Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

We use this solution for provisioning.

We heavily use the SmartPort features. It has really helped us. The U.S. policies are handled by the auto SmartPort feature.

It's easy to use and easy to configure. It's easy to provision and plan ahead. 

They should make so that they let users know five to ten minutes before productivity is restored in the case of power loss. 

It's very stable. 

It is highly scalable. We have 120 users. It has high capabilities. We only require six or seven people for the maintenance. Cisco has guidelines for the maintenance that are straightforward. 

If I ask for any support, they're responsive. Their support is very good. We haven't had any problems.

The initial setup was very easy, not complex at all. 

It's very pricey. Compared to competitors, it's a lot more expensive. They should consider lowering the price for smaller organizations so that it's easier for them to afford. 

I would rate it an eight and a half out of ten. 

They should develop more customization features. It would make things easier for the engineers. 

Our primary use case of this solution is for routing, switching, and for interconnecting sites.

It has become easier for us to troubleshoot and find issues faster in the management software for the switches. It saves us troubleshooting time because if the network is down it has a big impact on production.

The stability is the most valuable feature. We have some outages but it's 95% stable. 

The newer models are not so stable. Other products like 6800, 3750, were stable but starting from 3850 it got worse. We have a lot of issues and a lot of bugs. It's a new product so it's understandable but it should be improved. 

Scalability is easy. It's easy to increase the size of our network, we use templates. 

We haven't had to use their technical support. 

We wanted a reliable solution so we chose Cisco. We began working with them ten years ago. We have everything on Cisco and it's not worth it to switch everything to another brand. 

The initial setup is a bit complex but we have templates so we just have to deploy our template configuration. The VLAN configuration was complex. We have STP and different protocols which are not on the V-port so we had to enable it.

We implemented it ourselves. 

Ten years ago we used Avaya and HPE. 

I would rate it a seven out of ten. Not a ten because we are highly satisfied with all of their products but with the newer products, some parts have problems that take a while to fix.

I would say to go for Cisco. It is a stable and quality solution. 

We use it everywhere in our company. The switches are in our data center and our stores. It performs really well, it's stable. There are some software issues but it's generally good. 

Cisco support is one of the most valuable features. If you have any problem you can find a lot of information online. If it's a really bad situation, you can have a technician help you. 

It should have better security and the prices can always be lower. The cheaper the price, the better but if the quality is good, it's worth it. They also have to improve the firewalling. 

SP access should be included in the next release. 

Stability is perfect. 

Scalability will depend on the specific product. 

Their technical support is very good. They know what to do and if they don't know what to do, they give me the person who does know. 

Sometimes we have complex setups and sometimes they're simple. 

We implemented with MTS Austria. They were really great. They know what to do. 

We also looked at HPE and Juniper. 

Look at the pricing. If you can afford it, buy it. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten. I like it, it works. 

Our primary use case is for networking, both for the local network and our internet network.

The stability and Cisco's support are the most valuable features. 

The prices are high. It's more expensive than other similar options. 

I would like for them to include more cloud options in the next release and a smaller router.

It's a very stable product. It has become increasingly more stable since we started working with them in 1988. 

Scalability is good. 

We knew we needed to switch solutions because we have a client who told us what they need for their future projects. We strategized and went with this solution. We try to find them the best product. 

The initial setup was straightforward. 

We used a Cisco representative for the initial deployment. We didn't have any problems with them, it was a good experience.  

We also looked at Huawei but we went with Cisco because we're more comfortable with them even though their prices are a little higher. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. Not a ten because of the prices. 

I would advise someone considering this solution to check out all of your options and go back to 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.

Access layer Switches. VLAN Segmentation, Inter-VLAN and LAN Routing. 802.1X network access device.

This platform has enabled reliable connectivity across the entire campus network. Great performance and stability ensure that the network is available where you need it. The 802.1X port security and other security features work well and help keep the network secure. PoE helped us deploy WLAN APs, security cameras, and IP phones with minimal cabling.

• Very stable and dependable switches.
• The wide range of features will be enough for almost any LAN environment.
• The CLI is pretty much the same across all switching and routing platforms from Cisco, making deployment of new switches, replacement of damaged equipment, or upgrades to newer platforms very easy.

I have found no major drawbacks in the Catalyst platforms. The price is high, but for seemingly the best LAN switching platform available, coupled with Cisco's excellent support, the price doesn't seem to be too much.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

Technical support is the best I have worked with.

Basic switching functionality works out-of-the-box, as with any other switch. Complexity will depend on the task at hand, but if you're familiar with the Cisco CLI you should have no problem finding your way.

Pricing of Cisco equipment is high, but I think these switches are worth the price.

I have been working with Catalyst switches for 10 years. Cisco support is among the best there is. Use it.

We use Catalyst for campus switches.

As an access switch, it really hasn't made an improvement in our organization. Access switches are similar, in most cases. It's just and end-user switch, so it doesn't really differ if it's Cisco or any other device.

Perhaps the reliability is an improvement.

VLAN gives us segregation.

Cisco should focus more on this type of product instead of on data center switches. They stopped improving the software of these switches and they are focusing on the data center. They should focus on this type of product, more than any other thing.

It might also help if they integrated their security products with the switches.

I had some hardware failure, a defect, on arrival.

There are no issues with scalability.

I would evaluate the tech support as "fair". They have multi-tiered support and especially the level-one and two don't know what they are doing. They collect a lot of information, wasting your time, and then they keep moving the tickets from level one to level two and level three, and when the issue is solved, usually level-three are the ones who solve it. They're not good at the lower levels of support.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The ROI for this product is three to five years.

I would rate the features-to-pricing ratio at six out of 10.

My advice about licensing is that you should have a perpetual license, not one that is subscription-based.

I use a lot of switches on the campus: Juniper, Extreme, etc. I use multiple vendors. However, Cisco and Juniper are my preferred vendors.

The most important thing I can say is that Cisco is using a proprietary protocol, so you should design your network accordingly so that you don't get vendor lock.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst a seven out of 10 because of the pros and the cons I have noted.

We use it for connecting the users on the network. The performance has been good.

I've used other switches as well but, when configuring Catalyst, we are able to bring the network up in a very short time. If the company wants to extend the network or wants to get some new users on board, the usage is pretty fast and, in no time, it gets moving. For other switches, it might take some time for us to do research and get the system online. So it provides business benefits. The users don't have to wait to get on the network.

Cisco is one of the most robust switches, it is easy to configure, and the documentation is pretty good. Once you install it, you never face an issue with that switch.

One feature that I would like to add is for the following: At times, when I add an access list for a hostname, it doesn't actually add the hostname, it adds the IP address. So in the back-end, if my server changes the IP address, I have to go in manually and change the IP address. If the capability was there in Cisco to add a hostname instead of the IP address that would be really good.

It's a pretty stable product. Once you install it in the network, it keeps running without any issues. You just install it and forget it.

It's scalable. If you want to install more switches it's pretty easy to pull up a wire, configure the new switch, and connect it to the network. It starts and you won't have to worry if the other switches will be compatible with it or not. In a multi-vendor environment as well, if you want to more switches, it works pretty well.

Tech support is good. The response has been good.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. There is a guide, as well as support, on the internet. We just follow it. A person who is doing it for the first time can just follow it and get it installed.

I would definitely have colleagues go for Cisco Catalyst. It's a pretty good product, stable, and reliable.

Most important when selecting a vendor are that the connection should be stable, it should have good support, and it should not be really complex to configure.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst at nine out of 10. The one point I'm leaving is for the improvement I spoke about. There is always room for improvement. Cisco Catalyst is pretty good. I have never faced any issues or challenges with it.