Some departments and customers are partly on the cloud, not fully. If they're deploying anything like Meraki, they're not getting fast ROI as they're not fully on the cloud. They're not fully utilizing the benefits.

The cost is on the higher side if we are comparing it with Catalyst. It's approximately double the cost. Cisco needs to work on licensing if they want the system to be deployed more. They can have the same set of licensing: standard, premium. Premium customers who don't have any budget issues can buy premium license-based hardware. However, if there are customers who want to deploy good hardware like Cisco yet have budget constraints, they should offer a more affordable tier. 

I'd rate it a three out of five in terms of affordability.

We're resellers. We've been dealing with the 300 and 390 series. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of 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. 

I am primarily focused on the Catalyst wireless port portfolio and the switching portfolio, which includes the 9200, 9300, and 9500 series, among others. I also work with Meraki, including the Meraki MX firewall, MS switches, and Microsoft products, among others.

Almost all of my functions perform very well. I don't require anything else. It is very good in the management console, which is managed through a single dashboard. That's why I mostly recommend Meraki for small setups and remote office locations for clients using MS language.

The prices are a little higher than other vendors. However, within the Cisco customer segment, customers mostly recommend it because they are existing users, and they are satisfied with their current usage.

I have been using this solution for the last three years.

If there are many users and a heavy data load, heavy data traffic, I am not suggesting Meraki. I am focusing on Meraki Catalyst for live usage. It is not scalable enough, and I do not recommend it due to its switching capability.

I receive support directly from a Meraki dashboard. The support is excellent and rated ten out of ten.

Positive

I have mostly been using Cisco for the last 15 years. I do not work with other vendors. For switching portfolios, I focus solely on Cisco.

The initial setup was straightforward, especially with the API setup. I simply go to the dashboard, insert a dashboard license key, and add a device. I can then see their GUI-based dashboard and configure it according to my requirements. For single fleets, the setup usually takes 30 to 60 minutes.

I have a technical team for the installation part. They manage our technical communication well.

I am very satisfied. The investments made are justified by the satisfaction with the Mediatek solution.

Local Meraki support is excellent. They assist on each and every deal, especially regarding the size of BOQs. 

I would rate the overall solution ten out of ten.

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.