Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Reviews

Cisco SD-WAN is a very good product. It is difficult to highlight one specific feature.

We don't have any issues with this solution other than the price.

I have been working with Cisco SD-WAN for a couple of years.

We have recently upgraded to the newest version.

Cisco SD-WAN is a stable product.

Cisco SD-WAN is a scalable solution.

We have many users in our organization.

The technical support is excellent.

I have worked with VMware products, but not with SD-WAN.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is easy to install.

The price is high.

It's a good product, it's stable, and has good support.

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

Primarily, the solution is meant for multi-side locations, in which different kinds of MPLS and internet to MPLS scaling over are involved, as well as configurations based on the latencies and data availability of the links. These are the kinds of parameter services to which I refer. In a nutshell, the solution focuses on the availability of the network from one side to the other. 

As there are several improvements we wish to see in the next release, I would rate the solution as an eight out of ten. 

Compresson deduplication should be added. This would make the solution excellent. The solution already affords availability, scalability, link monitoring and performance monitoring on the link. This means that if deduplication and compression could be added then, obviously, it would result in a compression of the data and a faster transmission between the side. 

If deduplication can be added at the source, then this will, certainly, greatly speed up the packet moment. 

We have been engaged with Cisco and its various solutions for around 10 or 15 years, since the start, and specifically with Cisco SD-WAN for five or six years. We did not provide the solution during the middle of last year, although we did so previously. We have not sold the solution over this past year and have, instead, acted as a service partner. 

The solution is very stable. 

The solution is very scalable. 

Cisco technical support is fairly good. 

We have at least 10 to 15 customers making use of SD-WAN, but three or four when it comes to Cisco SD-WAN. This is because we also deal in other products, such as the segment concerning Silver Peak, Barracuda and NG Firewall. As we act as the consultant, we do not limit ourselves exclusively to the use of Cisco. There are various requirements which must be considered and these differ with the needs of the customer. 

Installation is easy. While I do not recall its duration, I do so that it is not complex. It's pretty straightforward. 

The side in charge of deployment and maintenance and a couple of engineers is sufficient for handling these tasks. 

Cloud subscription management must be paid for, although this does not incur a perpetual fee. The cloud subscription comes with its own cost, owing to the maintenance and management costs that the device has of its own accord. Needless to say, there is a subscription fee involved. It is not free. 

We have installed the solution with one of our customers. We are not its end-user, but the partner or consultant. 

Mostly, deployment is on-premises. XD management is cloud-based. 

Nowadays, there are more than three or four different units and data side locations, which obviously requires some kind of SD-WAN solution, regardless of which product the person plans to use. This is requisite technology for one's network. 

I would certainly recommend this solution to others. 

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

The solution is primarily just for software-defined WAN or WAN edge solutions. We use it to connect to data centers.

All the features that they have in there have been great. The solution offers good quality of service, visibility, connectivity, and security. It's all of that stuff that makes it good. That is what's required.

Cisco is finding its footing in that area, and they're getting better.

For our team, the installation is pretty straightforward.

The solution can scale. We haven't had any issues doing so.

The quality could always continuously improve. For example, we've had stability concerns in the past.

Native connectivity into the major cloud providers would be ideal.

Often, the solution does require a specialized team to come in and assist with the initial setup.

Technical support could be more helpful and responsive. 

I've been dealing with the solution for three or four years at this point. 

The solution could be more stable. There are issues that they've had to deal with.

The solution seems to be scalable so far. For all the opportunities we've been involved with, it's been good and we haven't hit a wall.

We do deal with technical support from time to time. Their tech support could be better. We are not 100% satisfied with the level of service they offer.

For us, the implementation is easy, as we are trained to handle it. The product usually requires somebody like us to come in there and help customers through this.

Deployment times vary depending on the client and the environment. It depends on how big, the opportunity, how many sites, how many branches, et cetera. All of that stuff comes into play.

We assist our clients with the implementation process.

I can't speak to the costs associated with the product. We get involved with just the installations, that's all.

We're a service partner. As implementors, we install all versions. Usually, however, when we get involved, it's always the latest version that we are installing.

I'd advise users to understand what they're getting. It's a good idea to probably do a POC to see it and make sure it meets all the requirements that the company is looking for before buying in completely.

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

The solution allows us to replace the existing routers and to remove the costly MPLS.

The solution is good to use and easy to handle and manage from the centralized location or from the cloud.

