Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

I use Cisco Catalyst Switches for the whole environment across everything including the access layer, core switches, manufacturing facilities, and IT offices.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are reliable. I put them in and they run. They are easy to manage.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are getting better. They scale well because I can simply add more switches without any problem.

There are too many vulnerabilities lately. Too many updates need to be done every week, which is crazy.

I want Cisco Catalyst Switches to be more reliable because in the past, you could install them and they would run for ten years. That is not the case anymore.

Support and vulnerabilities are the biggest issues regarding Cisco Catalyst Switches. All these updates coming out every week create a headache for us, as we have to perform the updates.

Usage went down from ten to probably three.

Juniper

I do not deal with pricing, so I do not have a preference.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are easy to implement. I want Cisco Catalyst Switches to be more reliable because in the past, you could install them and they would run for ten years, but that is not the case anymore. I give this product a rating of 9.

I use one Catalyst Switch as an edge switch and another as a core switch. The setup includes using all the SFP ports, and I intend to fully utilize them in the future. The environment is complex, with various components like virtual servers connected to physical servers that are linked to the switch.

Catalyst Switches are efficient and swift, which is valuable for my organization. I experience optimal speed and effective configuration, making them stand out compared to other switches. The PoE switches offer more ports on SFP, and it is efficient in use. 

Overall, the switches provide me with the value I expect in terms of speed and efficiency.

There could be improvements in the repeat configuration with some file integration that is currently missing. 

Additionally, I must consider the cost and benefits related to the feasibility study of my environment before purchasing the switches.

I have been using the Catalyst Switches for one year and a few months.

Since installation, I have not experienced any performance issues with the Catalyst Switches.

I have not exhausted the system, indicating no scalability issues, and the network growth is supported by the switches. I plan to use all the SFP ports in the future.

I am paying for Cisco support and would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

I previously used Cisco 3750 switches. I received a notification from Cisco about its retirement, prompting me to purchase Catalyst 9300. Before that, I bought 9200, but 9300 is currently in use.

The initial setup was quick, taking about forty-eight hours to transition to Catalyst 9300. The configuration was done by the vendor, ensuring what I had on 3750 matched that of 9300.

The setup and maintenance are handled by the vendor.

Other switches are considered for smaller expansions like MiniFX yet not for the core infrastructure. I have been using Cisco Switches for over six or seven years.

Before choosing Cisco Switches, it is important to consider the cost and benefits. Proper feasibility studies of the environment should be conducted to avoid underutilization. 

I would rate Catalyst Switches nine out of ten. 

They are recommended for environments where security is crucial and efficient performance is required.

I use Cisco Catalyst Switches to provide network services at the service provider level. They are used for network distribution and to maintain diversity in my network design, including OEM diversity.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are valuable for their reliability and performance. They offer MACsec and IPsec encryption. These switches are modular, allowing for functionality to be configured as required. They are also essential in maintaining network diversity to prevent large-scale outages.

The configuration options on the Cisco Commerce website could be more efficient. The process is not straightforward and takes a long time.

I have used Cisco Catalyst Switches for around five years.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are reliable, with good performance and added security features.

I transitioned from using another vendor to Cisco. My previous experience includes working with Juniper.

Although Juniper is cheaper, Cisco provides unique features that justify their pricing.

I have experience with Juniper Mist and Juniper QFX Switches.

Switching to IBM was part of my career transition, and I recommend considering Cisco for its reliability and unique features. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

The main use cases we have include network phone and wireless access points.

The features that I like the most with Cisco Catalyst Switches probably would be the access to the console.

I am very impressed with the end-to-end visibility offered by Cisco.

The operational efficiency of Cisco in my IT environment is well assessed.

Cisco Catalyst Switches can be improved in many areas.

We have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches in this company for approximately seven or eight years.

I do not face any specific challenges with hybrid and distributed enterprise networks.

Cisco Catalyst Switches scale well with the growing needs of my organization, and the expansion process was smooth.

I evaluate customer service and tech support for Cisco as excellent.

Depending on the use that we had for it prior to Cisco Catalyst Switches, the company was phasing out one of the products we had and switching over to Cisco.

I believe the product that we were phasing out was Shortel.

I am 50/50 regarding whether Cisco optimizes the experience in a hybrid or distributed enterprise setup. I would rate this review an 8.5.

With Cisco Catalyst Switches, EtherChannels can be mixed with other ports or switches to ensure that users get maximum speed from the tool. The tool also offers VLAN membership. There is another category of products that fall under Cisco, which can be compared with Aruba or NETGEAR.

