Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

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.

The solution is primarily used for the access layer, distribution layer, core layer - the three layers as well as a signal fabric that is managed through the DNA center.

The performance is great.

The solution offers great scalability. 

We have found the pricing to be okay. It's not overly expensive. 

It has all of the features we need.

I've been pleased with the level of security.

The setup process is simple.

We've been happy with technical support.

We would like to see more automation integrated into the solution in future releases. 

The product could always be more secure.

I've used the solution for many years. It's been a while. 

The stability of the product is pretty good. There are no bugs or glitches. The performance is reliable. 

The solution scales well. If a company needs to expand it, it can.

We have customers on the solution that have 5- to 100 users and others that have thousands.

We've been very satisfied with technical support. Overall, it has been good. 

The initial setup is not overly complex or difficult. It is simple and straightforward. 

The number of people you need to maintain the product depends on how large it gets. Naturally, the bigger it is the more people you need. The size of the network will determine the maintenance requirements. 

The price of the solution is good. It's reasonably priced. The licensing fee depends on the setup.

I'm an integrator for Catalyst.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. I'd recommend it as a product to others. 

We are using 29 series. We have three switches that we use for common switches and routing. We also have a number of access switches that we interconnect to the devices in the network, such as telephone, CCTV. We have defined a number of VLANs that are running traffic between the switches, and we have done interconnections within the switches, cable, and fiber. 

It is very reliable.

Its price should be improved. It is very pricey. 

Its installation can be simplified. Its installation is a bit complex.

I have been using this solution for four or five years.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable. You can almost do any new thing that is coming. 

Our users will always be around 80 to 90 because the interconnections occur within the switches.

I've just been working on Cisco switches.

Cisco solutions are a bit complex to install. They are not easy, and they require training and knowledge. When we changed our switch, it took 30 minutes to one hour.

I installed it on my own, but most people prefer to hire a consultant.

It is very pricey. You have to pay for support.

I would recommend this solution. It is good. 

I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a nine out of 10.

The most valuable features of the solution are BGP, VPN, and spine-leaf architecture. The solution has good scalability. The solution’s configuration is easy.

The solution’s licensing could be improved.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for 13 years.

I rate the solution ten out of ten for stability.

The solution has good scalability. Around 8,000 users use Cisco Catalyst Switches in our organization.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for scalability.

I previously used Juniper.

The solution’s initial setup is easy.

Cisco Catalyst Switches is a very expensive solution.

I would recommend the solution to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

I work in a big Colombian bank and we use the solution for the campus connectivity involving, perhaps, 23 buildings.

Cisco boasts very reliable technology.

As there are many who are knowledgeable of this technology, this translates into much support for it. The main feature we like is its easy support. 

The managing of the changes and automatization should be addressed. We don't have control of the changes involving automation. In terms of what is new, network technologies and those on the cloud, the solution is outdated. Personal automatization is a feature that should be addressed. 

As we are experienced with the solution, we found the initial setup to be easy, but an enterprise which is more new to this technology may find the implementation and deployment to be somewhat challenging. 

While the solution was very good for its time, this may not be so, at present, for big, leading enterprises, such as a bank consisting of 10,000 people. 

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for, perhaps, five years.

The technology underpinning the solution is very stable and reliable. 

The scalability is good. 

We do not have plans, at present, to increase the usage, as we wish to change the technology several months down the line, the solution being included in these future plans. 

As there are many who are knowledgeable of this technology, this translates into much support for it. The main feature we like is its easy support.

We use both Cisco Catalyst Switches and HP solutions. 

As we are experienced with the solution, we found the initial setup to be easy, but an enterprise which is more new to this technology may find the implementation and deployment to be somewhat challenging.

We have a team of, perhaps, 20 people who are responsible for the deployment. 

I am not knowledgeable of the licensing costs, since we have a contract for service with this partner, meaning we don't purchase the license or equipment directly. 

Five years ago, I was involved in a project in which the solution was deployed on-premises. Yet, Colombia or the bank have made recent changes to the switches and routes, since the enterprise wishes to optimize the traffic to the cloud. This is because many of our applications involve AWS. 

I would estimate that we have 10,000 users making use of the solution.

