Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Reviews

We primarily use the solution for MPLS. We use it to have a connection to the telecom and we also have some radio networks that we use it for. We have two WAN ports - one is the MPLS one is the radio backbone.

The solution is excellent mainly for supporting our two WAN ports. We can dedicate which WAN is taking over and which one is available or not. It's great that we can also connect them to the internet. We can have a third line to connect to the internet providers for our internet solution. Everything is redundant and everything is working so far.

Overall, it's been working well for us.

The solution is great at aggregating the traffic and then sending it in one direction.

We have a good knowledge base in-house and good support in general and therefore we have continued to use it over the years.

The product can scale well.

The solution is very stable.

The solution basically does exactly what we need it to do. I can't recall finding a feature that was lacking for our purposes. We aren't actually using many of the features in general.

The solution could be a bit cheaper.

We've been using the solution for about three or four years at this point.

We've had absolutely no issues with the stability of the solution. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's been quite good overall.

This is deployed in our headquarters. We have them around the country, and we have some large offices and have the solution at all of them. There are likely 1,000 or more users on the solution all over the country.

The same generation and the same product is the easiest to scale and we have them mostly on some of our sites. We have the needed redundancy. That said, I would question the scalability if you are dealing with multiple types or other versions or other products. It needs to be of the same generation to take advantage of the path of least resistance.

We never test it with other solutions, however, with Cisco and other vendors is there is not recommended.

We mainly use the solution directly and as-is. There is a lot of redundancy, so if something goes wrong, there's something to catch it. We don't really use too many features for SD-WAN. So far, we don't need anything added on, and we really don't need too much support from customer service.

We buy support, however, in the latest versions, we really haven't needed assistance. IN the past, we did have some issues and support was there to help us get replacements, for example. They make getting replacements easy.

They usually reply to us within 15 minutes or so, if we do reach out. I'd describe them as pretty responsive. 

The level of difficulty depends on the experience of the engineer. If they don't have as much experience, it may be difficult. However, those that know the product well don't find the setup process complex.

Mainly they're using a command-line interface for years and they don't ask for anything like a GUI, which would be on Windows or Linux civil server. Everybody enjoys command-line. We exchanged some other Cisco products and some other routers recently, which were working for 15 years and are still working. We just asked for new ones with new features, like more traffic, more throughput, et cetera. 

I don't recall any maintenance really being needed. It works 24/7 without much need for assistance.

We did have some outside help, although nothing was from Cisco directly. We have our contact support company, and also we have in-house knowledge. It's done together, using both teams.

It would always be nice if the solution was a bit cheaper, however, the value is good. The cost of ownership is worth it as the solution itself is quite good and lasts years.

As a bigger company, we'd prefer to have a brand and a solution that's reliable as opposed to trying to find the cheapest option and have sleepless nights, afraid it might fail.

To calculate what we buy and how much it costs us for all the services, it's still quite a lot of money.

You have to pay between 3000 and 10,000 euros, or something in that range. The core switches Nexus cost me between 10,000 and 20,000 euros. However, they work, and that's why we use them.

We are just a customer and end-user.

We have 1921 and 4331 router versions. 

Not only does Cisco have a reputation, but we also have a good experience for a number of years, - five, 10, 15, 20 even years of use. Some of them still working even after all of this time.

In general, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. If it were more affordable, I might rate it higher.

The first part that we like is that we can reuse certain hardware, which is a valuable asset. You can use hardware SKUs that already exist in the network.

The second part that we like is the integration with the cloud and the measurement of the cloud's quality. These are the two values that this solution gives as compared to other implementations that we have seen.

Its license model needs to be improved. They always make the license model too complex. There are too many license models and too many options. They should have a flexible license model.

They can improve a lot of things in terms of scalability, templates, and automation, mainly automation for onboarding a number of sites.

If you want some new features, it can take quite a long time. If you want a feature and it is not yet developed, you need to have the support of the business units to have the feature developed. If the feature is not on their roadmap, it can take quite some time before you get the feature.

I have been using this solution for about a year.

Its stability is fine if you stay within certain releases. From the stability point of view of the releases, it is fine.

We don't have deployments that have more than 500 sites. That's our biggest deployment from one customer. I cannot say anything for huge deployments because we do not have a lot of metrics.

Their technical support is good. They know what they are talking about, and you can see that they are experienced in their product.

It is easy to set up for small deployments. If you go for larger deployments, you hit some limitations in the GUI, and it could be more complex. This is because not all features that we assumed to be available are available in the GUI. For example, you know there are some features in the traditional MPLS router, but these features are not available when you run the same hardware on Cisco SD-WAN. 

In small deployments, you don't see such an issue. In larger deployments, such as data center setups, you see some limitations popping up. Some features that we had in traditional routing are not available in Cisco SD-WAN. Bootstrapping is okay, but you are limited to the serial number. A limitation is that you need to link the serial number and the bootstrap process, which depends on the model. If you are used to working with a serial number, it is fine, but if you are not, it can be more difficult.

The license model is too complex with too many flavors and options. You might not be able to see it from an end user's point of view, but from a telco point of view, their license model is too complex. They should have a flexible license model. If you want to have good pricing, you need to buy it for a two-year, four-year, or five-year license immediately. Some other vendors have much more flexible license models.

