Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

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.

The product is used in the hotels for the network.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are the most stable. The network is secure. I have a lot of options. If a port is not used for a long time, it will be disabled by default. If anyone tries to use it, I will have to enable it for them. The tool helps me secure my network. The product is easy to use. We do not face any challenges.

Cisco is the most expensive product. All hardware tools have become very expensive nowadays.

Cisco is the most stable solution. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

All our reports are based on Cisco Catalyst Switches.

The setup is straightforward. The deployment takes 10 to 15 minutes.

We can deploy the tool in-house.

I prefer one-time payments.

I have worked with all the brands in the market. I will recommend Cisco to others. It is stable. It has good quality. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Our clients use it to build a network based on level two and level three Cisco switches, and that's all.

Sometimes, people choose Cisco because it's Cisco. And that's all.

We are a vendor for the healthcare sector, especially hospitals, and normally, we use a full Cisco solution for stability, especially for the stability of the Access Points and the security of switches.

This gives the client more comfort when choosing, for example, Huawei or other brands. They feel more comfortable with Cisco.

The biggest barrier to buying Cisco or using Cisco is the price and also the competition with competitors and with Cisco partners.  

We don't find any problems with Cisco switches except the competition pricing with other Cisco partners, especially because we are a seller and implementer. Sometimes, we find ourselves in front of partners who have better prices than us.

The biggest challenge in using the Cisco solution is the relationship with partners or Cisco partners.

Even sometimes we have clients who need to work with us. And even the needs and the bill of materials are established by us, but unfortunately, at the end, they don't buy from us because of pricing from other partners.

Competitors' prices are cheaper. 

I have been familiar with this product for more than ten years. 

Cisco Catalyst Switches are reliable. I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

It is a very stable product. 

The scalability is good. Sometimes, it has about 500 network points. 

Our clients are hospitals, for example, ranging from 50 to 200 beds.

Not big hospitals, but medium-sized hospitals. The most recent one was between 300 to 500 users.

The support is good. Even if we don't need a lot of support, what we got is stable enough. But when we need support, the support team is there.

Positive

It was a little bit difficult the first time, but now, because we have the model, it's very simple for us.

Because we work especially for one sector of the industry, which is hospitals, we have a fixed model to set up the network. So, it's very easy for us to set up a Cisco network in those hospitals.

A few years ago, we established a model for installation in those hospitals, and now it's okay. Our technicians know how to do it. So they can set up the entire network within one week.

The deployment takes one-week maximum. 

I would rate the pricing a ten out of ten, with ten being expensive. 

I would recommend using it because of its stability and high quality.

Overall, the whole solution is good. I would rate it a seven out of ten. The pricing and competition from partners are the main two issues. It's not fair competition.

I accept competition with another seller or integrator like me. But if I find someone in the market who is an integrator, reseller, and distributor all at the same time, it's not fair competition.

Our primary use case for Cisco Catalyst Switches for campus-wide local area networks. We have configured it to power and support LAN nodes and facilitate separate VPNs, terminating routers for secure remote communication.

The platform significantly improved our organization by addressing latency issues in our network. Previously, banking operations were impacted by switch-related disruptions.

The platform is reliable and easy to use.

The product’s pricing needs improvement.

We have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches since 2007.

The platform is stable. We never encounter any issues and receive regular updates. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

We have over 400 Cisco Catalyst Switches users in our organization.

When we needed access to resources or encountered issues with the software solution, we utilized the help desk provided by Cisco.

Positive

We have worked with HP before. Later, we switched to Cisco to create a wide network area.

The initial setup was straightforward as there was ample availability of resources within our country trained in Cisco equipment.

Our deployment model primarily involved an on-premises setup for the Cisco Catalyst Switches. At the headquarters, we deployed the core and distribution switches to create a robust network infrastructure. The core switches served as the backbone, while smaller switches, likely the Cisco Catalyst 900 series, were deployed in branches for more streamlined connectivity. The network was interconnected through routers, facilitating efficient communication across the organization. Additionally, we implemented an MPS deployment to enhance network performance and management.

The product is worth the investment considering consistency in efficient operations without compromise. We experienced minimal downtime, attributed not to Cisco equipment but external factors like power issues in the grid. It is a robust solution.

We had to pay for the product’s licenses.

It is easy to access the console and troubleshoot the issues. It has effective protocols implemented within Cisco devices.

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.

In the market, if you are deploying any kind of network in an environment, there is a need for switches to distribute the network. You can use a switch to distribute the entire connection to other users in the company if you have a small company.

