Cisco Catalyst Center Reviews

We use Cisco Catalyst Center for managing switches in our IT infrastructure. Our primary focus has been on utilizing Catalyst switches for configuration and management purposes.

Cisco Catalyst Center has greatly enhanced the user-friendliness of configuring Catalyst switches. The integration of SDM makes switch configuration much simpler than before. Additionally, the virtual LANs provide some security features, helping us manage our network more efficiently. The integration with Cisco firewalls further enhances our network security.

If they can add a layer of portable hotspots with some licensing flexibility for 20 to 50 users, it would be a great feature.

I have been working with Cisco switches for the past fifteen to sixteen years.

There are no difficulties in integrating the switches with the firewalls; the process is very straightforward.

Cisco support is good, especially for those who have gone through Networking Academy. The support often comes in the form of chat boxes and preconditioned questions, making it easy to find solutions.

In terms of performance, the return on investment is good.

The cost is relative and depends on the market and one's budget provision. While Cisco provides a good return on investment, they are also facing competitive pricing challenges from Huawei.

Huawei has been a significant competitor to Cisco, especially regarding cost and return on investment. The increased features and enhancements have affected Huawei's pricing.

Overall, I give Cisco Catalyst Center an eight out of ten. While Huawei provides strong competition, Cisco's continuous enhancements make their products valuable.

On-premises

I use them for pretty much my entire switching platform.

The best feature of Cisco is its industry-standard nature. Cisco is often the example used, with hundreds of code examples. There is a very wide user base providing support, so I almost never have to contact Cisco support due to the vast accessible knowledge base.

There should be tighter cohesion between the web-based GUI and the command line configuration. Cisco is always complex, however, there is such a wide user base that I'm almost never the first person to try something out.

I have probably used it for six or seven years.

I've got units that haven't rebooted in over two and a half years. They are very stable, not power cycling, and basically maintaining their stability.

The scalability is quite good. They have a feature that allows stacking switches together. It is very robust. As far as the backplane and power stacking, it's quite remarkable.

I had to deal with them once, and I would give it a seven out of ten.

Neutral

It was just me, unfortunately. It is very easy to maintain. I have units that have not rebooted in almost two and a half years.

The price to get in the door is quite high. However, as long as I manage my rotation of them as I refresh it, it's not so bad. They have a long life. I did have a small Cisco deployment prior to that, and it was running for 15 years.

Absolutely, Cisco is industry baseline standard equipment that has known solutions for almost every problem I encounter. It is widely recognized and allows me to quickly and easily configure them for various situations. 

I'd rate it an eight and a half out of ten overall.

I use Cisco Catalyst Center to monitor Cisco infrastructure.

The most valuable feature of Cisco Catalyst Center is automation. It helps me monitor Cisco infrastructure effectively. The automation capabilities streamline many of our network management tasks, making operations more efficient.

Cisco Catalyst Center should be a bit more flexible with brownfield deployments.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Center for two years.

I would rate the stability of Cisco Catalyst Center as eight out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of Cisco Catalyst Center as eight out of ten.

I am satisfied with the technical support from Cisco. I would rate their technical support, including response time and quality, as eight out of ten.

Positive

Previously, I worked with NetAlly AirCheck G2, but I am now using NetAlly G3.

The initial setup of Cisco Catalyst Center is complex.

We required a third-party company for the deployment.

Cisco is a high-priced solution.

The main competitor on the market is SolarWinds. However, I prefer working with Cisco due to its integrated hardware and software, which offers better integration.

I rate the overall solution as eight out of ten.

On-premises

Cisco Catalyst Center is used for network management applications. I have it installed in one location, but I use it to manage devices in multiple locations.

Some valuable features I have observed with Cisco Catalyst Center include software management, license management, and troubleshooting for both wired and wireless networks. These features are some of the main reasons I use it. Additionally, the assurance feature helps bring all different devices to the same configuration, which is vital for managing multiple device types in my environment.

I just started using Cisco Catalyst Center and am in the process of adding devices to it. I have not gone through it much yet. It takes a while to get used to, even though documentation is available. However, for someone new, the documentation is not very clear. The different types of deployment were okay, but the specific deployment I chose took a bit of time to understand.

I have had experience with Cisco Catalyst Center for just a couple of months.

There have been no issues with stability.