This means that no engineer need visit the site to do configurations and it addresses maintenance and upgrade issues, something which frees us up to accomplish more. 

The cost of the solution is very high, when taking into account the customer location and the existence of a single router for routing purposes and security, with a single firewall and license. The license should be cheaper. 

Better pricing and greater security would be nice to see. 

We could replace the solution with Viptela web access and make use of the broadband connectivity.

The security features should also be addressed, such as that which Palo Alto or Check Point provide for the firewall, in which the SD-WAN boxes would contain the same kind of firewall features. This would be great.

I have been using Cisco SD-Wan for nearly two years.

The solution is scalable. This is based on the bandwidth, how the customer makes use of the internet.

Perhaps we will increase usage in the future. 

We are satisfied with customer support. 

Prior to going with the solution we made use of Silver Peak SD-WAN. 

The installation is easy. Within five minutes we can install one Viptela box in the branch location.

Once there is internet connectivity, the management of the solution by the IT administrator from the branch office or the headquarters is easy.

The installation can be done independently. 

The license consists of an annual fee. 

The price could be better. 

I don't know if we evaluated Meraki before going with Cisco SD-WAN. I don't have that much hands-on experience with the other SD-WAN, but I know a bit about the Silver Peak SD-WAN solutions.

We did implementation at the various customer sites and handed things over to them.

We use the solution in an organizational framework and there are nearly 130 users who are doing so.

The solution is recommended for Cisco Viptela. It's great.

I rate Cisco SD-WAN as a nine out of ten. 

If I have to give a neutral view of all the SD-WAN platforms that I have known so far, Cisco is good in routing.

The solution does not offer WAN optimization.

We have found that their SD-WAN has a lot of scope for improvement.

For example, they can probably look at their security stack. They can look at including some features like WAN optimizing, which is currently not there as a part of their in-built SD-WAN features. That could make their device a full-fledged SD-WAN with a single stack or a single device, solving many problems. It would mean once a customer goes for a Cisco SD-WAN, he doesn't have to look at a second device in his ecosystem.

Cisco has got integration challenges.

The solution lacks advanced security features.

Besides a WAN optimizer, I would like to see if they can do something about the security, and maybe they could have in-built security features such as a firewall.

The cost could be better. Cisco is not great for the SMB market. These are price-sensitive customers and they typically will not go ahead with Cisco, unless and until they are a global organization and they have their entire ecosystem deployed on Cisco. Otherwise, Cisco is struggling to connect with these players as their pricing is high. They need to have better technology at a more competitive price.

The organization that I work for, basically, we have deployed it in our lab. We do testing of multiple OEMs. It's been more than two years, that we have been using Cisco SD-WAN.

I have experience with a variety of different solutions. I also have worked with
Versa, Fortinet and FatPipe.

The initial setup could be more straightforward. A solution such as FatPipe, for example, has a very easy setup. In that case, when it comes to the GUI, in four, five clicks, the entire network gets established.

The solution needs to be priced more competitively. SMBs won't even look at Cisco as they already know it will be too expensive. 

I've worked with other solutions and therefore have evaluated them a bit.

For example, FatPipe has an easier initial setup. The GUI is very simple, and the platform is highly, highly advanced, even as compared to your Cisco, Versa, or Fortinet options. 

What I see in Fortinet is more for firewall extensions, with some software-defined controls. While the functionalities of WAN Optimization, functionalities of a seamless failover are not there. There are some potential technologies that FatPipe has, that are not there in any of these OEMs. On top of that, it's a very simple to use technology for many customers. A lot of our customers have also given this feedback that technically Cisco, Fortinet, et cetera, might be big names, however, FatPipe technically is superior technology today, when it comes to SD-WAN. In terms of FatPipe, they have a single device that has routing, switching, load balancing, WAN optimizer, and FatPipe does full WAN optimization. 

Cisco also claims to do WAN Ops. Fortinet also claims to do WAN optimization. What I have found is that Versa doesn't have that feature at all. Versa needs to come up with WAN optimization feature in order to catch up.

Cisco does a basic sliding window and PCP, UDP, which is a basic level of WAN optimization, whereas FatPipe does sliding window TCP, UDP, caching, comparison, data application - all seven or eight techniques are possible.

We're both customers and resellers. 

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using at this time. I don't know the version number off-hand. 