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

We are an IT integration company that implements this solution for customers and clients. We deploy the solution on-premises.

The solution is stable.

The solution is expensive and could be cheaper.

The solution is stable.

It is a very scalable solution. 

We have experience with customer service and support.

The initial setup is straightforward in a laboratory environment, but when we started implementing it in the field, we had some problems. We are deploying a pilot of the solution for a few branches.

We have seen a return on investment.

We have a subscription and a three-year license.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten and I would recommend it to others. 

Cisco SD-WAN's most valuable feature is the ease of transition.

Cisco SD-WAN's smart account stuff could be improved. People still think they're using traditional licenses, so customers need a lot of education on using SD-WAN devices, especially on the smart/virtual account side.

I've been using Cisco SD-WAN for about two years.

Cisco SD-WAN's stability is good - I haven't found any issues at the operational level.

Cisco SD-WAN's scalability is good.

The initial setup was complex and required us to plan ahead. If you don't have an in-house design team or outsource to a third party with expertise, the setup will be difficult.

It takes some time, but Cisco SD-WAN gives a good ROI - for example, we have had some savings in terms of transport.

I'd advise anybody thinking of implementing Cisco SD-WAN to learn the smart and virtual account setup and the staging and installation process very clearly. This isn't just a case of buying a license or device and installing it, you need to create a lot of stuff, so you need to understand the technology before buying it, at least in a test lab or non-production environment. I would give Cisco SD-WAN a rating of seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for connectivity.

The connectivity is great.

The dashboard is excellent.

It's a scalable solution.

The product is stable. 

Technical support is very good. 

The solution is a bit complicated. They could work on simplifying the product. For example, doing configurations could be easier. 

The initial setup is tedious.

It was a bit expensive. They can improve their licensing model.

We'd like to see more monitoring features. 

They can improve in terms of their GUI. 

They can improve in terms of hardware.

I've been using the solution for five years. 

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

The product is scalable. 

We have been satisfied with the technical support. They are great. There is always room for improvement, however, they're always resolving the issues

Positive

We also have experience with Meraki. The differences are licensing and pricing, however, the features are pretty much comparable.

The solution is difficult to set up. It's tedious. We'd like it to be easier. You really need to know a lot of stuff before initially trying to configure everything.

I'd rate the process a three out of five in terms of ease of use. 

It took us about two weeks to set up.

It's one of the more expensive solutions out there. I would rate it two out of five in terms of affordability. All you need to pay is the licensing fee. There are no extra costs. 

I'd rate the solution a six out of ten.

I am using Cisco SD-WAN for access to the internet.

Cisco SD-WAN could improve the integration with the cloud.

I have used Cisco SD-WAN within the last 12 months.

Cisco SD-WAN is a stable solution.

The scalability of Cisco SD-WAN is good. 

We have approximately 2,000 people using the solution and approximately 25 of them are engineers.

The support from Cisco SD-WAN is good.

The setup of Cisco SD-WAN was easy.

There is a monthly subscription to use this solution.

I rate Cisco SD-WAN a ten out of ten.

The purpose of this solution is mainly for migration from the LAN circuit to the internet using a secure edge SD-WAN for communication.

We are using the latest version of this solution. The solution is deployed on-premises and on the cloud.

This solution is mainly used in the pre-sales department, and then it's implemented by the implementation team.

The scalability is the most valuable feature.

The platform needs to be updated to be more stable and simple.

I have been using this solution for three years.

Sometimes it's a little buggy, so there needs to be some updates to make the solution more stable.

The solution is scalable.

Technical support is generally useful.

Cisco SD-WAN was our company's first choice, but they also use Fortinet.

The solution is "plug and play," but sometimes it needs manual intervention. Maintenance depends on the customer's number of devices.

Deployment is mainly done in-house.

It's costly. The cost is high compared to competitors.

There are many different licenses and devices. There's the license and the device itself as hardware, and the license as software. It varies between the hardware and software, and they have many free licensing models. So, there isn't an exact price. There are also many discounts in the middle before they provide it to the customer.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10. 

My advice is to identify your real needs for the solution. Do you really need SD-WAN or are you just following the trends?

We use this solution to interconnect our branches with the headquarters and interconnect other countries with the hub.

Before we deployed SD-WAN, we used to have at least two links per branch but could only use one at a time. Now we are able to use all the links together.

The best feature about SD-WAN is the ability to consolidate the links to the branch and load-balance the traffic.

There should be more flexibility in the licensing. In the next release, I would like Cisco to add all the troubleshooting tools from Viptela to SD-WAN.

I've been using this solution for two years.

SD-WAN is very stable - once it's deployed, you can just forget about it, it runs by itself.

This solution is very scalable - the only requirement is to add the licenses for the devices being brought on board.

The initial setup was not very straightforward, but it gets easier the more deployments you complete.

We used an integrator and Cisco themselves.

When purchasing, there are so many features available that it's quite confusing deciding which to choose. And some of the devices force you to buy licenses you don't want. 

As far as deployment is concerned, either get Cisco Professional Services or an integrator to assist, as the person taking lead on deployment needs to have experience with the product. I'd give this product a score of seven out of ten.