I work with Cisco products since the tools are very stable. You can manage Cisco Catalyst Switches as it is flexible to do so with the help of CLI. Aruba is very poor when it comes to the area of management via CLI. Users can get backup and restore remotely from Cisco Catalyst Switches as it offers many connections and consoles, like an additional auxiliary port, which is not a feature that others can find in Aruba. Users can migrate switches and routers of Cisco by adding more firmware to add extra features, like voice, that can make the device of Cisco work as a VoIP service. All of the aforementioned stuff can make a very good combination for a company to get a very cheap service with the same device, which is possible because of Cisco, and if Aruba can do it, then it would be great.

The addition of more security and privilege levels to Cisco Catalyst Switches is required as it is one of the areas with certain shortcomings. In my company, we use switches from Cisco with 802.1X authentication and haven't used anything that offers more security. All over the world, everything is open to facing cyber attacks, so there is a need for Cisco Catalyst Switches to offer more security.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches since 2001. I have experience with the product for around twenty-two years.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

It is a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

There are more than 1,600 users of the solution in my company. I haven't used Cisco Wireless Access Points. I use Cisco Catalyst Switches for our company's main servers and a core switch, which supports streaming because Cisco is costly. The product is not meant to cater to users' needs but to meet the requirements of the main servers.

The solution's technical support is great. I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

I rate the product's initial setup phase a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is a difficult setup process, and ten is an easy setup phase.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The solution can be deployed in around 15 minutes.

I rate the product price a nine on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price. Though I don't remember the exact price of the product, one may multiply the current prices of Aruba products by two to three times to get an estimate of the price of Cisco Catalyst Switches. Cisco products have always been expensive.

I work with Cisco Catalyst Switches and the whole family of solutions that fall under Cisco, like Cisco's core switches and regular switches, along with all kinds of routers, Cisco ASA Software, and Cisco Secure Firewall, meaning I have experience with everything related to Cisco framework and components.

I have the old versions of Cisco Catalyst 3500 Series Switches, as it serves as a core switch in my company's server room, while the other core switch I use is Cisco Catalyst 6500 Series Switches.

I rate the overall tool a nine out of ten.

We are using Cisco Catalyst Switches for our office network. We have deployed the 9200 and 9400 series solutions.

Cisco Catalyst Switches have been stable, and we haven't had issues with them for the last five years. They also provide good security at the LAN level.

The most beneficial features for our network management are their stability and good customer support.

Cisco Catalyst Switches could be a little bit cheaper as they are very costly.

I have an experience of working with Cisco Catalyst Switches for about eighteen years.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are stable. I would rate their stability as eight to nine out of ten.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are scalable, and I would rate them eight to nine out of ten for scalability.

Cisco's support is good, one of the best supports that you will get. I would rate their technical support as nine out of ten.

Positive

We have always been with Cisco.

The initial setup is not difficult for me. The new ones that are coming up are actually easy to implement and deploy.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are quite pricey.

I would recommend Cisco Catalyst Switches because they can scale, and they are stable. I don't have to worry once I install them.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use the solution for the data center infrastructure. It is a hybrid solution that requires high-performance computing capabilities to send traffic from on-premise data centers to the Azure data centers. We used the scalability of the solution for redundancy purposes.

The product’s scalability and performance are valuable.

The product must provide a better central tool for management. The existing management tool is primitive. It requires a lot of improvements. It's something that we see with competitors like Meraki. Meraki has a very good central management system.

I have been using the solution for a couple of years.

I rate the tool’s stability a nine out of ten.

The tool is scalable and flexible. We can expand it quickly. I rate the tool’s scalability an eight out of ten. The product is quite sensitive to the changes within the network. If scaling is done by someone with experience with the software and the Cisco ecosystem, it will go smoothly. If it is done by someone new to the product and does not follow the procedure properly, they could take down a large part of the network. Cisco must provide more building controls to avoid such mistakes. We had 2500 users in my previous company.

The level one support is not very good. We always get the newcomers who have to verify their checklist. When we reach the second line of support, we get very decent people who know and can solve the issues. Generally, the support is very good once we get past level one. Level one is time-consuming.

The initial setup was straightforward. We started from scratch. We had about 40 Switches in total. It took us about three days to complete the setup, from the physical installation to the configuration of software management. The deployment process includes the hardware unboxing and verifying whether everything is compatible.

Initially, we did a life cycle certification to check if the firmware was up to date. It depends on whether the firmware is deployed and managed by Cisco. Then, we did the physical installation as well as the uplinks. Finally, we did the configuration between the switches. As far as I remember, there is no central cloud-based solution yet. Everything is still CLI-based.

If we have decent knowledge, everything can be done in-house.

We paid an annual subscription fee. The product is quite expensive. Cisco, in general, is quite expensive because it is still one of the prime market leaders. It can be more cheap. The prices are too high for what we receive. In the last five years, I have seen a growing landscape of other competitors like Juniper, HPE, and Dell coming close. They are slowly and slightly adjusting the prices to a more objective measure.