Cisco is no doubt a great company in the routing area. Nobody can beat them or nobody can even come close to them. That said, to be very honest, in the SD Wan space, they are struggling. There are a lot of cases where Cisco is technically disqualified when it comes to pure SD-WAN. SD-WAN is the game of FatPipe. FatPipe is the one who invented this technology, and they have delivered SD-WAN since 2002. This company has more than 20 years of experience, from what I understand. Whenever you use these two technologies, you actually get to know that FatPipe in comparison to Cisco is so seamless, extremely seamless. 

Cisco doesn't have advanced security features. Cisco doesn't really do WAN Ops. It does packet duplicates. Technically, both do packet duplicates. If they have failover traffic from a primary to secondary link, they will duplicate the packet. Otherwise, there cannot be a seamless failover. FatPipe has patented technology that doesn't do packet duplication. That's the reason they save 50% of Enterprise bandwidth while doing a failover. On top of that, FatPipe is the only SD-WAN. If at all there is a video on the voice system that is going on in any of this other technology, it is bound to fail. If there is a glitch in the primary link, or the primary link is failing, FatPipe is the only technology that is able to hold everything down. The user will not even know that the primary link has gone down. That is why it's extremely unique and extremely compelling technology. It is something that no other OEM in the world has. Even Cisco can't touch it.

In general, I'd rate Cisco at a seven out of ten.

I have a partner in a manufacturing company that wants to reduce the use of the MPLS when using the internet. I proposed they use Meraki for the SD-WAN hub and since they only wanted to use a few WAN links I suggested the Cisco SD-WAN for their domain, main protection, and the internet for the backup of all the transitions that do not need critical time.

I have found the performance and the Zero-Touch provisioning helpful which makes it easier for us to develop.

The solution could be more secure. Security is always a priority for us.

I have been using the solution for approximately one year.

I have found this solution stable.

The solution is scalable.

One of my client's organizations has approximately 5,000 users using the solution.

The solution is easy to implement and maintain. 

If we already agreed on the design and conditions with the customer the installation can take approximately two hours to implement the hub. For the SD-WAN it can take less than one hour and if we use the VPP it is even quicker.

There is no license required for this solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

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

When I was working at BT Telecom, we used Cisco SD-WAN for IP telephony.

In my current position in this company, we use this solution to classify network traffic and send the IP packets to the appropriate link.

I have found the solution's main features are its ability to be customized, network traffic classification, and has a wide range of features that can be set.

I have been using this solution for approximately two years.

The solution is stable.

I have found the solution scalable. We have approximately 10 clients.

I was satisfied with the technical support.

The installation is not easy. If you have experience and it is not your first time doing the installation, it can be easier. Additionally, there are a lot of different parameters to set and you have to know exactly what the parameters do. From this perspective, it is not easy. There are a lot of possibilities to do fine-tuning with the SD-WAN settings.

If you were to set all the parameters all at once it would take a lot of time. It is best to fine-tune them over time. This is not a negative factor, having more options allows flexibility.

I would recommend a system integration company that has the knowledge of how to operate the system to do the implementation.

The price of the solution is the only negative factor, it is much more expensive compared with the Cisco Meraki SD-WAN solution.

I have evaluated Cisco Meraki SD-WAN.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco SD-WAN a ten out of ten.

Our retail clients use this solution to connect their branches.

With this SD-WAN solution, all we have to do is configure the VM network. The older reconfiguration could take months or even years because we needed to check, verify, test — this was very hectic. I would say that this solution allows businesses to avoid any unnecessary lengthy network changes. At the same time, necessary network changes can be done quickly and easily.

This solution comes with comprehensive technical support. 

Cisco should focus more on making products that are convenient for users. Sadly, I think they are more interested in making money rather than making reliable products. 

The Cisco way of thinking is to create umbrella-like solutions. I would prefer it if this solution was separate from the entire monstrous Cisco portfolio, without additional marketing and other unnecessary features. Still, so far it has been working well. Plus, the support is great. The only drawback is that it's an expensive solution. 

I have been selling Cisco SD-WAN for two years.

For standard use, it's pretty stable. If you want to use this solution to manage traffic, then it depends on the release. Cisco has several patches for a variety of problems. Still, they can't guarantee that there won't' be any bugs. 

This solution is pretty scalable. 

Cisco's technical support is great. 

The initial setup is complex. Setting up the controllers and the certification center is difficult. 

In the Russian market where we operate, this solution is expensive. 

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine. 

If you're interested in using this solution, first ask yourself how often do you need to change your network configuration? If you rarely have to switch, then you don't need SD-WAN.

