Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Reviews

We rate customers' sites in four categories, platinum, gold, silver, and bronze. Depending on the type of site, such as how many connections or internet circuits, we gather information about the site and how it is operating and place them into one of the four categories. At this stage, we will migrate the legacy site to Cisco SD-WAN. We are using three different types of devices using a template for the customer's needs.

The most valuable features of Cisco SD-WAN are reliability and scalability.

The integration of Cisco SD-WAN with cloud solutions could improve. For example, if any of the applications are hosted in the Amazon AWS cloud we can use a virtual transit gateway for integrating Cisco SD-WAN.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for approximately five years.

The solution is stable. Other solutions provide better stability, such as Silver Peak SD-WAN.

I rate the stability of Cisco SD-WAN an eight out of ten.

Cisco SD-WAN is scalable.

Our clients are large enterprises. 

I rate the scalability of Cisco SD-WAN a ten out of ten.

The support is good from the vendor. When migrating some sites from China we have to manage some of the controllers differently I did not receive good support, and they took a lot of time to respond.

I rate the support of Cisco SD-WAN a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I have used Silver Peak SD-WAN and Prisma SD-WAN. When comparing Prisma SD-WAN and Cisco SD-WAN, Prisma SD-WAN takes less time for the provisioning of devices to the controllers.

I have a lot of customers using Palo Alto hardware because of the support and discounts they provide.

The initial setup of Cisco SD-WAN is easy because I have been working with the solution for five years. The time it takes for the deployment depends on the environment as a whole and the connection to the legacy environment and the creation of policies. A typical deployment can take three to four months.

I rate the initial setup of Cisco SD-WAN an eight out of ten.

We do the deployment of the solution. The number of people we use for a five-hundred branch site is four teams and each team has five people. The teams consist of L2 and L3 engineers and a reviewer from the project team. From the first day of deployment to the handover, it took one year to complete.

The price of Cisco SD-WAN is expensive. We pay approximately $50 monthly for the use of the solution.

I rate the price of Cisco SD-WAN a two out of ten.

We have a team of 25 people for the maintenance of the solutions.

I would advise others that Cisco SD-WAN security is not highly secure. It is best to use a SaaS solution, such as Prisma SD-WAN and Primsa Access.

If cost is not a concern then this is a good solution to use.

I rate Cisco SD-WAN an eight out of ten.

Our company uses the solution to provide secure connections for customers. 

We have a hybrid data center model that bridges the gap between cloud and on-premises for customers. It is a mixed design to consolidate resources. 

We also replace expensive NBLS lines with SDN and the internet to provide cost efficiency for telecom business lines. 

We have quite a few customers who use the solution. 

The solution provides good consolidation, centralization, and manageability for edge routers. 

The user interface needs to be more friendly.

The solution should be more cost effective. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

The solution is very stable. 

The solution is very scalable. 

The technical support is excellent and perfect. 

The setup is quite straightforward and the solution is easy to deploy. 

Deployment time depends on the size the customer or enterprise. Each customer has its own use case so it is difficult to give a time estimate. In any case, the work is straightforward with no obstacles or challenges. 

We implement the solution for customers. 

The solution is quite expensive so it is important to enhance its cost efficiency. 

I recommend the solution and rate it a seven out of ten. 

We use Cisco SD-WAN backup as a failover, from the MPLS circuit. We also use the solution at remote sites where we were going over cellular satellites to secure the data.

We deployed the Cisco SD-WAN FlexVPN version. At the organization I was at, the Cisco SD-WAN solution allowed us to reduce costs by getting off MPLS circuits and using a regular IP provider, cellular provider, or satellite provider for primary and backup networks. The SD-WAN solution cut costs and was well adopted by the IT department since most corporate IT departments are Cisco brand.

Cisco products are rated to handle the heat and are very rugged, making them a good corporate standard. They are slightly more expensive than some other products but are still an affordable corporate-grade solution. We have had some issues with the ISO versions of the SD-WAN, but the FlexVPN solution has since resolved them. Cisco SD-WAN is a good, solid product, but requires a certain skill set to use. We cannot simply switch from Peplink to Cisco as the two are different. The upgrade to iOS 11 has fixed any issues we had with the product, and it has been reliable for the past four years.

