Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

The switches are the easiest to deploy and maintain out of other competitors.

In terms of technology, Cisco is the leader in everything. I'd rather buy a second-hand Cisco switch than a brand new switch from a competitor. They're that reliable and resilient.

Cisco offers many ranges of switches and you'd know exactly if you were buying an access switch or a core switch distribution. They are definitely among the top companies. They just know how to predict things and what will evolve in the following years.

Out of the competition, Cisco switches are easily the most expensive.

There's something at Cisco called a console that is used for basic configuration and everything and I think that they excluded a normal USB. Instead of that micro USB they should put in the normal one. It would make things a bit easier.

I've had experience dealing with the solution since 2010. It's been about ten years now.

The stability of Cisco is unmatched. We don't experience bugs or glitches or have any issues. There's been no worry of crashing. The technology is impeccable.

The scalability is quite good. We've never had any issues with scaling if necessary.

If the company pays for a given device's Smart Net - that's Cisco's official name for support -  then the support provided is huge. It could be challenging for people that want to fix an old switch or a router but do not have paid support anymore. That's not the case for us. I do think Cisco could be a bit better at assisting in those instances instead of just putting customers in a position where they have to buy a new device where an old one just needs a repair. Beyond that, we have no complaints and have been satisfied with the level of service they provide.

For me personally, the initial setup was very straightforward. I have experience with the product so it helps. if you are a user who has the experience, it shouldn't be too difficult to implement. Otherwise, you will have to spend some time learning about it and how it works.

Everything depends on the size of the network that you want to design and implement. Of course, you need a consultant if you need something with 200 users or so. Or if you don't have any expertise in IT. The question is, is Cisco switch easier or harder to configure than some other brand or our vendor? And the answer is that, in my opinion, Cisco switches are not among the easiest ones to deploy, however, they are definitely the most reliable switches. 

Cisco is easily one of the most expensive on the market, but users are buying quality and reliability.

The company I work with is a Premium Cisco partner. I've even based my career around Cisco vendors.

The solution is on a Private Cloud that we are renting (including equipment and the data center space and the LANs). We have obtained everything from Alban India, and our customers are mostly on our product site with the cloud. The customers include various financial companies, payment providers, etc. We're a systems integrator.

I would easily rate the solution ten out of ten. It's really great.

In terms of advice for other companies, I'd say that whether Cisco would work for them or not depends on the size of the network they want to cover. The small and midsize network users just really don't need to spend that amount of money on Cisco equipment, but the larger organizations and mission-critical environments definitely require Cisco.

We use this solution for the campus network.

It supports our entire line infrastructure. It runs from the line under the entire campus and is the backbone of the network. The entire business runs from this product.

The ease of use is the most valuable feature. 

They should make it more affordable, improve the cost, manageability, and central management. 

I would like to see a cloud-managed feature.

The catalyst switches are stable.

They are scalable. We have are around 2,000 users. We use it quite extensively and we require at least two to three people for maintenance.

Their technical support is good, one of the best in the industry.

The initial setup was straightforward. The deployment depends on the scale of the network, because all of these devices, they don't work in silo, they work in tandem with each other. So it depends on the scale and size of the network.

We used an integrator for the deployment. We had a good experience with them.

We have absolutely seen ROI. You will see ROI if you use this solution for a longer duration. 

The price is on the higher side. Licensing is also complicated. Simply, there are multiple licenses required.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. To make it a ten they should simplify the licensing, add the cloud-managed feature, and it should be more cost-effective.

We usually use it for connecting campus switches and to provide access switching to the customer, through which they connect their end-user or end devices like WiFi, CCTV, or IP phone.

The features I mentioned definitely enhance the customer experience.

The most valuable features are the Stacking and the capacity of the switches because they have more throughput. Layer 2 is also part of its rich feature set.

For the access switch for distribution, I would like to see them support 100GB, 40GB.

It is very, very stable. We have not faced any problems with our clients. There have been no complaints. These switches run for many years. They have not complained about the stability of the network because of the failure of a switch. It works fine.

As I mentioned, one of the great features is Stacking. One of our customers bought two switches. After about three to four months they bought another one. They only stack the switches. They do not need to add more switches at the core or distribution, connected at the base. They can stack up to eight switches, and they will work fine with no issues.

