Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

Cisco offers DNS features over other vendors.

The product could be simpler and cheaper.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for over 5-10 years. We are using the 9000 series of the solution.

The product is stable.

Switches are scalable in terms of logical configurations at VLAN. It is scalable because it depends on whether it is a manageable or non-manageable suite.

The product is expensive. They charge for support. It comes with many options that are not understandable.

Aruba and Dell are offering switches, too.

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

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.

We primarily use the solution for our server. It's a network solution as well.

It's a very popular solution.

We find the product very easy to configure.

The stability is very good.

The product can scale quite well. 

Cisco is basically the number one switch in the market. It makes it hard for other options to compete. 

The solution is expensive. Sometimes we will choose some cheaper options even though they are not as stable as Cisco's offering. However, if it is a small project, it may not be worth paying Cisco prices to get it done.  

I've used the solution for two or three years at this point. 

I have found the solution to be very stable. The performance is good. It doesn't crash or freeze. it's reliable. 

The scalability has been excellent. A company shouldn't have any issues with expanding it if they need to.

We have three to five people that directly work with this product.

We already use so many Catalyst switches. I'm not sure if we intend to add any more. 

We don't really need any support as we have a network engineer on staff that can help us troubleshoot if we have issues. 

I can't speak to the initial setup. In terms of the installation process, we have a network engineer that will help us to install the switches when we need them.

The solution is expensive. There are other cheaper switches on the market. However, they may not necessarily be as stable as this option. 

When you buy the Cisco, the price already includes a software license.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. It might be the latest.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. I've been pleased with its capabilities overall. 

We use this solution as a network switch in banking and financial environments.

The most valuable features are performance, speed, and durability.

In an upcoming release, adding SD-WAN capabilities would be a big advantage for our company.

I have been using this solution for approximately 10 years.

We have found the stability very good in this solution.

The scalability is good.

We have licenses to have 24/7 technical support from Cisco directly. We have been satisfied with the support we have been receiving.

The price of this solution is reasonable.

In the future, we are going to implement the 2960-X next-generation version instead of this legacy solution we are using now which will have some added benefits.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches an eight out of ten.

We are a solution provider and Cisco Catalyst Switches are one of the network products that we provide to our clients. Within the past year, we have implemented Catalyst 2960 switches and Cisco 1900 Series routers.

I am implementing complex solutions with the Catalyst series that include the Spanning Tree Protocol. I build these solutions for educational institutions that are servicing professors and students, including wireless services.

The performance is good for complex solutions.

The most valuable feature is load balancing.

The integration with other brands is good.

I would like to see a graphical user interface for the configuration. This is something that other brands and models have.

I have worked with the Cisco brand for the past seven years.

I am fine with the stability. With the protocol that was implemented, the network has not gone down.

Scalability is good and is suitable for an enterprise network.

My clients are normally small companies.

I don't usually contact technical support. I am familiar with the forum, so I search there when I need information. The documentation, manuals, and community support are all good.

My client is using switches from MikroTik and Ubiquiti access points. We have also dealt with other vendors, including Cisco and Huawei, in the delivery of solutions to our customers. My clients choose Cisco because of the stability and performance.

I have also worked with telecom enterprises in the past, which included working with Cisco products Catalyst and Nexus. 

I have worked with these switches and know how to configure them.

The length of time required for deployment depends on the size of the network. For a network of 15 switches, it takes me two or three days to configure.

The price is too high for this market. Catalyst switches are more expensive than the competing options.

I am currently evaluating several options for my client. Their goal is to improve the reliability and architecture of the network, to give them improved scalability and performance. They need a good switch, but the budget is small so I am searching for the most cost-economical one that suits their needs. In fact, for them, the price is essential now.

Overall, these switches are very good. I like to work with them because they have advanced capabilities. I recommend this product because Cisco has proprietary protocols and we are happy with them.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We don't personally use the switches; we provide services to our clients, including implementing the switches for them.

Catalyst switches solutions are great. For various customers we have deployed for, business operations run smoothly and without any complain. Troubleshooting and insights are clearer. 

Our customers love working with us. 

Catalyst switches support a variety of features from both layer 2 and layer 3. The fetaures supported depend on the model your dealing with. Though there are various common features such VLAN, MLAG, SDM, STP, Resiliency, PoE, Wireless settings, etc....which Stacking feature happens to be the most common deployment. 

Recently I laid hands on Meraki Switches and what I can say to love is its seamless network services to build high-performance networks. 

The user interface needs improvement. It might make them a bit more user friendly.

The one thing that I came across with the Catalyst 2950-X switch was that I wanted to alter the dashboard, so I connected it to the management interface. I gave it an IP address and I used the browser. However, as soon as I accessed it, I realized that the system of the computer from which I was accessing it didn't support that version. I was using Linux and the OS didn't support the switch. I had to get a Windows computer to access the switch. The dashboard was difficult to manage. It would have been nice if they made it obvious that it didn't work on Linux.

I've been dealing with the solution for more than two years now. 

I wouldn't say that the switches are stable. It depends on the situation more than any fault in the technology, however.

If a customer approaches my company, we provide the best option for the client. Sometimes that's Catalyst. We do work to evaluate the client and their needs quite extensively before making recommendations. Most of the time, clients look only at the cost and not at the bigger picture. Many don't want to spend too much money. Sometimes, however, a better solution may cost more.

While a well-implemented product is typically stable, if a client says that they don't want to spend anything higher than X, you have to work within those parameters and explain what X will get them, which may ultimately be instability.

Very scalable. 

We have dealt with Cisco's technical support in the past. They were especially helpful and very polite. They are always there if we need them and their insights are always excellent. I would say that we have been satisfied with the level of support we've gotten so far.

Of course, we use and still use Meraki solutions. We didn't switch. Like I said, it is based on what customers need. 

The Catalyst switches take more time to implement than Meraki. How long it takes varies for each organization. It depends on the size and requirements. We have spent up to a few weeks on previous contracts setting up switches for companies.

Catalyst licensing varies from a thousand of dollars to 20+ thousands dollars , however, that might depend on the model or version you choose. There are some switches where the licenses are features-based and you need to get a specific license for specific items if you want to use them.

We've looked at Meraki, among other solutions.

While we have used Meraki, it's hard to compare them to Catalyst switches. Meraki is quite good and agile. They've simplified a lot of their processes and have some features that make actions easy to do on Meraki. However, Catalyst offers much of the same features, and are possibly more feature-rich.

Meraki is very much more focused on business needs. While it may be good for their own business model, it doesn't encapsulate everything. Catalyst does a better job in that regard. It has many more features on offer. You aren't limited, although you will want to focus on a particular kind of feature list for your deployment or your integration into your environment.

Cisco happened to own Meraki solutions now. 

Last year, we were Cisco partners, but something happened and Cisco made some changes to its partnership requirements. Right now, we are working on re-establishing the partnership with Cisco. We'd like to be partners again.

We are planning to be a distributor. For the moment, however, now that we are waiting on the partnership, we're more of an integrator. 

We have deployed on-premises mostly and also a hybrid version sometimes. It depends on what the customer wants and what fits best for their needs. It also depends on the model that you are talking about. On the Catalyst switches, as far as I know, the models vary from types of deployments and features. Some features are only available on applicable switches.

In terms of advice I would give to other companies, I'd say that I like both Meraki and Cisco. I don't really prefer one over the other. It depends on the situation which one makes the most sense. Both are very large solutions but I could recommend either.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I really do love Catalyst switches. 

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

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

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

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

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

We haven't had to use their technical support. 

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

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

We implemented it ourselves. 

Ten years ago we used Avaya and HPE. 

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

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

We use it mainly for access, as an access switch to other PCs.

The greatest benefit for our organization is that our Cisco Catalysts are quite reliable. We can depend on them.

The most valuable features of this solution are that they are quite robust, they hardly ever fail.

In terms of additional features or improvements, I would like to see more fiber ports, more security features, and perhaps the integration of wireless features into the switch.

It is very scalable, because of the stacking features.

Cisco supports this solution quite well. I like the support from Cisco.

I have always used Cisco. I think it is the most reliable solution on the market.

When selecting a vendor, for me the most important criteria are 

• the competency of their engineering staff
• their product knowledge.

As I said, I mostly deployed it as an access switch, and at that level, it is not complex. If you are talking about using it as a core switch, that would be much more complex. But we are only using it as an access switch.

Do a comparison with other brands and look at their features. The main Cisco Catalyst features are that it is scalable and reliable. These are two things you should look into when doing your comparison.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst at eight out of 10. It's reliable, the features are quite full-fledged, and it's scalable.