The product is easy to manage as long as we have hands-on experience with them. We need to have decent network personnel. It needs a certain level of knowledge and experience. The management and configuration are easy for people with knowledge and experience. However, it has a very steep learning curve.

We had an IT team of 15 people, including three networking personnel. People who want to use the product must not take it lightly. It is a very good solution, but don't expect it to self-configure out of the box. We must have a very good understanding of what we want to achieve before we start with it.

The integration into our existing network infrastructure did not impact our operational efficiency. We didn't experience any change. It worked as well as it had before. Once the devices had been integrated within the ecosystem, we didn't experience any issues. The operational support remained the same as before, so it didn't have a real impact.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We propose the solution to our customers. It is used in airports, smart cities, and city surveillance networks. We are using the 9300, 9400, and 9500 series.

The product improves network efficiency. We have highly efficient network visibility, security, and automation.

Network segmentation and security groups are valuable features. We use features like network analytics, network flow, and other network solutions across our large network. The solution is highly reliable. It has a self-healing infrastructure. We do not have even a single point of failure in the core and distribution architecture. Inside the hardware, we have route processors, power supplies, line cords, and multiple lines.

It is a highly available network between core and distribution. We can design the network with a 25 GB platform. It supports wireless infrastructure like Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 6E. The tool provides mobility. It helps us achieve a connected experience across multiple devices. We get the same performance, reliability, and portability, whether it is wired or wireless.

The product provides enterprise-grade switches. The vendor must provide mid-level switches. If we need automation, we can only choose higher-end switches to achieve the functionality. We cannot enable the fabric with entry-level switches. It will be good if the solution provides an additional level of switches.

I have been using the solution for 15 years.

I rate the tool’s stability a seven to eight out of ten. There are some improvements needed in certain models and versions. The stability must be worked on.

I rate the tool’s scalability an eight out of ten. We work with enterprise businesses.

The technical support is good.

Positive

I rate the ease of setup a seven out of ten. We need certified resources to set up the fabric. Once the fabric is implemented, adding the switches and network is easy. We need highly skilled people for the initial setup. For a large infrastructure, the initial deployment takes about a month. After that, everything is done by Zero-Touch Provisioning. It is a plug-and-play process. The deployment takes a few days for a small infrastructure.

The price must be reduced. I rate the pricing a five out of ten. The price depends on the network size. If we need a huge volume, we will get more discount.

We are Advanced Enterprise Network partners. In DNA Center, we started with 5000 endpoints. Now, we have 50,000 endpoints. We have seamless scalability and upgraded functionalities. I rate the ease of management and configuration a seven out of ten. I will recommend the solution to others. It has an end-to-end product portfolio. It provides centralized management, visibility, scalability, manageability, and integration with multiple security solutions. Overall, I rate the product a seven out of ten.

We use this solution for everything layer 2 related to our infrastructure, from data centers to local networks. Our business is airports, so we utilize them throughout the entire airport infrastructure.

On a day-to-day basis, we use it for all switching layers, like access, core, or distribution. We also utilize 802.1X.  

This solution has a pretty good rate of not causing unexpected behavior or failing. We're using maybe 900 switches right now. And, rarely, if ever, something fails, it's dependable.

First of all, there are some features that take a long time to get implemented, and other vendors have them for a long time before them. For example, it took a long time to have a way to commit change with the timer, so it gets undone if the user doesn't accept the change after it's done. Like, having to say the changes be done, and everything works fine. In the end, everything works fine, but it didn't exist. That's just an example of stuff that came late to Catalyst. 

The CLI structure is mostly outdated sometimes. It doesn't really make sense how things connect to each other. It's not object-oriented, stuff like that.

Moreover, if you want to stack switches, you can't really do it except that you have stack modules, which I find is outdated. Like Juniper Switches, stacks, even switches that were on different locations over Layer 3, and stuff like that. I'd suggest stacking to take cues from other vendors. 

I have been using it for decades. Currently, I operate as the end user. In my previous role, I acted as an integrator, and we partnered with Cisco.

Sometimes, we have issues with stability. We even have some switches, like, that simply stopped working. Like, something went off, but it is not a usual occurrence. It's quite rare.

The way we design things, we could scale them. We could scale, meaning that we could add more switches to our current design. But we're not at this point because there's no need yet. We pretty much thought about it right in the beginning.

We have about 750 users using this solution in my company.

Sometimes, it's quick and helpful. Sometimes, we did have one case that took, like, months, and, eventually, things got solved after upgrading newer firmware that, by then, had been released. However, tech support did not solve the case.

