Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

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.

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.

I use this solution for AV, Audio-Video applications, over IP solutions. It's to forward Audio-Video IP packets based on the ITMP protocol. I also needed a POE port to power the transmitters and receivers.

One of the most valuable features is the MatchBox Switch.

I used to use the CLI, the command line, but some users may want to use the Web GUI.

They need to simplify the Cisco 2960 Web GUI control, but not the entire version or the functionality for the Web GUI control.

IT people will most often use the CLI to configure the Cisco Switch.

They need to simplify the Web GUI and make it easier to use, and more intuitive for the users.

I have more than ten years of experience working with Cisco Switches.

It's stable. The Catalyst Switches are reliable.

The scalability is good.

I have not contacted Cisco technical support.

There are several training videos available on YouTube. 

If you Google, you can very easily gather material or training videos on how to configure the Cisco switch. 

The Cisco website itself is too complicated for the user and there are too many things on it. If the users are not familiar with Cisco, it's very difficult to find useful information on the Cisco website. 

In general, I don't use the Cisco website. I just Google the Cisco user manual or training video on YouTube to learn how to configure some features. 

If you are familiar with the Cisco Switch, it is pretty straightforward to configure it using the CLI.

If you are not familiar, in general, you will use the Web GUI.

There are several YouTube videos available to help configure the Cisco switches. It is very easy to configure them.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches and eight out of ten. It's a pretty good switch.

We use Cisco Catalyst Switches for the local area network.

I like everything about Cisco Catalyst Switches. It's both stable and scalable.

The price could be better. For Cisco, there is no need for improvement except for the price. It's expensive.

We have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for about ten years.

It's a stable solution.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are scalable. We have about 1,300 users.

Technical support was okay.

The initial setup and installation were straightforward. For configuration, it took around ten minutes. For the maintenance, we have two network administrators—just two personnel.

It's expensive.

I would recommend this solution to new users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Catalyst Switches a ten.

The solution is primarily used for getting network switching and routing for the telephone exchange here.

The solution is rather inexpensive.

The product has very good routing capabilities.

The installation process is very straightforward.

We would like the solution to be more stable.

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

The solution's stability is questionable. It's something they could work on. It would be ideal if it had better performance and reliability.

I've bever dealt directly with technical support as everything so far has been fine. We haven't had any issues or required any assistance so far.

We previously used Huawei switches, however, we do not use them anymore. We have completely moved away from them.

We have found that the installation process isn't overly complex or difficult. It was pretty straightforward and simple for us. We didn't face any complexity issues. 

For every switch, it took a few hours to be adjusted and managed.

We only needed one technical person for deployment and maintenance.

We had a manager that was able to handle the initial setup. We didn't hire any consultants or integrators.

We found the product to be reasonably priced. It's not too expensive.

We do not pay a licensing fee to use the product.

We use various versions of the solutions, including versions 12 and 15X.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. We're mostly happy with the product.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and companies. 

We generally work with small, medium and sometimes government organizations. We do layer 3 switches, as well as 9200 as layer 2 switches. I'm an integrator and we are customers of Cisco. 

We don't use any specific protocols. For us, the hardware and the security are the product's valuable features and performance of this solution is good. 

The cost of this product is very high and not all companies can afford it. Government entities can but corporations these days are hesitant to get Cisco. They're looking for other options that can cut their costs by 30% or 40% from the cost of Cisco Catalyst Switches. I think the command line in the platform could be improved because it's divided and can complicate things, maybe they can go direct to GUI. Using all the commands is a bit difficult. 

Cisco is stable. There are no issues with outages or integration. Once it's up and running, configuration is okay, and once it's on the live network, it's fine, no issues. 

Scalability is not an issue. Cisco is their own market and it works.  

If I have Smart Net, I get good technical support. Whenever I have an issue I contact them. They're very good. 

Initial setup can be a bit complex depending on the organization. Deployment time depends on the configuration. I did an installation with around 44 switches of Cisco 3850, which took me around one week to do the installation, configuration, and handover. It depends on the number of switches and configuration required. 

When we propose Cisco to a company, the only issue they are concerned with is price and the yearly subscription. You have to buy Smart Net to get a warranty and that is also expensive. 

Cisco is similar to other solutions such as D-Link. They have the same features. 

I rate this product an eight out of 10. 

We have the Cisco Catalyst 2940 Series switches. We usually use these switches for connections inside our office. We have a three-story building, so we have quite a number of switches to connect specific departments. These switches are mainly used to share a connection among computers in a specific department. 

They are stable. We haven't had any particular problem with them. 

Their price should be improved. They are a little bit expensive.