Cisco Catalyst Center offers good scalability. It effectively manages all the devices I have, demonstrating its capability to scale.

Customer service has been excellent. I have an engineer assigned to me due to the service agreement I purchased, and their support has been good. I would rate technical support nine to nine and a half out of ten.

Positive

I did not have a previous solution for network management. I switched to Cisco Catalyst Center because I am a Cisco shop.

The initial setup takes some getting used to, especially since the documentation is not very clear for someone new.

The implementation involved a Cisco engineer assigned to me through a service agreement. The engineer has been working closely with me.

I would recommend Cisco Catalyst Center to others, especially if they have Cisco products because it is vendor-specific and built especially for Cisco devices. On a scale of one to ten, I would currently rate it a nine.

On-premises

I am more into sales, and my role was to sell Cisco Catalyst Center switches to end customers. Our clients were from different verticals that needed high-speed connectivity for large enterprise networks, and we used to position Cisco Catalyst Center switches for them.

Cisco Catalyst Center was flexible in terms of scalability, offering advanced security features and reliable performance. We used to position it during our sales cycle due to its scalability, advanced security features, and reliability. Additionally, it provided centralized management and ease of management through Cisco DNA center, aiding in the overall monitoring and configuration, which was beneficial for managing the entire network environment.

Some features in terms of security should be there, especially in threat detection. Cisco Catalyst Center lacked intelligence in this area and required reliance on third-party appliances like firewalls or threat protection devices. There should be some improvements in security features to enhance threat detection capabilities.

I worked with Cisco Catalyst Center for almost four to five years.

Cisco Catalyst Center is scalable and quite flexible, allowing for specific model choices like the 9,000 or 2,000 series based on the clients' performance requirements and bottlenecks.

I contacted Cisco's support team almost four to five years ago, and their support was excellent.

Positive

We assessed customers’ environments, identified performance demands and pain points, and positioned the appropriate Cisco Catalyst Center model to fit, potentially leading to performance improvements and better return on investment.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Center nine out of ten.

On-premises

I am working with some product lines from Cisco, focusing on routing platforms, Catalyst, and firewalls. I also work with access points and wireless controllers. I can work with any product from Cisco's networking lines. With the Catalyst, I work in enterprise environments and educational institutions like universities and colleges.

I can work with the typical configuration involving VLANs and authentication with RADIUS. I can utilize the most popular features in Catalyst. Prox platform is a universal platform. 

There is a lot of documentation for the platform, which is an advantage. The best feature is its availability, easy deployment, and the good support for the solution.

Regarding the cons of Catalyst, it is a little more expensive. With other vendors, you have one license for all features. In the case of Catalyst, there are many licensing options.

I have twenty years of experience with Cisco.

It is a very stable solution.

Support is very well rated. I would rate it eight out of ten. The software platform is very easy to use.

Positive

The setup is very easy. It can be done in one day, and it is very straightforward.

The deployment is very straightforward. One person handles it. I am the deployer and the consultant, so implementing the solution is my job.

The voice capabilities are used for the solution, however, I do not know how to quantify this system. The best feature is its availability, easy deployment, and good support for the solution.

The setup can be somewhat expensive.

The overall product rating is nine out of ten. 

The solution primarily focuses on visibility into Cisco products and day zero, day one, and day two operations. It enables plug-and-play features, device onboarding, hierarchy definition, and telemetry data collection, offering a comprehensive 360-degree view. The core of the solution is basic automation and visibility assurance.

Most customers have heterogeneous environments. The main drawback of Cisco Catalyst Center is that it can only manage and monitor Cisco devices with a DNA license, specifically the Catalyst 9000 series. Customers often have mixed vendor environments, and platforms like Xtream offer vendor-agnostic solutions. While Cisco's DNA Center does have third-party SDKs that allow monitoring of non-Cisco devices, this approach isn't always practical. Additionally, Kumar mentioned the importance of segmentation, transitioning to SDA, and moving away from traditional VLANs and ACLs towards identity-based segmentation integrated with ISE. Therefore, it's more suitable for customers who primarily use Cisco solutions rather than those with diverse vendor environments.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Center for four to five years.

Cisco performs well in the network space, especially in areas like switching, DNA Center, and wireless, where it is known for its stability. However, there are some issues with security, and the stability isn't as strong. Despite this, the number of PAC cases raised for Catalyst Center is generally low.