Cisco's management function has room for improvement, and I believe they have something for that now. At the time, the management of the device and the configuration of the device could have been more user-friendly, with a point-and-click or GUI style, instead of using the command line. We had to use the command line to configure everything. I believe Cisco has a management port.

The initial setup is complex and can be improved.

I would like to have stable, SBI, or IPS functions in the routers at our edge points.

I have been using the solution for 15 years.

My first impression of the solution's stability was that it was quirky. We had some dropped sessions where the VPN session would just drop if we had a carrier drop and some sessions where the solution would drop the VPN session. It wasn't a virtual device; it was a piece of hardware in the data center. I saw it and had that drawing. The solution would drop the VPN sessions whenever they got too loaded because we had a priority on the session screen devices and they had an issue there. My initial thought was, "Why didn't we use something else?" After Cisco made changes to their FlexVPN appliance in iOS, it became really stable. We had a workaround for it, which was to tear down the session every few hours and round-robin the remote devices to set up the sessions. This would help to load balance the solution into the data center. After Cisco fixed their software, we no longer had to do that and we didn't have any issues because it would automatically shift the remote to set the load across all the appliances.

I give the scalability of the solution a nine out of ten. The solution scales out very well. We just need the right product in our data center to integrate Cisco SD-WAN. For this particular solution, Cisco SD-WAN would scale out successfully. The amount of memory required is substantial, as we have many TCP connections that require a lot of memory. We also need a lot of processing files. Initially, the solution was lacking in this area, but it has since been improved. We used the solution for twelve hundred sites, while the company I was at previously had twelve thousand. They have since migrated to Palo Alto, although I have not used it. We were unable to use it on remote sites as Palo Alto did not have a hardware version. However, Palo Alto now has a hardware version, so we can use it in a controlled environment.

The technical support is good.

I had previously used a solution called SpamFeed Network, which is owned by ComTech EF Data, for application acceleration over satellite. It was Linux based on OpenSuite and had compression, security, and firewall features, as well as packet inspection if desired. It worked very well, but was extremely expensive, more than double the price of a Cisco solution.

The initial setup was complex. If we weren't familiar with it, we needed to be aware of the solution's features and set up our VPN connection. It was more cumbersome, but it worked out. Cisco has the best documentation that I have seen so far; we just have to read and find it. Cisco does a good job of making it available, but we have to be familiar with their product to understand it.

I've never had eight or nine people on a phone call before; normally, it would only be two. With the new security model, we need a minimum of two people: one in the data center to manage the firewall and one in the field to do the configuration and installation. We had nine people on the call because we had project coordinators, but this is not Cisco's best practice. This is how the younger IT people operate. I prefer to follow the Purdue model, which only requires two people.

The implementation was completed in-house.

There has been a return on investment since we began deploying Cisco SD-WAN in 2018, prior to the onset of COVID. They are still functioning, and they will begin refreshing their devices and changing them out at five years. They usually start changing the model when they are able to write off the product, and they typically acclimate over a three-year period or when Cisco discontinues the product. They are still hanging in there.

I give the price a seven out of ten. Cisco hasn't quite reached the top yet, from what I've seen. I didn't look at the price, but I'm sure VMware is more expensive than Cisco Verdi.

I evaluated Mushroom Networks, but they did not meet corporate standards. The company may have considered Cradlepoint, Peplink, or Mushroom networks, but they ultimately decided to go with Cisco or Juniper, which are more widely used.

I give the solution a five out of ten because there are some competitors that provide a better interface, which is easier to configure and requires less scripting. Cisco is slower to implement such features. Cisco has some better products with a management system and virtual VPN solution, as they have been doing this for a longer time.

Cisco SD-WAN is not quite as easy to configure, as Peplink or mushroom network. From what I can see on the Cradlepoint, we have to have a little more skill for Cisco. Cisco SD-WAN does work well and It fails over well. What I'd do is read due to the session to load balance at the time, but I think Cisco has since automated that. Cisco is a corporate standard and if it was my money, I'd probably not use Cisco due to cost. Cisco does actually have products that are more cost-effective than industrial products on the market, such as the Eagle30 product. Cisco is more on the high-end cost-wise. Cisco SD-WAN is not as easy to manipulate a program. If we're looking for people that are trained to administer Cisco, it is a lot easier to find compared to any other solutions even though the other products may be easier to install. A lot of people won't use them because they are not the industry standard.

We have to give Cisco credit. They have put a lot of effort into education, which I appreciate. They have excellent documentation on how to do basic configurations, which is enough to get our network up and running. That's what I like about Cisco.

Cisco SD-WAN is a good corporate solution that scales well. Cisco is prompt in providing fixes. They may not be instantaneous, but if we open a case, they are usually quick to provide a solution. We should opt for a product that has been around for a while; if it is a new product, we may encounter a few issues. We should stick with something that has been around for at least a year or two, such as Cisco. I can confidently say that Cisco is stable and is a corporate standard.

We use the solution to interconnect the branch network.

Cisco's performance is very good. The branches that we installed went on smoothly. We operate with no complaints. When it comes to management, it's simple. One PIN will allow us visibility into everything. Another thing is troubleshooting; we can see the issues quickly, dig down, and know exactly what the issue is.

Since the new one comes with the included IPSec tool, we don't have any security issues. It's already covered because all the data is fully encrypted between the branch and the office.

Cisco provides visibility. We can see the performance of the branch. Troubleshooting is swift, allowing for fast turnaround times whenever we encounter an issue.

The user interface needs improvement. Users should be able to find various features faster without much tweaking.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN since 2019.

The product is stable. We don't have any downside so far.

Cisco is very stable, whether a branch network or the branches. We don't have any issues with them.

Seven members of the team interact with the solution.

We haven't encountered any issues with scalability when adding more branches or refining the solution.

We interact with them whenever we need access to the services.

Positive

I have used SilverPeek. It is made for the end user, not for technical engineers. It is easy to deploy and has better visibility of how the network is performing than Cisco.

I have used both solutions. I have evaluated some other solutions. Technically, all the SD-WAN solutions work the same, so it depends on the organization. Cost is a factor. Cisco is on the higher side but is stable. There have been a few upgrades.

The initial setup is straightforward. Initially, it may seem a bit complex, but overall it is straightforward.

Deployment typically takes from four to six months to complete. Additional time may be needed, especially if issues with procuring hub routers were not included in the original plan. Developing the actual network implementation plan may take around six months. However, the actual migration process after that is quick. It usually takes less than three months to migrate the network fully.

We work with three guys from the internal team and four from vendors.

From a technical perspective, we used to experience failures, especially when using two service providers where data wouldn't come up if one link went down. We no longer encounter that issue. We're able to utilize both links simultaneously. Thus, we haven't faced the necessity of quick upgrades as we did when relying on a single link. Having one link operational at any given time was less elastic.

Cisco is expensive.

We need to renew the licensing after three years whenever updates are required. These licenses are valid for three years. There's no longer a need for routine physical maintenance of the devices, which is typical for network devices.

We initially faced some challenges with sizing and acquiring the necessary devices. We encountered some issues with missing hub routers. However, once we overcame those obstacles, we involved Cisco professional services. They assisted us in creating the low-level design and supported the initial site deployments. After that, we were able to proceed independently. Our corporate professional services team guided us through the process and helped us develop the design.

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

My client wants to use SD-WAN to reduce their line costs. By using SD-WAN, they aim to lower transport costs and better use internet traffic and bandwidth.

Clients use SD-WAN, which encapsulates the packet into a VPN tunnel. This allows them to be ready. In SD-WAN, the internet line is generally much cheaper than other lines. For example, they can use DIA to access internet traffic. With strong encryption, such as TLS or IPsec, they can securely send business traffic over the internet at a lower cost.

It depends on the customer’s requirements. In our area, Taiwan, we help users build SD-WAN. They are only using SD-WAN for transport. They want multitasking and QR code functions enabled.

Customers collaborate with ISPs and currently work with three ISPs, using options like LSM VPN and MPLS VPN to reduce line costs. They are considering moving from their current setup to an MPLS VPN and might also consider using a DIA line for internet access. However, due to government regulations and audits of internet access, they are cautious about using an internet line. They are still deciding which bank should be the first to implement this change.

If I want to improve the SD-WAN in the future, they might consider integrating it with technologies like SignalR and SRv6 into the SD-WAN control plane. This would enhance functionality, such as SRv6 video capabilities. They can simply use an SD-WAN solution based on SRv6.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for one year.

I rate the solution's stability as eight out of ten.

