Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Platform Reviews

We primarily use the solution for SD-WAN with the built-in firewall, the NG firewall.

They are pretty transparent on every layer of the networking to build the SD-WAN. Troubleshooting is easier due to that. They, it seems like, do not try to cover or wrap the SD-WAN into my interface, which would make it difficult to troubleshoot. They really open up every part of the technology so that if there is an issue, it would be easier to troubleshoot.

It's very powerful, especially for engineering teams. And yet, they manage also to keep it from being too complex.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

It has very good reliability.

The product is scalable. 

The interface could be simpler. There have been improvements over time, however, it could be improved further. While nothing is lacking in terms of information, if they could make it simpler for non-technical users, it would be easier to understand and could be used by more people. 

We started using the solution about a year ago.

It's stable. The cloud basically is only for orchestration. Once the equipment has been set up it's going to be running well, and quite independently. Even if there is an update in the cloud,  for example, the path to the cloud is gone, it will still suffice. It would still run. It's very reliable. 

The scalability is pretty good, actually. The internal processing is light. It could scale much bigger than compared to the other SD-WAN solutions that I'm aware of. Even the small unit actually could scale for 1,000 branches already. 

They're helpful, however, we actually rarely use them. It's almost never happened, in terms of having any issues. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

Mostly, customers rely on the engineering team. They just start to run it once it is deployed. Normally, the setup is headed by the engineering team.

The deployment really depends on how fast the rollout would be needed. The deployment is easy, however, it depends on the location. We could deploy a few units a day, for example, as it all can be handled and secured on the cloud from the orchestrator. We could easily deploy 20 a week unless we are talking about moving to different locations.

The value of SD-WAN is that it can cover a wide area. Therefore, in most cases, the delay is actually about the delivery of the unit to the location.

Once the hardware arrives at the location and the network connectivity from the provider is ready, it would take just minutes to turn it up. The readiness of the place, the readiness of the connection, and any delays in the delivery due to the courier or the shipper all play a role in how long the deployment will be.

Normally we have two or three people handle deployment.

Usually, we deploy to small branches of ten to 30, depending on the office size.

The ROI is not really calculated. I would say the experience of the user improves a lot. This means that always come combining the MPLS plus the internet, for example, users would enjoy bigger bandwidth. Their application or file transfer is faster. It's not only about something that could be quantified. The better experience on the user side is definitely something we can see, however.

Price-wise, it's quite fair with the list of capabilities on offer. If we use the features a lot that enables the NG firewall for SMO. It's much cheaper than having a separate SD-WAN unit and an external firewall. All the package features if all put in together and enabled, make it more competitive compared to the other brands. 

The price can be negotiable. The cost depends on the size. It includes firewall features. It includes tech support from the vendor's side. The licensing system with the subscription, it's all included.

I really like the option to include the NG firewall due to the fact that, in total, that would be cheaper compared to having an external firewall and the SD-WAN unit.

We're a Versa partner.

I don't recall which version we are using. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I would recommend a field test to new users. Don't just look at the paper. Try to experience it in the live network. Most of the time, that could really make a difference. If customers would like to know about it, the better way is to have a proof of concept or live demo in their network running for a certain period, with their network running on top of this SD-WAN as that's what really actually makes the difference. They could see the improvement firsthand. They could see that the bandwidth is increased. Or find out if it really could replace the MPLS with the internet. Those are the things that on paper, sometimes we could not really feel or know. 

We are a service provider, and we provide WAN services to various enterprise clients. We were among the  first three CSP's to launch SDWAN services in India with the help of Versa. Later on, we adopted Cisco and Fortinet platforms.

It is very easy to deploy. The GUI interface is really good, and the security features are also very good. It is also stable and scalable, and their support is also good.

SASE is the next big thing that is coming up, and it needs to be developed in Versa. This is the only thing that needs to be adapted very quickly by Versa.