For scalability, Cisco DNA Center offers different form factors—small, large, and extra-large. The scalability depends on factors like the maximum number of APIs and nodes the hardware can support. You need to choose the appropriate form factor based on your requirements for the next two to three years to ensure it can handle your needs. The available options start from a capacity of 256 devices, as the smaller 44-device option is no longer available.

The device must be accessed regularly to monitor the network and generate reports from the DNA Center, which provides a wealth of data. Daily tasks like changing configurations or deploying templates won’t be frequent, as these are typically part of the initial setup. However, the operations or NOC team will monitor and manage the DNA Center daily to ensure smooth network operations.

Neutral

I have used Juniper and HP. Arista is one of the things that we generally see in data centers. 

At its core, switching is primarily about L2 and L3 functions, with little variation beyond the basics of port speed and supported features. The real difference now lies in the platforms' management, monitoring, and data capabilities. Every OEM, like Juniper with Marvis, Arista with CloudVision, Cisco with Catalyst Center, and Aruba with Aruba Central, emphasizes their platform more than hardware products. These platforms are where the value is added, offering advanced functionalities like automation, analytics, and enhanced network visibility, differentiating them from one another.

If you're moving toward a software-defined network in a public environment, it's important to understand how LISP works, how to create the fabric, and how to manage segmentation. While these aspects can be complex, basic automation and assurance are relatively straightforward.

If all the prerequisites are met, such as IP configuration and port opening, integrating a device into the network should only take one or two hours. This assumes everything is properly set up where the device is deployed.

These platforms are valuable because they reduce the need for extensive technical resources to manage the network. With such platforms in place, the cost of resources can be lowered, and adding or configuring new elements in the IT landscape becomes much easier. This streamlined approach simplifies network management and allows for more efficient operations.

It is the most expensive when you compare it with other OEMs.

If you look at the data, the data sheet mentions what kind of data the DNA Center is capturing and sending to the cloud. This data collection is essential for certain functionalities, like vulnerability assessments and local telemetry. I don't see any issues regarding data security, but it largely depends on the network's security and where the Cisco DNA Center is deployed.

Following the microservices architecture, you need three nodes to establish a Cisco DNA Center. This requirement is necessary if you want to form a fully functional Center. However, customer awareness of the DNA Center is still quite limited. Many customers hesitate to adopt a controller-based approach or commit to a single OEM. When considering Cisco, customers must have an infrastructure ready for the DNA Center, which often requires purchasing expensive software subscriptions like the DNA Advantage or Essentials licenses.

Additionally, Cisco has introduced an AWS form factor for DNA Center, allowing it to run as an AWS instance. However, this option has limitations and doesn’t offer the full functionality of the on-premise deployment. Customers increasingly seek diverse solutions and are less inclined toward adopting DNA Center, similar to how they were hesitant with SDN controllers five years ago. The market dynamics are changing, and customer interest in DNA Center is not as strong as it once was. It's very tough to push the Catalyst Center.

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

I use Cisco Catalyst Center in Uruguay where there are no large enterprises. I have worked in networks with about three hundred to four hundred devices. I have experience in the government and financial sectors.

I find Cisco Catalyst Center to be a great solution because their hardware is strong, and the platform is reliable. The availability of features that can be implemented, such as VLANs, adds to its versatility. I appreciate the confidence and reliability in Cisco products. Their threat intelligence platform is excellent, including Talos Intelligence, which provides a good database and strong threat insights.

Some documentation or use cases are not clear enough. However, when I contact their second-level support or product teams, they respond well. While documentation could be improved, it is not very relevant to me.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Center for several years.

I do not encounter difficulties when implementing Cisco Catalyst Center solutions.

I find Cisco Catalyst Center to be very reliable and it does not have major problems in security.

Cisco provides good support. Sometimes they escalate problems to second or third-level teams, solving issues in a timely manner, which not all brands or teams do.

Neutral

I do not find the initial setup of Cisco Catalyst Center to be difficult. The implementation process is fairly straightforward.

I find Cisco Catalyst Center is priced normally compared to other solutions. The cost is reflective of their good hardware and the level of service provided. While there might be cheaper hardware, Cisco's strength justifies the cost.

I have experience with Cisco Umbrella and other Cisco solutions.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco Catalyst Center as an eight or nine due to its good hardware, useful features, and strong security. My overall product rating is 8.