It is scalable. 8200 users are using this solution.

I rate the solution's scalability an eight out of ten.

Our banking customers trust Cisco. I work for a company that serves these banking clients, and we provide Cisco's CX service to help them build their SD-WAN solution. They purchase the product and the associated service, and the Cisco team assists with the deployment, making the process straightforward. It takes a couple of hours to deploy completely.

The product is expensive.

I recommend the solution.

Overall, I rate the solution as five out of ten.

Viptela is one part of SD-WAN that can give you an internet connection with the help of stacking. You can create a stack in the environment called a TLOC. With the help of TLOC, you can configure your ISPs in one bundle, giving you the network's resiliency. The best part is that you will get a few connections immediately onto your network.

If one of your ISPs goes down or has latency in your environment, Cisco SD-WAN will detect the issue and explain why the ISP is down. This is the solution's best feature, as it allows you to monitor your ISP links very well from their side. The solution's configuration is easy and not that hard. The solution's central management allows you to raise cases and get support.

The solution should be more user-friendly.

Cisco SD-WAN is a stable solution.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the solution’s scalability a nine out of ten.

The solution's technical support team supports you on your tickets region-wise.

The solution's initial setup is neither very simple nor too complex. Someone with good network knowledge can easily configure the solution to their environment.

Cisco provides the best support, and that's why most people are using it. Cisco is a brand right now that provides a fast solution for networks. Cisco SD-WAN is a cloud-based solution. Users who want the best support can choose Cisco SD-WAN.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The product's application delivery feature needs improvement. Its ability to provide efficient reliability during multiple WAN link failures could be improved. The second consideration revolves around the port reliability of the link. Moving to the third point, while Cisco's advanced solutions excel in high-compute environments typical of software-based companies, they may fall short in addressing the needs of organizations with high-compute and high-storage infrastructures, especially those preferring hybrid or on-premises setups. Silver Peak outperforms Cisco in this area due to its WAN optimization techniques. To bridge this gap and accelerate product adoption, they could integrate WAN optimization solutions into their SD-WAN portfolio through strategic decisions such as acquiring robust WAN optimization solutions like Riverbed Steelhead or integrating its legacy product, with modern SD-WAN capabilities.

We have been using Cisco SD-WAN for six years.

I rate the product's stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the platform's scalability a ten. Currently, over 5,000 users are working with SD-WAN. As for plans, while the exact numbers are uncertain, usage is expected to grow.

The technical support services are good.

Positive

The decision to opt for Cisco SD-WAN over other tools depends on various factors, such as the specific environment, customer requirements, and the solution's scalability. Ultimately, it emerged as the best fit for these customers and their budgets. While acknowledging that it can be costly, it's imperative that the customer can afford the solution, considering its functionality. For instance, it facilitates seamless application delivery by enabling the migration of applications to the cloud.

Regarding the initial setup experience of Cisco SD-WAN, I rate the process a ten out of ten. While I wouldn't describe it as easy, the setup process is highly professional and efficient. As for the deployment environment, Cisco SD-WAN can be used in any configuration, whether public, private, or hybrid cloud. However, it may be most suitable for companies with a private cloud infrastructure focused on web applications rather than high computing and storage environments. Deployment time depends on various factors, such as planning and available resources. If everything is well-planned and resources are readily available, onboarding a device can take less than an hour. However, for greenfield deployments without existing infrastructure components, deployment time can vary significantly based on the organization's planning and commitment, making it difficult to provide a specific estimate.

We have observed a return on investment (ROI) with Cisco SD-WAN. The timeframe to realize this ROI varies based on several factors, such as the number of locations being addressed and the core objectives of the deployment. External factors like SLAs with third-party vendors and internet service providers also play a significant role in determining the timeline. Therefore, it depends on the unique circumstances of each deployment.

The primary advantage we've observed is the simplification of deployment, leading to decreased IT costs and enhanced operational efficiency. It also optimizes various dependencies from an architectural perspective. In supporting our cloud migration and multi-cloud strategy, Cisco SD-WAN, particularly through Cisco Umbrella, has addressed the critical factor of sustaining user experience during application migration. By facilitating local Internet breakout in remote sites, users can access applications directly through Cisco Umbrella, ensuring a comprehensive security solution throughout the migration process. Additionally, the scalability and flexibility of Cisco SD-WAN have been highly beneficial for our organization. Compared to other solutions, such as VeloCloud, Forty SD-WAN, and SilverPeak SD-WAN, Cisco's integrated approach with Viptela has stood out, offering enhanced software-defined networking features and centralized orchestration. This scalability has allowed us to expand our network architecture globally while streamlining management efforts.

