Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

The main use of Cisco Catalyst Switches is for enterprise networking.

Cisco Catalyst Switches should have better performance and be easier to use. Additionally, they should add artificial intelligence features.

I have used Cisco Catalyst Switches within the last 12 months.

My clients are not happy with the stability of the solution.

The solution is scalable but the configuration to have it scale can be complex.

I have not opened up a ticket for Cisco Catalyst Switches. However, I have used the support from Cisco and they are very good and responsive.

I have used other solutions, such as Juniper, HP, Aruba, and Fortinet switches, and they are better than Cisco Catalyst Switches.

The configuration of the solution is difficult. If you are not using the Cisco Prime or Cisco DNA for management then the solution will be complex.

Three or five engineers are needed for the implementation of large projects.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are very expensive.

We have found that we need to purchase a DNA license to be able to use the Cisco Catalyst Switches but we never used it. There is an annual fee to use the solution. There are additional services that can be added at an extra cost.

They need to remove the DNA license.

I have evaluated other solutions, such as Juniper, HP, Aruba, and Fortinet switches

I would not recommend Cisco for anyone, many of my customers have had bad experiences with them.

For the rest of the business for Catalyst customers, we replacing all of them for our customers. I saw the many cases the customers were replacing Cisco with another vendor. It is more expensive and it didn't meet their expectations. However, we are using another technology from Cisco but the security from Cisco is not good anymore.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a four out of ten.

These switches make up part of our network infrastructure.

The configuration and command set are user-friendly.

Cisco switches are feature-rich compared to other vendors.

Technical support is good, as they resolve any issues that we have.

The initial setup can be easier in cases where the policy and ruleset are complex.

We have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for between five and six years.

This product is stable and our switches have been working fine. These switches are used extensively.

This is a scalable solution. We have 5,000 or more users.

We have several Catalyst switches in our environment. Most of them are running version 15.x of the operating system, although some of them are version 12.x and older. These may be upgraded in the future.

We may increase our usage although I don't know at present.

We are not the team that is responsible for contacting support. However, the support from Cisco is good. They easily resolve any issues that we have.

I have only worked with Cisco solutions.

The initial setup can be complex, depending on the policy and the rules.

Only a small staff is required for deployment and maintenance.

Cisco is regularly updating this product.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

Catalyst switches are our dedicated solution for connecting everything into one big domain.

We have configurations for port channels between two facilities, and we cannot communicate between these two buildings. An SFP configuration uses one wire to send and receive the signal. It's opt-in. We cannot use it after the upgrade. What can we do in this situation? We already bought it. 

We have a lease between these buildings, so it's important for us. There are some other SFPs, but we cannot order them at the moment. It's a very slow project. We will order those and receive them after two or three months.

Cisco devices should support Cisco SFPs. Right now, I'm testing it on Cisco and some small devices, like Planets, and it worked. It has changed, but it's working. But it doesn't work using the original Cisco because inside of a Cisco Data Sheet it says they do not support this product on the device.

I thought Catalyst switches were stable, but now I'm not so sure. 

Deploying Catalyst switches is complex. We had to add a second one for high availability. 

My primary use case is to assign VLAN or a port for VLAN on the main network.

An area for improvement would be the documentation and training on configuring this product.

I've been using this solution for four or five years.

I've had no problems with the stability of this solution.

Scalability is fine.

The initial setup was complex because it was a common line.

Licenses are available on a three-yearly basis.

I would give this solution a score of nine out of ten.

My primary use case of this solution is for my company's network connection. 

The most valuable feature is how easy it is to use. 

This product could be improved with cheaper pricing. 

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for five to six years. 

This solution may be scalable, but I don't have much knowledge on its scalability. It's used for my company's networking and there are about 500 users. 

I installed this solution myself. 

I implemented through an in-house team. 

Cisco Catalyst Switches are a bit expensive. 

I rate this solution a seven out of ten. I am satisfied with the performance of these switches and would recommend them to others. 

I use Cisco Catalyst Switches for an SD-Access solution.

The solution works well with analytics.

Cisco Catalyst Switches could improve by having more integration with third-party products.

In the next release, I would like the solution to be able to integrate easily with third-party WFi products.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for approximately five years.

Cisco Catalyst Switches have very good performance and are reliable.

The solution is scalable.

I have been satisfied with the technical support. They are very good.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are complex to implement, it takes a lot of time. You need to take a lot of time to learn out to configure the solution.

Cisco does the maintenance of the solution for us.

The price of the solution is expensive compared to other products from America or Europe. They should have more competitive pricing.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches an eight out of ten.

We use Cisco Catalyst Switches for network connectivity.

The performance of Cisco Catalyst Switches is good.

The only improvement I would like to see with Cisco Catalyst Switches is the pricing.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for five years.

We use Cisco Catalyst, 9000 series.

The stability of Cisco Catalyst Switches is good.

In our organization, we have more than 7,000 users.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are quite scalable.

Technical support is excellent.

If there is one area where Cisco excels, it is in technical support.

We use Dropbox occasionally. OneDrive is mainly what we use. We also, use Teams.

The installation is straightforward. It's plug-and-play.

To deploy and maintain Cisco Catalyst Switches, we have a team of four people, which includes one manager and three administrators.

You can install Cisco Catalyst Switches yourself.

We pay the licensing fees annually because we have an enterprise license agreement.

There are other products that I personally prefer, but from an organization's perspective, I would recommend this solution.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a nine out of ten.

The solution has been issue-free.

The solution is scalable.

The stability of the product is good. We've had no problems whatsoever.

Overall, the pricing has been good.

Technical support is very helpful, even during implementation.

The initial setup is simple.

There are some models that can occasionally cause problems. If a particular switch is made for some specific use case or a particular environment, if you put that in other types of infrastructure or use cases, then you may face problems.

The licensing process could be a bit less complex.

We have dealt with the solution for about three years.

The stability has been good overall. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance has been reliable. 

The scalability has been good. If a company needs to expand it, it can. However, you do need to have the right model, otherwise, you run into issues with scaling. 

We have 15 to 20 clients that use this product.

We have good technical people and an experienced technical team who can install those switches, and do a level of troubleshooting and escalations.

For five years, we've used Huawei. Three years ago we started with Cisco. This was mostly due to networking, as we don't have a team five years back. After that, we got the team specifically for networking and we started that with Huawei, and we got a very good response in the market. Unfortunately, due to the Chinese market, and all that stuff, that didn't last. That said, the customers who are using the technology, are still happy with the support as well as with the product.

We also occasionally use Aruba.

We didn't work with Juniper as an installation system integrator, however, we have with Cisco (including Nexus and Meraki) and Huawei, and we have had a very good experience. 

The initial setup is good. It is easy. If you know the commands, even basic commands, you can do the normal installation. If you want to go for V-LAN and other things, routing, et cetera, level three switches kind of installations, then you may need some time and knowledge. 

For deployment and maintenance, you need a minimum of two people. Three or four is also good if it is enterprise. There are some customers where we have to do installations at three or four sites simultaneously and we have to complete that within one or two days or within a specific downtime. If the network is down, everything is down. That is when you require multiple team members. Otherwise, if that is one site and one installation with one day's worth of downtime, with two people, you can do it easily.

Support is helpful in regard to the implementation process. My team didn't find any issues with installation.

The solution's pricing is pretty good. As far as whatever else is available in the market, for example, if you compared it to Aruba, Juniper, or other enterprise solutions, the pricing is reasonable.  

You do require licenses. There are some licenses that you need to procure separately. By default, the licensing process is good.

Everyone has their own licensing structure. With Cisco, once you do a setup two or three times, the process gets easier and the licensing gets clearer. Until then, licensing is a little bit tricky.

We do not use the solution in our office, however, as Test System Integrators, we have provided the solution.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. It's been quite good overall.

I would recommend the solution to other users and companies.