We have been using these switches for around five years.

They are stable. We haven't had any problems. There was a time when due to power failures or outages, we lost some switches and had to replace them. Power is very unstable here, and we are experiencing outages due to heat.

In one of the devices that I am using, I notice lights blinking from time to time. I don't know whether it is related to the equipment, but it seems that the connection is not going through. It only occurs from time to time. I am yet to understand the reason behind this. It is not a big problem, and we are able to use it.

Our network doesn't grow so much, and it has more or less the same things. We are a public university, and we have three sites. I am at one of the sites. At this site, we have about 60 to 70 people. We also have our campuses where some of these switches are used. All in all, we have about 1,000 people.

We are setting up a national research and education network for which we have acquired some Cisco Catalyst 9000 Series switches, which are new to me. When we start using these, I would have more to say about what they can achieve in terms of scalability.

We don't have external technical support. Unfortunately, this is not something that works very well in a country like ours. We have to rely on our own technicians. 

We have had the opportunity, although not so extensively, to use MikroTik. In my experience, they are easy to use, and they are cheaper. Our financial department opted for Cisco, but we are satisfied with Cisco. 

It is easy. We haven't had much trouble.

I can do it by myself.

They are a little bit expensive. We are a public institution, so we go through other traders, and sometimes, they put in their own surplus price because it is a government contract. Cisco products are expensive, especially when you compare them to Huawei.

I would surely recommend this solution. We plan to keep using these switches. 

I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for the switching capabilities.

The initial setup of the product is pretty simple and straightforward.

The solution is adding more automation capabilities.

The quality of a Cisco switch is very high. They are extremely stable.

Cisco should work to lower its costs. It's quite expensive right now. They force the customer to buy the DNA license and that shouldn't be the case.

Instead of making automation cheaper, they are making it more expensive and clients don't like it.

They really need to simplify their licensing and simplify moving to a controller base. 

The scalability is limited.

Cisco also owns Meraki, however, they keep these switches as separate products, and customers are confused by that. Meraki has a lot of features and a customer questions why those features are there and not here. Meraki also allows for more integrations with solutions such as HP, and it's harder to integrate Cisco. 

The same is true of Nexus switches, which basically do the same thing and yet everything is siloed. It's confusing for the clients. 

I've been using the solution for about 20 years. It's been two decades. I've had a lot of time to get to know the product.

Cisco switches are of very high quality, which makes them very stable. It's a very strong selling point for the product. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's very reliable.

The scalability is limited. There are other solutions that can do it better. Cisco is not number one in this respect - especially as more companies head toward the cloud. Luxul, for example, offers better scalability - if that is what a company is looking for.

We tend to use the solution quite extensively.

I've used Cisco for 20 years or so and therefore have had encounters with technical support. I would note that the first 15 or so years had been very great and I would describe them as very helpful and responsive. However, as of the last five years, I find they are going south. They aren't as good as they used to be. It's still okay. It's just not as good as it was.

Whereas in the past I've given them five out of five stars, now I would rate them at a four.

We didn't previously use a different solution. We're mostly a Cisco shop.

The initial setup is not overly complex. To set up a switch is not a big issue. I see Cisco is trying to go into the DNA to do some automation.  

Every site is different in terms of deployment and the number of switches/users. On every site, we have two engineers and we're also doing web support. The setup is a one-time thing and the switches are pretty stable, and therefore it doesn't take us much time to do an implementation so long as there are no hardware failures.

I handled the implementation myself. I did not need the assistance of a consultant or implementor. I have enough experience to handle it at this point.

I've used a few different switches and I wouldn't say that you necessarily get a better ROI just because you use Cisco.

The cost of the solution is quite high. There are other cheaper options. On Cisco, you're paying probably double or triple times the cost. 

Many people don't like the complexity. It should be simpler and offer a low cost. The reason people are looking for automation is that they are looking to lower costs, however, if you go to Cisco solutions, the automation solution is very expensive. This is the opposite of the customer expectations.

I do not do the purchasing directly and therefore I can't estimate an exact cost for the product.

I've used Juniper and HPE switches, and, if you were to compare them, I'd say there isn't too much of a difference. The functionality is pretty much the same.

You can also compare the solution to Luxul, which has better scalability.

We are a customer.

Cisco tries to move clients over to their own ecosystem so that they are only using Cisco from end-to-end.

The solution is very good for enterprises, however, it might be a bit much for a small company that may only need one switch.

If the costs are not a concern for an organization, I would recommend the product.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been very happy with the stability on offer, however, the pricing isn't the greatest and the licensing is confusing.