Furthermore, integrating Cisco SD-WAN into our existing infrastructure has significantly reduced costs. While I cannot disclose specific percentages, we have strategically reinvested these savings where needed, enabling us to migrate retail access links from MPLS to the Internet while maintaining security and investing strategically in core services. For those considering Cisco SD-WAN, I highly recommend it for its true flavor of software-defined networking in WAN infrastructure. With robust support from the Cisco team, channel partners, and readily available resources in the market, Cisco SD-WAN offers a reliable, advantageous solution for long-term network management and optimization.

I rate it an eight out of ten.

When considering the most valuable features of Cisco SD-WAN, the decoupling of self-monitoring stands out significantly. This feature enhances operational efficiency by centralizing control plans and policy management, making applying SD-WAN features across numerous devices easier. The central policy enforcement feature is also highly beneficial, particularly regarding network security. With this feature, security policies can be defined centrally, streamlining security management across the network. Another valuable aspect is the improved link utilization, which previously took a lot of work to implement. It enables granular control over link management, quality of service, and application prioritization, enhancing overall network performance. Furthermore, integrating APIs facilitates automation and simplifies routing, a previously unattainable capability.

Cisco should develop a clear roadmap, ensuring seamless integration between Meraki and Viptela. Simplifying the definition and implementation could add significant value, as it can be complex due to multiple product integrations and customization requirements.

We have been using Cisco SD-WAN for two to three years.

I rate the platform's stability an eight out of ten.

It is a scalable platform. We work mostly with enterprise companies such as banking institutes. I rate the scalability an eight and a half out of ten.

Cisco's technical support services are always good. They are always present whenever we need their assistance in resolving issues.

Positive

The initial setup is more complex than other vendors but relatively easy. I'd rate the process around seven out of ten. Regarding deployment, it's mostly on-premises. Once the initial configuration is set up, deployment takes little time. Once policies are configured, onboarding is efficient. Even for hundreds of branches, deployment can be done in weeks.

The product is not too expensive. It is competitive considering security features. The licensing cost is typically based on bandwidth subscription. For example, you must purchase a corresponding subscription if you have a bandwidth range of one to five Mbps. While this may seem insignificant for smaller bandwidth needs, it can add up for organizations with multiple links. It's worth noting that some other vendors, like Huawei and Fortinet, don't charge for bandwidth subscriptions in their SD-WAN solutions.

SD-WAN has significantly improved our customers' network management. It brings a lot of efficiency, particularly through automation. Instead of manually configuring each device, we can utilize a centralized management platform to push configurations and manage devices. It enhances operational efficiency and provides better visibility into network operations. Additionally, it facilitates the deployment of advanced features, such as gigabit capabilities, which might otherwise be challenging to implement.

The scalability and flexibility of Cisco SD-WAN have brought significant benefits to our clients. From a business perspective, it has led to better management and improved quality of service for applications. Optimizing application performance and enabling multiple applications hosting on servers with enhanced quality has played a crucial role in enhancing service levels.

The traffic management capabilities play a crucial role in optimizing SD-WAN performance. With different types of circuits like MPLS, Internet, 4G, and 5G, organizations prioritize critical applications for reliable service. It optimizes application traffic across the most suitable circuits. It offers traffic optimization and error correction to enhance throughput and ensure efficient traffic flow even in link quality issues.

The integration into infrastructure has impacted IT overhead and costs. While there is an additional pricing model for the subscriptions, its efficiency must also be considered as it adds significant value. It is not a hardware-agnostic platform requiring integration with Cisco hardware. However, since many of our customers already use Cisco products, the migration from non-SD-WAN to SD-WAN was relatively seamless, with minimal problems.

Depending on their needs, if routing capabilities are prioritized, Cisco and Huawei offer extensive routing features, making them strong contenders among SD-WAN vendors. However, if security is a top concern, Palo Alto or Fortinet are worth considering. Cisco's solution is particularly robust in routing, boasting a significant market share.

I rate it an eight out of ten.