We are resellers and integrators.

It's a complete solution with many security features.

It integrates well with other Cisco solutions.

Customers require features that are secure for endpoints, on-premises, and for the cloud.

We could provision Cisco Umbrella to respond to the security requirements.

They need to make provisions in the platform cloud with tools. In the cloud environment, it is very easy to enable the solution with Umbrella.

They should configure to provision other devices and many endpoints to deploy the SD-WAN with security.

I would like a feature included for the prevention and inspection of data to implement. 

I have been working with Cisco SD-WAN for three years.

We are using the Viptela version.

We had issues with the stability only one time when we integrated Viptella SD-WAN with Cisco Umbrella. After reading all of the documentation, we have not had any issues with the stability.

Cisco SD-WAN is scalable.

Cisco technical support is very good. They are responsive to my questions and send me all of the information needed.

They respond quickly.

We are also using Meraki.

Meraki is more suited to small companies, whereas Cisco is more for larger enterprise companies.

We have a hybrid deployment. We have clients who prefer the cloud and others who want an on-premises deployment.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy.

The time for deployment depends on the size of the company and its requirements. There are many factors. It can take two months to six months to complete.

We have a team of five people. One project manager, two specialist engineers, and two basic engineers, who maintain this solution.

Cisco is more expensive than FortiGate.

We also evaluated Fortinet FortiGate for our clients. For customers, it is mainly a decision based on pricing and technical options.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. Technical support is very strong and provides high-level assistance. They have knowledgeable technicians with engineers present.

Overall, it's a very good solution.

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

We implemented and currently support some clients using Cisco SD-WAN.

Essentially, everything is moving to the cloud. There is a big shift from the traditional network operator-based infrastructure to a fully cloud-native kind of infrastructure for companies. People don't want to deal with so many providers. The network provider, the cybersecurity provider, another company managing the routers and firewalls, et cetera. Everything is moving to the cloud to simplify things. The shift to SD-WAN is motivated by business reasons. It allows for cutting costs. Traditional networking forms for data centers are simply too expensive, too slow, and very time-consuming to maintain.

Today with the SASE architecture, it's very easy to immediately deploy the cloud to have one subscription for one set of services. With one subscription, you have full access to a dedicated network that is much faster than the traditional MNTL networks that traditional data centers are using. Plus, you have integrated cybersecurity and a fully dedicated private backbone that is essentially spreading across the globe. People don't want to delegate to British telecom off to Verizon anymore, handing their network into another company managing the security into another company managing the networking infrastructure. With SD-WAN, especially with solutions based on the SASE framework, they pay one subscription fee each month, and one single company is managing everything. 

In terms of technology, we are completely agnostic. In many cases, we deal with Cisco simply due to the fact that the client already has a Cisco implementation. Most of the clients started their corporate deployment 10 or 15 years ago, and therefore there are legacy systems. Some of them are built on Cisco and we found that their systems are already implemented. 

I evaluate new technologies continuously each month and we deploy, as I told you, across geographies in multiple companies. Cisco is definitely cutting edge, absolutely cutting edge in terms of robustness on the capability of the network to be very stable with very low delay. It is a proven, tried, and tested technology. It is very reliable software. It is rock solid and very stable with respect to delivering top-performance networking functions. 

It is very stable with very good firmware. In terms of traditional functionality, it's unbeatable as an offer. I would say 10 plus as a vote in terms of traditional networking.

There is much room for improvement on the cybersecurity side. For most of the clients, it is unacceptable nowadays to have too many people involved in managing the corporate network, and many clients like to see providers that can deliver a unified solution that integrates together with the network functionalities and the cybersecurity functionalities as they go hand in hand, especially in a regulated industry such as in banking, insurance, or healthcare. All governmental infrastructure must be compliant with very specific guidelines and requirements. It's not always it is possible to meet them with out-of-the-box products. You need to integrate on the top. If Cisco can work more in creating a true SASE solution known simply as an SD-WAN solution, that will be magic. That will be perfect. Right now, they need to do more of the cybersecurity side. 

Cisco is working at the moment. Unfortunately, like all traditional companies, it is very big and quite spread out. That makes it a little bit slower to react than some of the other competitors in the space. Some competitors are much faster in providing out-of-the-box solutions, more innovative solutions. In terms of innovation, in many cases, they're lagging behind.

Specifically, with Cisco SD-WAN I have about five years of experience now. With Cisco, it's a long-term kind of connection with the company. We have been serving clients over the past 12 years. Always, Cisco is very present.

The solution is stable. There is very minimal movement and very minimal packet loss. There is very minimal delay in the network. In terms of performance, it's absolutely best of breed, and world-class. There is no discussion about that. In terms of hardware, probably is the best provider. 

The solution is very scalable. From the branch office to the data center, you have so many Cisco modules, and you can cut the system the way you like. Any shape and size are available from Cisco. I don't see any provider of networking solutions with more options. It's definitely a solution where you can pinpoint exactly the specific needs of a branch, a data center, or an office, and find the right piece of hardware. There are so many sometimes it can be even complicated to choose, however, Cisco provides everything from the ground up without any problem. It's a tried and tested solution, and therefore is very well documented. 

The solutions are stable, however, we offer technical support. If it's broken, you always have access to local support. Somebody from Cisco will react very, very rapidly. 

In terms of configuration, usually companies, schools, companies, providers managed service providers like us tend to manage the network. 

In terms of support, it's one of the most well-known and respected companies and universally accepted as a top player. You can trust the support they provide. 

The typical brands we deal with are mostly Cisco, Palo Alto, Zscaler, and, in more recent times, Check Point and Citrix.

Typically we have on average, a team of three or four people managing Cisco systems based in New Bailey, where we have representatives specializing in Cisco Systems.

Cisco is very well-known for being easy to use. We help quite a few clients with their Cisco implementations. There are absolutely no issues in terms of performance, or setup. It's more of innovation in their architectural kind of a problem that Cisco has at the moment. They are having trouble keeping pace with the innovation in the sector. That said, it's a very good system, and easy to deploy.

We help our clients implement the solution.

Being embedded with Cisco is a matter of negotiation. Therefore, the pricing depends on the negotiation and if the client is a medium-sized company or a large company. It depends on the geography. We already see different pricing when we deploy in India when we deploy New Zealand or we deploy in the Nordics, in Europe, or even in Southern Europe. Prices are always different and depend on the local offices and how big the deal is. 

Pricing varies according to requirements, accessory services, and pure hardware. 

Markets are so hyper-competitive, and pricing is converging for all top providers. If you go to Fortinet, if you go to Palo Alto, it's not that you'll find prices that are so dramatically different. Everyone is completely aligned to compete. Differentiation is not on pricing. When you deploy a system like Cisco, the main selection criteria, is not pricing.

Today, even rich companies are very careful on pricing, however, companies are very mature in terms of structuring deals. The price of a system is very well-known in the market. All the differences are made by two essential elements. One is the ability of your sales team to penetrate within a company. Sales channels are making all the difference - not technology, not anything else. The second point is innovation and quality of accessory services delivered on top of the hardware. Hardware today is a given, is like code for a nice screen. Cisco is able to provide some hardware functions and firmware functions, however, all the difference is made by ancillary services, by additional service, by all the service that you build on the top of your products, and adding a very good success manager that is handling the deployment process and can guarantee that the client is extracting true business value from IT investments. People don't spend money to buy hardware, to buy networks. People spend money to execute their corporate functions in a very effective, efficient way, in a very secure way. They don't care about Cisco. They don't care about the firewall or the router. They need to deliver products and successful expediencies and services across the globe.

What I'm looking for is for companies - and Cisco is among them - able to provide best-of-breed technologies to support both the network implementation side and the cybersecurity side. 

Typically, we are technology agnostic, therefore, we can support clients in implementing systems, using different kinds of technologies. Among them is Cisco.

We tend to work with hybrid deployments as the major pain point for clients is to harmonize, to have public and private clouds working together. There is no distinction for clients between public and private. Typically, they call us to organize to a single pane of glass, where they can control all the cloud, their network activities in a very simple, seamless way. The difficulty today is exactly putting together to work a very diverse kind of hardware ecosystem ranging from Google Cloud or Amazon Cloud, Azure that is growing exponentially these days, and plus all the enterprise data center, and putting all these elements together.

Sometimes after mergers and acquisitions, we have to patch together pieces of hardware from different organizations that are not even compatible. For example, very recently, we supported the MNA integration of two different companies, and they were using two completely different systems. One was based on Cisco, the other one on Fortinet and Palo Alto, and was using lots of data. That is the problem today. Unifying all the settings, all the controls using a kind of centralized control and making sure that public and private clouds are working together in a very seamless fashion.

I'd rate the solution at a perfect ten out of ten.