I can't think of an area where improvements are required in the product since Cisco seems to be regularly involved in patching the software part. Cisco Catalyst Switches releases regular software updates, so there shouldn't be any issue with the solution.

It is not easy for everyone to configure the product's initial setup part, making it an area where improvements are required.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for three years. I am a customer of Cisco.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten.

The product is not easy for everyone to configure the initial setup. Sometimes, it becomes a pain point when people are not able to understand everything related to the product, and they run into certain issues, making it a reason why I would say that the tool is not that stable.

Cisco's support team is good and can provide you with solutions quickly since Cisco has not given its support area to vendors. All of Cisco's support teams are handled by Cisco's employees. Cisco has support centers all around the globe, including countries like India, Singapore, Australia, and Europe. As a customer of the switches and routers from Cisco, my company gets twenty-four hours and seven days a week of access throughout the year to contact the support team and its engineers, who are well-trained before they get deployed on the queue to pick up the customer cases.

I rate the technical support a nine and a half out of ten.

Positive

I have experience with switches from NETGEAR and Sophos, but both products can provide detailed functionalities or features like Cisco Catalyst Switches. The functionality and features you get with Cisco Catalyst Switches are incomparable to other tools.

The product's initial setup phase was a bit difficult. A subject matter expert might be required to help with the initial setup phase.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model. The product works fine if you have experience with Cisco Catalyst Switches.

The solution can be deployed in a few hours. For the basic deployment, it takes a couple of hours.

The solutions are costly, considering that Cisco provides top-notch support and devices.

Cisco Catalyst Switches have impacted our company's network flexibility since it is a very flexible product. The solution is robust in terms of the equipment provided. As per my knowledge, no other switch provides the same functionalities that Cisco Catalyst Switches provide in the current market.

In terms of network security in our company, I would speak about the number of VLANs that users can probably have on Cisco Catalyst Switches and how we can manage the traffic going from one VLAN to another VLAN, which is a very smooth process with no issues. When you look at network security, the way Cisco implements SCP is tremendous since it has many features that one can use that are not available in other legacy products.

The performance and reliability of Cisco to support our company's critical applications are areas of the tool that can be described as top-notch.

In terms of the tool's management and configuration, if a person is into the networking field and works as a network engineer who has probably dealt with CCNA or CCNP certifications with experience for a couple of years, it will be very easy to use. Cisco Catalyst Switches might be a little difficult for a newbie to learn. Once a person learns about the product in a month or so, everything related to the solution becomes easy.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it, especially the ones who don't have budget constraints and have people or teams who are well-versed in handling devices from Cisco.

I rate the tool an eight 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 have different use cases for different verticals. Our network is built mainly on Cisco equipment, including switches, firewalls, and routers. Most of the devices are Cisco products.

The product is stable, and it performs well. We get support and patches from Cisco. It is going well. We have different companies and different verticals. Cisco is our backbone.

The support team’s response and resolution time must be faster.

I have been using this solution for eight to ten years. We are using the industry-standard version.

When we have more than 1000 Cisco Catalyst Switches, we have a failure rate, too. We would hardly notice failure if we had a smaller company with one to ten switches. A couple of times, it has happened that the switches have failed while upgrading.

We design the network according to the environment's requirements. We also keep the network ready for the business requirements. When a request comes in, we help customers get their devices into a specific network zone. We have a huge number of users. My company caters to its internal customers, including JioMart, Jio Payments Bank, and JioChat.

The support is good so far.

We configure and deploy the solution according to our needs. If a product or feature is not available, we discuss and open a ticket with Cisco. Cisco then helps with some patches or other features that we require.

The procurement process for Cisco Catalyst Switches is different. Once we receive the switches in bulk, we divide them among the different verticals. Depending on the needs, we allocate 100 or 1000 switches to each vertical and then start deploying.

I help the team to deploy the solution. We have a different deployment process. When a user requests a deployment, we first discuss their network and how they want it distributed. We then discuss the feasibility of the request and suggest the best possible option available to meet their requirements.

We have an on-premises team who helps us if there is an issue with the device. If the team cannot resolve the issue, we either get a replacement device or ask an expert for help with deployment. If there is a requirement to use multicast streaming, we need to check if our current network supports it. We also need to consider the bandwidth, network resources, and uplink and downlink ports.

The pricing should be improved. We have purchased a one-time license. When we place an order for Cisco Catalyst Switches, the quantity is huge.

I am an implementer. I would recommend the solution to others. People must use the solution based on their requirements. Overall, I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten.