Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

Our network infrastructure uses Cisco devices, including Cisco Catalyst Switches. 

The primary use case is routing traffic between the various sites that we are connected to. We have leased lines connected all over the country for use cases in revenue, immigration, and other government services.

You can easily set up and configure VLANs.

It is easy to set up connections between devices.

Cisco has to lower the price of its products to make them more cost-effective.

The Cisco Catalyst is very stable and it can last for many years. Some of our switches ran up until end-of-life and we are still using them now. We know that it's end-of-life but they still do the job.

We use a lot of products from Cisco.

The Cisco technical support is fine and we are satisfied with it. However, at this time, we are getting our support from another company and there are some issues with our subscription. As such, we are not getting all of our services.

We use Ubiquiti devices for our wireless LAN, and in addition to Cisco, we have routers from MikroTik. Within the last month, we used some Ruckus devices. These were connected to our MikroTik and Cisco devices.

We also bought a Cisco Nexus, but it is not yet configured.

The deployment was done before I joined the company.

I am responsible for network maintenance. It includes updating the routers and adding new devices. I will deploy the Nexus switch that we bought recently.

The prices of Cisco devices are too high.

We currently have the Catalyst 2960 and it is going end-of-life, so I am considering a replacement. They suggested replacing it with the 9200 but I'm currently comparing Cisco and Meraki devices.

In the market, some people are moving away from Cisco and using MikroTik devices because the price of Cisco products is too high. MikroTik products are cheaper and the gap in prices is too big. This is something that Cisco needs to consider.

I am looking forward to learning more about the Nexus that we bought because we are using old technology. There are a lot of new features.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We are supporting many clients. Some of them have Cisco switches, and some of them have HPE. We are supporting their network and solving any requests. We are doing troubleshooting for them. For most of the clients, we do full support of the network, but it also depends on the service that they took from our company. Some of them don't give us access to their core switches, which is very rare. Most of the clients give us full access. If they need, for example, a new route, we edit the VLAN port configuration, port channels, etc.

We are also managing the wireless controller for all clients. We are supporting them by creating the wireless connection and changing the password periodically.

I recently discovered the DHCP feature. There is a feature with which you can make the core act as a DHCP server, and it will distribute the IPs for every device. I discovered this feature recently, and it is very nice.

Its price can be improved. Some devices can be very expensive.

I have been working with this solution for around two years.

It is stable.

If you follow the recommendation of Cisco, it is scalable. Sometimes, when there is anything wrong with it, we open a ticket with Cisco, and they recommend upgrading the IOS. 

We have many clients here. Most of them have Cisco. We have three clients with HPE. 

They are very nice and very quick.

Most of them are easy, especially if you have a stack solution. If it is arranged as a stack, it would be very easy to do an installation, and it also takes a shorter time than the standalone. One of the clients I worked with had a stack solution, and it was very easy. We just had to erase everything, put the new switch in there, and connect the stack cables and power cables. That was it. Sometimes, it can take the configuration from the flash.

The number of people required depends on the topology. If it is a big topology, you need two or three people. If it is a small topology, you need less number of people.

It is overpriced. Some devices can be very expensive.

Most of the clients have a contract with Cisco for two or three years.

There are different categories of switches. There are Layer 2 and Layer 3 switches. In Layer 2 switches, 2650 is nice. It is a good switch. In Layer 3, most of the switches are good.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.

We use Cisco switches as part of our network infrastructure. We have a LAN and we will be implementing an SD-WAN in the future.

The most valuable feature of Cisco equipment is reliability.

As we are a Cisco-based company, the interchangeability with other switches is something that is valuable for us.

These switches should have better compatibility with software-defined technology.

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst Switches for approximately 25 years. Our current Cisco equipment is about five years old.

This is a stable product, which is why we use it. The majority of our equipment is more than five years old.

Cisco switches are very scalable.

We have two organic employees and we outsource between six and ten.

The technical support that we get is great. We have another partner for support, rather than contact Cisco directly.

I have been working with similar products from Dell EMC for approximately 15 years. Our most recent Dell product is about five years old. There have been improvements made with some of the newer products that have been released since then.

The initial setup was easy. We do have experience with Cisco products and also, our setup is not very difficult or complex. It's just a simple setup.

I cannot say that the pricing is reasonable because it's a little above our expectations. If we consider the recent price increases, it is not acceptable anymore. They are trying to price us out of our budget.

We want to adopt SD-WAN technology at the switch level. We will be expanding the software-defined capabilities of Cisco equipment to the LAN side of our network. We expect that Cisco will be the primary vendor for the equipment we use to initiate that move. This is not just for the wide-area network, but also the local area network.

In summary, Cisco is a good vendor but they're quite pricey at the moment.

I would rate this solution an eight 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.

The security is very nice.

This is a feature-rich product and the newer models have improved features that allow for many new possibilities.

The virtual stacking feature is helpful.

My company would prefer that the price was more cost-effective.