I have used HPE and Juniper in the past. I've also used Dell Power Connect and Luxul. First of all, they're on the more pricey end. They cost more than most. I'm not sure if that's true today, but when I still had to take into account money when it was my job to take into account money, they were on the pricing. So that's an accounting pro.  HPE and Juniper, which were fine switches, both of them for, like, two-thirds of the price or something like that.

Stability, plus the fact that resources are very easily found. Moreover, everybody knows how to work with Cisco. Also, if anyone gets certified, we'll most probably start getting certified by Cisco because it's an industry-standard certification. So, people who work with Cisco are easier to find. And they pretty much work as advertised. 

Cons: there are features that Cisco lacks interface-wise, like UI stuff that could be a lot better. For example, take a look at Juniper, and it's like night and day.

We're currently transitioning to Catalyst 9200 series. We still have a lot of Catalyst 2960s in various locations, but they're being replaced with new ones.

We don't have any central management for the Switches. So it all gets done with copying, phasing, changing IPs, or whatever is relevant. So, the setup is not complicated as long as you know what you're doing. But that goes for everything, I guess. Like, if you already know how it works, then it's not complicated.

The setup is straightforward for me because I know what I'm doing. However, the CLI and the way iOS is structured could take a lot of improvement. There are some things in there. You have to know that they connect in a certain way, or else you won't ever find how it works. You need your Google open for a lot of stuff if you don't already know it.

I was a part of the deployment team. We had already designed what needed to be deployed. We have multiple locations and multiple airports. Each airport was not in the same condition as the other ones. 

For example, each airport had its own separate preexisting network. So, there were different strategies that we had to use in each airport to deploy the switches without disrupting the airport functions. It was not the same thing everywhere. 

In general, we had a pretty simple design of what we needed, how many switches were sized, and what we expected in terms of customers. It was a pretty standard design to construct a backbone and distribution point within the airports. So, it was pretty much doing three or four templates. And just changing the variables on those templates. That was it.

We don't need a lot of resources or staff members for the deployment part because it depends on the size of the airport again. Like, if there were 300 devices to be deployed, we would need 15+ people. So, it depends on size.

Also, the time depends on the physical properties of the site that you are on. Where are the switches going to be installed? Where, in what condition is this place? Is it still under construction? Is it already constructed? Is it somewhere that's difficult to reach? All these are variables that should indicate how many people you need.

However, maintenance could be a bit more automated. Maybe if Cisco have a central management console or something, then it is more automated. The way we do it, we have to upgrade by ourselves. Like, it's stuck, or it's switched separately by hand. Using FTPs and FTPs and the old way of doing stuff. So, if there's a management, it's a central management tool. When we do maintenance, it's a hassle.

I would recommend using the product. Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We use the solution for switching. We use it from core to campus switching. The product is deployed in different environments. We have campus companies. We serve highly distributed organizations. We have a client that houses elderly people in a multi-building campus. They have a core data center. Typically, they put all the core resources on a much larger core switch. We have fiber distributed out to the endpoints.

The 3000 Series seems to be pretty good. The switches are steady and seem to last forever. The product is reliable. It's an industry standard.

Cisco management is a bit more difficult but has many features. The tool is not user-friendly.

I have been using the solution for 15 years.

I rate the tool’s stability a ten out of ten.

The tool is scalable. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

The support is like any other support organization. It is okay. I rate the support a five or six out of ten. It is Cisco’s product. Cisco’s support team knows it the best. I don’t like that it takes a lot of time to get to the right person who knows anything.

Neutral

The solution is a pain to set up, depending on the configuration. The more features we have, the more difficult it is. Cisco doesn't make it easy. Cisco bought Meraki for its easier configuration. I rate the ease of setup of Cisco five out of ten. One or two people can deploy the tool.

Most network admins can't configure a switch, but they can plug it in and rack it. A more experienced systems engineer must do the deployment. They must understand TCP, IP, and how everything works. They must also know how to run command syntax. It is a lot more complicated.

We must pay a high price for the product. Meraki is more flexible, but Cisco is always expensive. The cost depends on the number of ports and size. It might cost around 10,000 to 15,000. I rate the pricing an eight out of ten.

We like Meraki the best. Cisco is a good product, but we must pay for its name. I am not a fan of Juniper and UniFi. Meraki has the best user interface for ease of management, traffic management, and endpoint visibility. Meraki is the best product I have ever seen in my life. Meraki’s UI is super easy. The capabilities of virtual and ordinary stacking are good. Meraki is a far superior product.

We rarely see a use case for the Blade switches. They're way too expensive. In many cases, we don't need something with a more elaborate configuration. Typically, we just want it for switching. We need it for the backplane memory for raw throughput. We need features like VLAN tagging and Spanning Tree Protocol. I will recommend the solution. I wouldn't recommend it from a price perspective. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.