The solution takes advantage of very stable and reliable technology. 

The main features of the solution are its reliability and security. With the current technology, there are many enterprises that can design secure solutions. Other solutions do not provide for the same measure of security. I feel this to be a good feature. 

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches as a five out of ten. 

I use Cisco Catalyst Switches mostly in apartment complexes. They are apartment buildings, where one apartment has three or four bathroom/bedroom combinations and each resident who lives in those has their own connection to the switch. Additionally, the common areas of the building have a connection to the switch.

I've used Cisco Catalyst Switches in that environment, providing internet to a complex, both fiber and copper. We have taken and put cable TV, converted the satellite signals off of DIRECT TV satellites, and broadcasted all their channels, including local channels in the complex. There are approximately 250 channels through the same switches by converting the output to a network environment by turning them around and sending it back out on the other end for coaxial cable distribution. I've been working a lot in the MDFs and the IDFs of the individual complexes.

We use the VLANs to separate library, office, and individual apartments. With some of the reporting that receive, we're able to take and track down where people like to put in their own wireless routers. Sometimes they will take a DSL modem from AT&T that they brought from home, hook it in backward, and it will give rogue addresses causing issues.

It's been pretty easy for us to track down where those rogue addresses are coming from and shut the port down until we can have a technician go out and fix it properly.

There are a lot of features that Cisco Catalyst Switches have. However, they're not always needed.

The security of Cisco Catalyst Switches seems to be sound. It's very good with security. I've had no issues, security-wise. The important this is to know what to do to fix problems if you have a security issue, and it seems to work, whether you're using Cisco Catalyst Switches, Opensense, pfSense firewalls, or any normal firewall issues. Cisco Catalyst Switches are able to communicate to all the other hardware very well.

I use the Cisco Catalyst Switches command-line interface(CLI) a lot out in the field, but there are some web interfaces features that are available that I haven't used very much. I'm more comfortable with the CLI, but the web interfaces are very lacking. 

The application controls that you have when you go through the Cisco Catalyst Switches for configuration and to see your whole network could improve. If the interface could display and recognize devices other than the Catalyst that you might have in the network to allow you to build your network. It does not necessarily need to control them, but to see they're there and how they're hooked up would make a big difference when it comes to trying to map and monitor the network activity in the system.

Those are two areas I find in the Cisco Catalyst Switches that are not as robust as some of the newer solutions, such as Aruba. You could see everything's controlled by the web interfaces, but not as much by the CLI. I don't like that Arubas CLIs, but I do like the web interface where you can see everything and control everything without having to load a special application on a computer and/or use the CLI. You can visually see all the information, and I find that's an easier learning curve for people monitoring. I haven't used it very much with the Cisco Meraki's, but a lot of the places we have worked have been with governments, and they use a lot of the Cisco Catalyst line of solutions.

If someone was trying to manage their own office, I would rate the usability of Cisco Catalyst Switches a five out of ten. Unless you know the CLI well then you will use the interface that is a little bit tricky to work with.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for approximately 10 years.

Most of the stability issues I have found have been hardware-related and not software. I have found that sometimes a port will go dead, and when a port goes dead on the even side, the odd side equivalent goes dead as well. This is where things get a little hot and it caused the solder joint to go loose or something similar happened. That's what my guess would be on the issue, a lot of times they only mark the port as dead and shut it off. When they have many ports that are dead that they don't have any spares they typically switch out the switch altogether.

People do not want to pay for you to resolder a circuit board and check for cold solder joints, I try and speed things up. If I have not had to use many spares on the ports for repair, to keep the repair at a quick pace. I can change a power supply or I can change a board in them quickly. I haven't actually bothered to go through and see if it's a cold solder joint or if it's actually a dead port. I'm having to use my experience with other equipment and knowing that it more times than not, kills both ports on the same connector, it's probably a cold solder joint or something to do with where it's connecting to the motherboard. This would be the first place I would look.

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

They are highly stable, they have never given me a problem.

I've never had to talk with the Cisco technical support. Usually, if there is a problem I know how the switches are built, I can take them apart and put them together to fix them. For example, in the last Cisco solution I did fix, the power supply was overheating, and it would eventually shut the unit down or it would freeze. I let it cool off and came back when it was cool and took a power supply from one that the mainboard that was frozen, and put it in. It came right back up and it was working at the right temperature.