I have been working with Cisco Switches for approximately 25 years.

With respect to stability, Cisco is a vendor that we can rely on.

I work with a variety of Cisco network products, including Cisco Wireless.

Pricing from Cisco is expensive but we pay for the reliability.

I am in the process of changing my core networking infrastructure, and I am moving into the new portfolio that is offered by Cisco. My boss regularly asks whether we can change from Cisco to another vendor to get better pricing, but I always reject this. We rely on Cisco.

When you have a homogenous network, as I do with only Cisco networking products, with no other components, then all of the features from the old platforms are available. I can use the same access procedures, regardless of whether the device is wireless, wired, or remotely accessed.

Overall, I am satisfied with Cisco Catalyst switches. The only complaint that my company has is about the pricing.

I would rate this solution a nine 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'm using almost six Cisco switches.

We use the solution for the LAN, Local Area Network, for the organization, or for business. 

The solution is very stable.

The scalability is good.

They are managed switches, and we can control and manage almost all of these switches - even individually, one by one, or through a central control center.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

The device age becomes an issue. For example, with the 2960 version, they're not supporting that one anymore. I find that the device or the model age is a little bit short. It is five or eight years. When we have a big organization, we have 100 or 200 switches, and suddenly it's out of support, end of support, or end of life, or whatever, it's difficult as we cannot change switches every five years. At a minimum, they should last ten years. That's better. To upgrade, it's a huge budget. Therefore, the age of the product itself is a little bit short. They really should make it longer.

The technical response could be faster in the future. 

I've been using the solution for maybe ten years or so. It's been a while. 

The solution is perfectly stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability is pretty good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem.

We have up to 600 or 700 users. It's not measured per user. Rather, it is per device. We have many devices on top of users.

We do plan to increase usage in the future. 

I have contacted technical support in the past. They are fine, however, they are a little bit slow.

We did not previously use a different solution. We've always used Cisco products.

The solution is easy to install for administrators and network engineers. People who are qualified in networking shouldn't face any issues. It's fine, it's easy.

The amount of time it takes to deploy a switch depends. If it is at layer switch, it will not take more than one hour, maximum, for each switch. However, if it is a core switch, it might take one day.

The size of the team you need for maintenance also depends. If we are going for an upgrade, we need a big team. However, if it is just for troubleshooting, only two engineers are required.

We can handle the implementation ourselves. We do not need any integrators or consultants. 

We can use the switches without licenses. However, with licenses, yearly licenses, it is better, as we will have more troubleshooting options and control options, through a control center device.

We use various versions of the solution. For the access layer switch, we have different models, including 2950 and 2960. Now, we are using the 9K series, 9200. The latest one. This is for the access layer. For core and distribution switches, we have 6500 and 4500 versions.

I'd recommend the solution to others.

I would rate them at a nine out of ten.

We primarily use it to provide a hierarchy in the data center, enterprise solutions, and high availability solutions.

The performance of this equipment is much better than other options. The warranty on offer is perfect for me as they attend to issues in a maximum of four hours or within the next business day.

The solution is easy to implement and quick to deploy.

The solution is very stable.

I found the scalability to always be good. 

The technical support, in some cases, should be faster and could improve.

I've been using the solution for ten years. It's been a decade. I've dealt with Cisco for a while. 

The product is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability potential is very high. I can put many types of equipment on it and the solution will keep in the same level performance. It doesn't dip. 

Currently, we have 1,000 people on the solution. 

I do plan to implement the solution in future projects, as, so far, it has been issue-free and works very well. 

Technical support could be a bit more responsive. 

in terms of the initial setup, and how easy or hard it is, it depends on the technical knowledge base and on the person that will be implementing the solution.

I was working with data center providers, and, for us, with our level of knowledge, every time it was very easy to implement this equipment.

The deployment is pretty fast. After a couple of hours, you should have it up and running. We had a big team as well, which helped ensure it didn't take us long.

We have about 15 people at three technical levels that can handle maintenance tasks. 

I implemented the solution myself. I did not need an integrator or consultant to assist. 

Likely, after three or so years, you may see an ROI. 

The licensing costs vary. If you buy a lot, the costs are lower, however, if you only need a few, the costs are very, very high. 

You can also pay for additional support that guarantees four-hour or next-day resolutions. 

I am a solutions provider. We're consultants and we help other companies implement this solution. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. 

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations. 

We use Catalyst switches to extend our network throughout the facility. It's a big facility, so we need to use switches the ABS to get the signal out to the entire facility.

I like Cisco because you are dealing with something old that the new generation doesn't know about, like telnet or how to configure the switch. I don't like simple GUIs where you can do everything with a click. 

I can't use older Cisco devices with newer versions of the controller or switches. For example, if a switch was manufactured in 2014, I can't use it with a controller made in 2019. I have to change the switch so that I can upgrade my network or my devices. I don't have the option to update the version I have on the image of the AP or the controller.