Honestly, we have not really faced any problems with the Catalyst switches because the configuration is intuitive. Also, our engineers are expert in this area. Very rarely they may have to open a case with Cisco TAC.

For me, in presales, I can reach the system engineers easily. They support me a lot. Also the documentation is important. There are a lot of forums, discussions. If you have any problem they guide you and they solve the problem easily.

If you compare Cisco with another vendor, they are far and away better, in terms of performance and the rich features.

For me, in presales, the most important criteria when selecting a vendor are that I'm able to easily access the Cisco website and, if I need any kind of support, I immediately get it from the Cisco team, whether virtually or physically, here in Saudi Arabia. 

I'm not directly involved in the setup but from what I understand it is straightforward.

HPE comes into the picture because they have a wireless product. It's a good product. We definitely propose their switches.

If you need any support you can find it easily on their website, including documentation. You can reach out to Cisco's virtual team. Cisco gives any type of support needed to their partners.

I give Cisco Catalyst a 10 out of 10. It's scalable, resilient, and has rich features in terms of Layer 2, Layer 3, QoS. They have real vision.

I was a Support Engineer with Cisco, I used to support customers who were using Cisco Catalyst features.

A good feature of Cisco Catalyst is that it records crash log files which can be used to literally identify the cause of a crash because they have a lot of information. And Cisco Catalyst supports the use of external flash disks for storing of images and file systems.

Currently, Catalyst is completely proprietary with Cisco. They should have programmability options, through open-source controllers.

Also, some features, are very complex to configure.

Catalyst is known for its stability, so there are not many challenges there. Of course, they do have a platform that comes with its own set of bugs, and then the bugs get fixed and then there is a new set of bugs. But it's okay. Compared to other products it is very stable.

Catalyst is a highly scalable product.

Tech support was good in the past but now it is becoming diluted. Cisco used to have a lot of experienced folks, but now their whole process of hiring and training is diluted, so we don't see as much expertise with the TAC engineers as we once did.

Generally, Cisco Catalyst would be relatively expensive compared to the competition, it would be on the expensive side. But I am not involved in the commercial part.

There are a lot of options when it comes to switching products. Brocade offers good switches, HPE offers a very affordable set of switches. But the purchase decision depends on a lot of factors. Primarily, Cisco provides an end-to-end solution, all aspects of networking, from UIP to security to wireless to servers. That factor plays into it.

I would give this solution an eight out of 10. To get to a 10, it should become more open-source friendly, more customizable, easy to configure, and less complex in terms of the licensing.

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.

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. 

We use this solution as a networking switch for a data center.

Overall top of the line solution.

The solution could be easy to use, you need a certificate to use it.

I have been using this solution for approximately ten years.

The solution is highly stable.

The solution is not able to scale because you would need to purchase more hardware.

Everybody in my organization is using the solution.

We have not needed to contact technical support because we are using managed services which gives us support when needed.

The installation and implementation are not easy.

We are using managed services for the implementation of the solution.

A normal deployment can take from one to two months. However, this depends on the size of the site.

There is a license required for the use of this solution and we pay annually.

I have evaluated Meraki switches which is an easier version of Cisco Catalyst Switches.

This solution is the best in the market but there are some limitations. I am moving to the Meraki solution because it is easier to use.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches an eight out of ten.

The solution is very easy to use. We've found that it isn't overly technical and is, in fact, quite user-friendly.

The product is extremely flexible.

The stability of the solution has been very good. We've found the performance to be very reliable. 

The initial setup is mostly pretty straightforward. It's not overly complex.

The product is very robust.

The configuration setup is a little more complex if you go into detail.

The price is something we would definitely like improved. It would be nice if it was more economical.

I've been using the solution for about four years or so. It's been a while. I've had some time with the technology and am pretty comfortable with it.

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. We like the performance. It's reliable.

We have about 50 people using the solution currently.

I previously Juniper switches. I am not using them anymore. I was using them about three years ago.

The initial setup is okay. It's not overly difficult. The configuration can be a bit tricky, however, depending on the complexity involved.

The pricing could be improved.  It's a bit high right now. 

A lot of my colleagues are using Cisco switches. I often touch base with them to share know-how on the technology.

I'm not using the latest version of the solution. I'm using an older version right now.

On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate the solution at a nine. We've been quite pleased with the solution overall.

I would recommend the solution to other users, companies, and organizations. It's quite robust and flexible.