With the pandemic going on, I would like to see more features for working from home. They have launched Versa Secure Access (VSA), but it is currently immature. They need to tighten it up for work from home and SD-WAN concept.

I have been using this solution for three-plus years.

I don't see any issues on the stability front. We have been using this product for three-plus years, and I did not see any issues related to stability.

It is pretty much scalable. Currently, it is on around 5,000 of branch location, and I don't see any problem on this front. We are providing services to enterprise customers, and we will be increasing the capacity of Versa.

Currently, approximately 1,000 plus employees regularly use Versa for various teams , and perform actvities such as  as deployment, assurance life cycle management, engineering, and PoC.

There are no issues with their support. Their  TAC support is very good at identifying and resolving problems. 

When you try to build a headend, it is a little bit complex, but after you are able to do that, it is a bit better and straightforward. In terms of duration, Versa headends in HA mode generally require four weeks. For Versa branches, you can do zero-touch provisioning.

While Head End deployment is at par with other SDWAN providers the branch deployment is is not very expensive because of the white box support. White box hardware  is much cheaper than other products. Apart from White boxes you also flexibility to use Versa Boxes , In My opinion  it is one of the  cost-effective platforms that are currently available

When we were trying to implement SDWAN four years ago, the engineering team had evaluated many products. One of them was Cisco iWAN, which was later changed to CISCO Viptela. We evaluated Versa because of the white box and x86 support, which is a special feature. We went ahead with Versa because Cisco iWAN was not a stable platform at that time. Later on, we have added Cisco, Fortinet, and other SDN platforms. There are loyal customers of each and every solution or platform. 

Versa is good for medium and large enterprises. If you want SD-WAN for small enterprises, Fortinet is good. Fortinet is ahead of Versa in terms of ease of deployment. It has controller-less architecture.

I would advise others to just go through all the documentation for its implementation. Versa has a huge repository for documentation. It is not that tough. Just go step by step, and you will be able to do it. If you miss one or two steps, it can get quite difficult to troubleshoot and implement it. That's why I advise following Versa documentation step by step.

I would rate Versa FlexVNF a nine out of ten.

The most common use case for Versa Unified Secure Access Service Edge is its application as an SD-WAN solution. Based on my four years of experience, the best use case is when customers need SD-WAN connectivity between branches along with a secure solution. Versa offers a comprehensive solution that combines connectivity and security. It suits customers who want reliable connectivity between branches and need a complete security package.

Versa also utilizes Secure Access Service Edge (SASE), which can be integrated with its SD-WAN solution. We have already deployed SASE alongside SD-WAN, allowing users to connect to the company's business applications in the office or remotely. This integration between SASE and SD-WAN is beneficial, as we have tested it with various customers.

Versa provides analytics, but the reporting features have some shortcomings. Improvements are needed in this area to enhance the analytics' overall user experience and effectiveness. Sometimes, issues or bugs arise when using AI for device profile provisioning.

I have been using Versa for four years.

Versa's stability is quite good for simple use cases, and I would score it an eight to nine. However, stability can depend heavily on the hardware used for complex deployments. Versa is compatible with third-party hardware, and we have deployed it using Dell and Lenovo products.

I recommend using Dell for better stability, which typically scores around seven to eight. In contrast, we’ve encountered issues with Lenovo hardware, often needing to return devices for stability problems, scoring it around six to seven. Overall, using Dell has resulted in much better stability for our deployments.

When deploying new branches, you can easily add new devices. Just provision the new device, and the setup is complete. While the deployment process is straightforward, ensuring proper sizing for the secure hub is important. If you plan to scale up to twenty or one hundred devices, you must use high-quality hardware for the hub. 

We work with small to medium-sized businesses and large enterprises, including those in the U.S. with over one hundred branches. Versa is a strong solution for these scenarios. We have successfully set up Versa for up to fifty branches. For medium to large businesses, I recommend Versa if the use case involves straightforward SD-WAN with added security. If the use case is relatively simple, Versa can still effectively meet those needs.