Also, in the K5 Series of the switches —  Cisco calls them "Core" switches — they have some commands that Catalyst doesn't support, so you have to know the command lines for two different devices to configure them. It's a bit confusing when you are working on both at the same time, and you have some problems, then you notice that you didn't use the correct command for that switch.

I've been using Cisco Catalyst for five years, but I've only been working with the solution in-depth for the past few months.

Catalyst Switches are reliable. We don't have major problems like lost connections, and we only have a minor issue with something every few months. In the last five years, a switch broke down once, and that was due to human error.

Cisco customer service is excellent. We had some issues with devices, and Cisco replaced them for us. We had some significant problems with one of the switches because they changed the image. It took a while, but overall, the support is good.

It's not hard if you have some networking experience. I didn't deploy the switches by myself. We had some help from the vendor, and I supervised them.

With some competitors, yes, it's about, let's say very high price. Half the price you can get Jupiter, or I think also, I forget the brand, TP-Link, you can have something like that, but half the price with it, with maybe also advanced features to deal with it.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst switches seven out of 10.

My primary use case is providing Catalyst switches for the edge and campus networking. You may have lots of IoT switches, like surveillance access points and you need to implement IPE switches that deliver the power and networking through the endpoint sensors. Most of these are considered access switches. We then implement the distribution layer that links all of the access switches and network traffic, then move to the course switches that handle all the packets and connect all the buildings to each other. After, the core is connected to the firewall, from Cisco as well, to get out of building to the internet. So the core portfolio comes from access to the core. I end with the firewall and the routers to the internet.

Cisco's support is called SMARTnet, but we provide support to customers in case of any troubleshooting or if it's on-premises. We act as a mid-layer between the customer and Cisco. Most customers deploy it on-premises, but some prefer to build their own private cloud. 

The most valuable feature is that Cisco comes with built-in software access for network devices. You may use SDN for SD-Access, so you don't need to configure each switch with its own configuration, but can deploy the configuration from a single point of management. You can also monitor the traffic and access for the users. Especially if they are using their own laptops, you can make a VLAN for each switch. Cisco is a very stable portfolio format considering the network features and the heavy duties of traffic.

The prices could be improved. Cisco is dedicated to providing their customers with the latest technology, but it comes with a price. It's very expensive and when compared to competitors' products, like HP or Aruba, this is the most expensive one. 

I can't think of any additional features I would like to see in the next version. The features included are sufficient. 

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst for more than ten years. 

Cisco is famous for its stability and operating system. It's a very stable platform for heavy-duty network traffic. 

Catalyst is easy to scale, especially because of stacking. The stack member can reach out to each member per the tech stack group as well as for Catalyst. As long as you have a sufficient number of ports in the core and distribution, you can scale and connect as much as you need in the access layers. If you exceed the number of ports existing in the distribution, you can add another distribution layer and connect them together to extend the number of endpoints. 

I have been satisfied with technical support. Especially when it comes to hardware attachments, their response is very fast, and almost by the next business day, we're able to go and replace it on-premises for a customer. 

The process was simple and straightforward. Most of us started our first year by taking Cisco courses, so we are talented at implementing and configuring Cisco switches. It depends on the project, but if you are looking at full premises with maybe 20 switches, the setup should take around three or four days. 

We implemented through an in-house team. We are partnered with Cisco and have our own professional service team certification in data center, networking, security, and collaboration systems. 

This is expensive, even when compared to competitors' products. 

The Catalyst doesn't come with licensing, but it comes with models. It comes with nine key series, each with its own purpose: some are for access, some for distribution, and some for the core, so it's not a matter of licensing. The only licensing that you are using with Catalyst is either the Essential or Advantage licensing, which represents Layer 2 or Layer 3 switches. If you are going to use Layer 3 for routing, use the Advantage license. Otherwise, use the Essential license, which is meant for the access switches. 

Dell EMC has a magnificent working portfolio, but customers still may not trust its durability and reliability. Most customers will choose Cisco rather than Dell EMC, even though Dell EMC has a reliable reputation and is very cost-effective. Yet, from my side as a partner and someone who works a lot with technology, I would recommend Dell EMC for customers with a smaller budget that needs a flexible and a cost-effective solution, rather than picking a small solution from Cisco. I would commit to buying a large solution from Dell EMC, then going with a reliable solution provider. 

I would recommend Cisco Catalyst for its abilities, durability, and the support. Cisco is very familiar—all engineers know Cisco very well—and we can handle the troubleshooting and configuration. 

The Advantage license is suitable for large companies. All of the oil and gas sectors use the Advantage license for their switches. Even they are not going to use all the layers or access switches, but they invest a lot and have a huge budget for networking. For a small or medium company, you could use and split the Essential license and the Advantage one based on building needs in order to optimize the cost and make sure your solution is cost-effective.

I would rate Cisco a nine out of ten. Not a ten because of the high price.