When it comes to technical support, I've never had to use them. What typically happens is the client calls technical support, technical support turns around dispatches a company that dispatches me and I go out there, fix the issue. I notify that company of their technical support, which may be Cisco's, or not, and inform them of the problem. The technical support double-checks the program and makes sure everything's up and operating.

I have used other networking solutions previously, such as Aruba.

I have found that the problems with Cisco Catalyst Switches are caused by the end-user putting equipment on it backward and various other similar user errors.  Cisco Catalyst Switches does not have all the features in the web interface. I didn't see the web interface able to be controlled the solution well. You can bring up some information controls, you click a link, and everything's in it is confusing to me, they could improve it. The web application gives you the ability to change some settings, but not necessarily critical ones. There're some things that you have to do at the CLI that their application does not give you the ability to do.

I have VLANs that are set up in my office under a pfSense firewall. The VLANs are set up in the firewall, and it acts as a switch as well. The actual switches turn around and act as a router and then the Cisco Catalyst Switches recognize the VLANs, and process everything accordingly as if it was a Cisco solution. They integrate well will all other hardware.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches an eight out of ten.

We have customers that use Cisco Catalyst Switches for SMB, enterprises, schools, colleges, and universities. We have worked with almost everything except the federal government.

The Cisco software ties all the hardware together better than the competition. Cisco used to license their IOS software to HPE for their own switches, which were decent switches as well. HPE has been through a bunch of different changes over the years and now has Aruba switches. 3Com was part of HP for a while and the ProCurve was the original HP switch that I remember.

Cisco Catalyst Switches do not have an open architecture and you have to buy into the Cisco architecture to be able to use them.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for approximately 20 years.

The solution is extremely stable and reliable, this has been proven from many years of use.

Cisco Catalyst Switches can be used in any sized company. We have customers in small to enterprise companies, with our largest being General Reinsurance. Multi-national companies would benefit the most from the use of Cisco switches. This is why the international community likes this solution because it can be used anywhere in the world.

The paid technical support is very good.

I have used many other switches, such as HPE, Juniper, and Aruba.

The installation is a definite effort to get everything set up and working correctly. They do not work out of the box. However, these days they have improved a lot and the new Cisco solutions today would be much easier to put together than the ones in the past.

The cost of Cisco switches is a little more expensive than the competition. However, as the saying goes, "you get what you pay for." If you want a reliable solution and other benefits, Cisco Catalyst Switches are worth the money. 

There are additional costs for support.

My advice for others looking to implement this solution would be to work with a reseller, such as us, that has a good history of working with Cisco and can give the customer a good short and long-term plan.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches an eight out of ten.

We are using the Catalyst 9200 series as a network switch and the 9500 as a core switch. We sometimes use a 9300 for the distribution switch.

Catalyst switches are highly stable and easy to use. It's a technology well known by most engineers.

We are an enterprise end-user. We also consult for other government entities and recommend using certain technologies to them. I've been working at this business and using Catalyst Switches for a year now. 

Catalyst switches are highly scalable.

I'm satisfied with support from Cisco and the vendor as well as their partners here in Egypt.

It is a straightforward installation. You don't need anyone to install Catalyst Switches for you. You just add it to your network and then do the installation and configuration as well as the pre-setup preparations. It doesn't take a lot of time. You take the switch from the box and put it in the network, then configure it directly. The switch will only take about 30 minutes to configure.

Cisco licenses are yearly. A single 9000 series Catalyst switch is about 75,000 Egyptian pounds. It is kind of expensive. But compared to other switches, it will save you in the long run. You need to hire specialized engineers who know how to operate those devices, and some of them are rarer in Egypt, like FortiSwitch or HPE Switch. Most engineers know how to use Cisco Catalyst. You would need to hire a specialist engineer and train them, and that will cost money. There are other cheaper technologies, but for Cisco, the price is expected. 

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches 10 out of 10. I would recommend it. This is a leading technology, and the price is reasonable, especially the Catalyst switches I mentioned. Other types of Catalyst switches are more expensive, but the ones we use are more affordable.