FlexVNF’s main competitors include Fortinet and VeloCloud from VMware. Both are strong contenders in the SD-WAN space. Fortinet provides a good match for security features, making it a solid competitor alongside FlexVNF.

The setup process is straightforward, allowing users to activate the system via email or a URL link. It’s simple enough that non-IT users can follow the instructions. There have been some issues, particularly when registering devices to the controller. We’ve had to open support tickets, which seems to be a common problem. While the setup is generally easy, occasional failures require assistance from support for troubleshooting.

Versa offers cloud deployment, meaning the controller is managed by Versa. While the devices can be on-premises, the controller operates as a Versa product in the cloud.

While Versa offers an on-premises option, I haven't deployed it yet. In my country, the cloud solution for the controller is highly regarded. Although we haven’t implemented the on-premises solution, Versa can also provide that option.

Versa has an API that could potentially support future AI integration, but the Versa team has not provided any updates regarding AI capabilities. Currently, no information indicates that Versa is suitable for integration with AI solutions.

Regarding pricing, Versa is competitively positioned in the medium price range compared to Fortinet and Palo Alto. Our customers are generally satisfied with Versa's pricing during renewal. Versa's renewal costs are reasonable, making it appealing for customers who plan to invest in the solution for six to seven years without facing steep renewal fees. In contrast, with Fortinet, we’ve noticed that renewal prices can be as high as purchasing new hardware. 

Versa’s approach to network optimization focuses on application-based steering. This means you can prioritize specific applications like Zoom or Teams during critical activities like conference meetings. Versa uses this application-based steering to select the best path among multiple links, ensuring that important applications receive the necessary bandwidth.

Rather than optimizing solely for the network, the applications are emphasized. You can decide which applications to prioritize, while others may receive lower priority. For instance, if some applications experience issues, you might still be fine with them, but it’s crucial to ensure that essential applications like video conferencing remain unaffected by network congestion. 

Versa is a great option if you have a simple solution using SASE, such as connecting branches and adding a security layer. Based on my deployment experience, I can recommend Versa for this use case. It addresses the needs of organizations looking to enhance security while maintaining straightforward connectivity between branches.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We are partnered with Versa via Colt Technology Services. We have two SD-WAN partners, Versa and VMware. My clients use Versa for remote work because it is an on-prem solution that is good at cloud security with its cloud web gateway.

Versa is a good centralized solution where you're setting up your infrastructure in a data center-type thing. Everything is built into a single box with Versa, so it's better if you want to reduce your footprint, have everything in the same location, and set software applications in a white box situation.

We've had the odd occasional stability issue with software upgrades, etcetera. They don't support certain other third-party applications, which can be a bit limiting at times, whereas VMware seems to have a bit better integration in terms of that.

We've been working with Versa Unified SASE for at least three years.

Versa is stable, but it requires a lot of new skills, which a lot of companies struggle to keep in-house these days. People don't necessarily have the built-in capabilities within the IT teams to deploy SD-WAN.

On the Internet side of things, the solution is quite easy to scale. You have limitations regarding each box's bandwidth, but it's quite flexible. You can do anything between ten megs and two gigs of total throughput. I suppose that is scalable, but you need a different box for each of them.

We have quite a range of customers from small, medium, and enterprise clients working with Versa. It is very scalable in that direction. We can do a single branch office with ten staff or massive organizations with thousands of people.

Customer support could be faster and escalate to more advanced levels of support.

Neutral

With us, deployment takes 35 working days. The number of engineers and architects required depends on how many sites you have. You need one engineer per site, as well as one solution architect. Sometimes having two is useful because they can bounce ideas off of each other.

We do the installations ourselves, and that's gone well without any issues.

Both Versa and VMware are cheap in terms of the router. I find Versa a little more expensive than VMware in terms of remote access and secure web gateway elements.

VMware is light in terms of the built-in security in the SD-WAN box. That's the main issue with them. If you don't already have a firewall, it can be limited on that front. I don't personally use the remote access features with VMware and Versa, and I couldn't tell you exactly how it goes. They seem to both be fairly on par with each other. If you're looking at remote access, both solutions are just VPNs back into the router. But with the secure web gateway solution, VMware has more PoPs worldwide, and that's quite useful. And if you've got international companies who perhaps have staff in each location, whereas with Versa, you need a larger presence than VMware in each location to justify having an SD-WAN router. With Versa, we have clients who, for example, don't have routers in Asia and America, but they use the remote access feature to VPN back into the data centers in the UK, and that seems to work. Whereas you could deploy a box, quite a light box with VMware quite easily at branch locations.

You could pick Versa if you're looking to replace all of your infrastructure on-site. It is very effective if you want to consolidate your firewall, analytics, and all that kind of stuff into a single box. It's got a great firewall that's built into there. It does most of the stuff that you need, such as built-in DDoS mitigation. It ticks many boxes for people who don't necessarily have the capability to do that. It is cost-saving instead of taking a separate DDoS protection or buying a firewall if you're looking at a dual hundred-meg type solution. The box probably won't cost you more than £150 a month at maximum, so that's incredibly affordable versus a full-state firewall because everything comes built-in.

Versa is good when you have a heavy branch when building office infrastructure. On the flip side, that's where I'd suggest VMware. If you have one or two main offices, and most people otherwise work remotely, or you have some small overseas sites with five people or something like that, that's where VMware comes into its own.

I'm an IP access engineer and we are customers of Versa.

The product has a dynamic VPN feature for SD-WAN which our customers use for their network. Another valued feature is the application awareness with its VGA engine which enables visibility. Customers can see their network traffic with whatever application is being used. 

The solution lacks a mobile version where small, manageable platforms can be developed. Our customers sometimes want to collect analytical data on-premises, and we're unable to provide those features. Perhaps Versa can develop virtual appliances for site-available solutions, like analytics or management. Our customers would like to see a server VPN and mobile applications.

I've been using this solution for four years. 

We deployed the latest version last year but there were so many bugs that we quickly reverted to the previous version which is stable. When the vendor releases new features, we now test them and do a POC before implementing them.

The solution is scalable. We have 200 workers using Versa WAN solutions. They run the gamut from network admins to security admins, installation guys, field engineers, technical account managers, and more. They use the product to check endpoints or data analytics. 

Customer service is good. 

Positive

The solution is easily deployed on virtual machines, but the integration process takes time due to the service provider's requirements. The deployment is doable because the solution is developed for the service provider. It's a difficult question because the difficulty is service providers. We have to implement many systems to different platforms and if there are no integration systems, the development is simple.

This solution is relatively new in Turkey and despite them not increasing the license price, it's a relatively expensive solution. The solution has new features and if a company doesn't need those, they will find a cheaper option. We sell SD-WAN solutions as a premium VPN service, and the license is a little expensive for Turkish customers, but there is no real alternative.

We looked at some other solutions but couldn't find an alternative. We're now deploying Huawei SD-WAN solutions and will possibly deploy Cisco antenna because we are buying Cisco browsers but they lack sufficient security.

We are using this product and also implementing it for our clients. We manage everything for the customer. We use it here on our platform and also manage the solution for our customers for whom we install it.

Let's say a customer is on premises and he wants to move to the internet but wants to keep the interconnection between their sites. He doesn't want to remain embedded. We would propose Versa in this case.

Also, if a client asks us for more reporting, more analytics and more monitoring and our embedded solution can't do this as a single solution because it would be very heavy and expensive, we would propose Versa. The client finds the analytics and monitoring in Versa very easy and very clear.

In terms of the most valuable features of Versa, I should know because I have also used Cisco, Fortinet and VeloCloud at a previous company where I worked. I explain that between Versa and VeloCloud I find that Versa has more features over VeloCloud. I do think that you have less regarding the firewall features compared to other solutions, though.

Their dashboard is also a good point for us and the customer. The solution is very clean and easy, but it depends what the customer has and how we can integrate it with their current network.

Another thing is regarding the analytics. We have about 15 sites in Europe, the US and Asia. I do some administration for the analytic portal, and this side is very interesting for the customer because today Versa has an embedded solution and we don't have the visibility for all the sites they're using.

In terms of what could be improved, I would say that since we're using more and more 4G today, the product should have two slots for 4G and also have the equipment for giga ready. It should not have different equipment to have a giga bandwidth. For example, it should have 110 and 200, 810 and 800. It would be good if they had only one product that goes directly to the bandwidth for one gigabyte and not necessarily to have different products to do it. Of course if I compare it to only one gigabyte, the price also needs to be reduced.

Another thing that should be improved in Versa are their firewall features. You have their firewall license secure solution but if they could include more features regarding their firewall protection and data protection it would be good. This is because when we go to a customer who also wants a firewall they compare it to other products on the market that are doing more with the firewall. As you know, Fortinet is very strong in this point. If they could put more features on this side, they can be, maybe not equal, but improved.

Our company has been using Versa FlexVNF for around five years with our customers. Our network is on the ISP here in France and our AVN solution is only based on this product. 

It is stable. We haven't had any issues, and neither have the customers that already have it running for two or three years. They have stability on their end. The only stability issues are on the circuit and not on Versa's end. Sometimes the line is cut, so the customer will have an issue. But we don't have any issues with Versa.

In terms of scalability, it doesn't matter if the company is large, medium, or small. We can use it for small and big companies - there is no limitation there. It is not always the company size that matters. When we go to a market segment and a big company, they may not know Versa at all. They may know VeloCloud better.

I can say that I am satisfied with customer support but I'm not quite sure because it is my colleagues who manage this part of support. We have our technical support that manages Versa, the circuit, and all the vendors who are also on our platform.

In terms of the initial setup, I can't answer that because I am just from the sales side, I don't do the installations, my colleagues do it. What I see from the customers that have installed Versa is that the initial step on the starting configuration is very easy. A half hour or hour. My colleagues who use it here in the company manage it and they have a full version for the configuration.

The issue that is difficult for us is when a customer needs firewall features included and he already has a firewall in place that he asks us to replace and to install the features from Versa. It is very complicated for us because it means more time to install since we need to export all the other features that already have rules in the firewall and to put them in Versa. That takes time.

Regarding the price, we can make do with its price today, but I am seeing from our competitors that this market is becoming very aggressive. We lost some projects because we didn't have any strategy to deal with the price. We think that when we discuss the quality of the product the price won't be an issue, so we do not propose it as "low-cost" for this reason.

Currently I propose Versa. That's the platform for my strategy. However, the market is not ready to propose a solution to a customer that's managed by an ISP. So, in the beginning they investigate VeloCloud, Cisco and Fortinet. But in the end they select Versa because it is small and easy for customers, and it has many features that are very interesting to the customers.

Today, when we look back, it was the right decision to choose Versa and our customers are very happy that we only propose this solution.

We always propose only Versa solutions in our quotes for our customers when we have a new project. I only recommend Versa. VeloCloud was the first one to market and for customers that is very important. Customers ask me for a comparison between VeloCloud and Versa since VeloCloud was the first one on the market and he wants to be sure that if he goes with Versa it will not be a mistake.

For me it's not enough just to be first on the market. I know Versa, but I know it's not enough. VeloCloud solutions are more public for companies and buyers than Versa is.

These are the only two products that we validate that are in the regular network - Advantec and them.

On a scale of 1-10, where one is the worst and 10 is the best, I would rate Versa Flex an 8.

It is not a ten because it has a lot of features on the equipment and it is really heavy on the portal. It's not really friendly. Maybe they could do something different for users or administrators to have a friendlier portal.

We mostly implement this product for our clients.

There are many great aspects to the product. 

It's flexible. It's possible to have it on a universal CPE. The CPE is a small server or device that can be installed on the client's premises which the FlexVNF software can be installed onto. It doesn't have to be a vendor-specific CPE. This can help users reduce costs. Other solutions don't offer such flexibility.

One of the interesting things about the solution, which is not an easy feat, is that they offer a multi-tenancy solution at the CPE level.

They also allow for the integration of their solution as a provider with other security vendors, like Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Forcepoint. With other vendors, they stick with their own security appliances or images. This solution, however, really does try to integrate with everything.

In terms of support, they are very focused on SD-Wan technology. They are not working on multiple technologies. This ensures your business is very focused. It allows you to be very focused on your support and ensures your level of support will be very high. The customers will be satisfied with the results. 

The development is fast because they are only focused on one direction. Of course, SD-WAN not only means that you are optimizing the routing and the speed of the internet but also it allows you to optimize the security. Users can have better, more advanced security features. 

They are focusing on integrating their security features right now. They are growing quickly in this direction. That means they're giving a lot of attention to the security within the product. It's making it a more complete product without forcing you to just use Versa.

Overall, it's nice and very user friendly. That's what makes it so successful. They give you complicated features but with a very simple user interface, and that's been a big success for them.

The support needs to be improved. 

The interface does still need enhancements to make it even easier to operate in the future. They have complicated policies that need to be applied.

We've been using the solution for about one and a half years now.

If the setup is done properly, the solution is quite stable. There's no need to worry about bugs and glitches. It doesn't crash.

It is easy to scale. The solution has considered various roadmaps and focused on future growth for organizations. Some features may not be active just yet, however, they are in the roadmap.  They are looking at, for example, delivering Ethernet over two or three layers, over the internet, which is very interesting and is, in my opinion, revolutionary.

The solution benefits huge companies, more so than smaller ones. Currently, various product features are capable of fulfilling any big enterprise requirements. They are trying to get the certifications from international security communities like Gardner. Their focus is more so on the larger scale organizations and they are trying to compete with companies like Cisco, Palo Alto, etc. Since it is meant for bigger companies, it can get pretty big itself.

Their support is okay, but they need to grow it out faster. They need a better mechanism for getting quick responses to clients and to hire more people on the support level. The gold standard is Cisco, and they should try to be more like that. 

They have a very focused product and because of that, they need a very focused support staff. They should have different people who are specialized on different aspects. They don't have to spend a lot of money to do this, they just need to ensure they have the right people in place to answer questions.

It seems a bit unfair to judge them in totality, however, as I just had one instance with them so far. 

The solution's initial setup is complex in that it's not plug-and-play. You won't face zero-touch provisioning with this solution. Instead, there will be a staging process. It requires certain commands and you need to run it on Linux or Unix.

The solution has some issues with staging, and, if you compare it to other products, you'll see other vendors are much more straightforward. Zillow Clouds and Meraki are two good examples of a straightforward setup.

For myself, I have a technical background. These things are interesting for me, and I'm happy to do it, but on the commercial side of things, the customers don't really want to deal with difficult setups. Usually, however, it's the partner that provisions for the client, so the client never has to really deal with these issues. If you are a partner or a supplier, you'll end up doing this part yourselves. So, for those that know the product, it can be considered straightforward.

After that, users will enjoy a lot of features. 

It only takes about one hour to deploy the solution. I handled the POC myself and I've done some extensive training. I didn't feel comfortable in staging Versa devices. This was a problem. For comparison, if you would like to stage a VeloCloud device, it may take from you 10 minutes, whereas Versa could take about an hour.

If you are facing complications, you need to spend time understanding them before doing the provisioning. It will take some effort to understand the staging process, but it's worth it to take a step back. 

I handled the POC myself and I've done some extensive training, so I was able to handle all the provisioning and staging. We found we struggled a bit with our engineers figuring out how to write everything correctly. Unlike other deployments where it's a very straightforward couple of clicks, if you make a mistake in provisioning there is a receipt required, and you need to call the engineer from your Versa vendor to help troubleshoot problems.

In the end, it's not only about cost. A lot of big enterprises don't care about the cost. They care about having a single point of contact to take care of their security and internet routing optimization. Having one support ultimately reduces costs, as there would only be one maintenance contract and one device.  

We have a lifetime implementation. We're using the latest version of the solution.

It's a good product for high-end and large enterprises, but smaller enterprises might not be a good fit.

I'd just advise that especially surrounding the initial setup, a new company needs to ensure they have the right support in place. Companies need to make sure their SLA's are very clear so they can get the support they need from the outset and into the future. Compare companies and be clear about the requirements and you will have an easier time.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I'd give it full marks, however, I do believe that they can continue to improve on the existing product in various ways. 

It's a purely internet-based solution. That means the customer already has their Ownned up-link(s), which we call DIA(Direct Internet Access). That means the customer brings their own connections to set up the virtual SD-WAN network and just use our white-box solution. On top of it, we set out an SD-WAN appliance which can be controlled by the setup on the CTG side.

Versa FlexVNF helps customer uses existing infrastructure to quickly complete the SD-WAN deployment through software appliance. Except for the edge hardware equipment used in customer case(s), SD-WAN provider no need invested in any hardware inside, but completely uses the existing Cloud platform.

Versa FlexVNF supports multi-tenancy, which is very important for ISP's TCO in running a SD-WAN network. Meanwhile,Versa FlexVNF is purely software based solution that help CSP(cloud service provider) upsell SD-WAN business.

We need to think about how to leverage the MPLS-VPN customers, so to integrate the SD-WAN network. We are thinking about how to make customers consolidate the loads to an SD-WAN network so that the customers can have a bigger chunk from the SD-WAN plane.Under the trend of Digital Transformation, enterprise customers looking for lower price with border bandwidth. In the designed direction,customers can have critical data be transferred by MPLS-VPN network while non-critical data or some labeled traffic can be transferred by the SD-WAN network. Considering the uncertainty of the economic situation, perhaps more companies will seek to expand data pipe based on the original network instead of building a new network. For new business areas which requires more flexible contract term,and shorter provision time, SD-WAN integrated with MPLS-VPN would be a important direction.

I have been using Versa since 2017. 

The stability has been quite good. It's a purely software-based solution, so it can easily be scanned or installed in a virtual environment. It's very adaptive to those environments.

Good and stable

It is generally stable but when we have trouble with deploying or configuration we encounter certain issues. Their support is helpful and they respond in a timely manner. 

The price is consist of several aspects but it makes sense for the market.

For the SD-WAN solution, it's not just the pricing for accreditations from the solution side. We need to combine the hardware and the connections, even managing service ourselves. Customers need to have a integrated solution from a skilled engineer team, but not just to judge if the solution providers are fair or not. But generally, when we compare with other brands, I think this solution is lean and agile.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. There's no brand that can rank a 10. A ten from my perspective, means good enough to ramp-up. Eight is the highest that can be scored amongst the choices of SD-WAN brands. I think the SD-WAN products Versa has have great space to improve. For example, automation. We are saying it's an SD-WAN solution, but it's not fully automatic for the service provider side. It requires a skilled managed service team to handle service delivery, even senior technical team involved.Their expertise is very important in customer solutions deploy and operation.

It takes a lot of manpower to go to market which is why I'm not fully satisfied. Also, currently, we have to treat the solution as an isolated direction to go with. If the customer has invested a lot in their network, like Cisco, Huawei, or even Juniper, the customer needs to abandon their current invest. In that case, we hope that Versa will allow the customer to leverage their current and past investments.