Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

The most valuable features include the redundancy one and the spanning tree. We also use the power over the ethernet. Moreover, we like the RRP, virtual redundant routing and GLBP, which are primarily on the Cisco Switches.

In the future it would be nice to see a dynamic VLAN database that's not managed by another, say, Cisco product.

I would like for Cisco to come up with an affordable dynamic VLAN solution. This would mainly serve the purpose of network access control. My thinking is along the lines of that of my colleagues, that there are non-Cisco infrastructures available which are more affordable. This would give us the option of using Cisco Catalyst or of moving on to the competition. 

Cisco ACI is a feature I would also like to see. When it comes to automation, it would be good to be able to use Ansible or Puppet to run one's network and enforce compliance. Roadmap is the way to go, especially when it comes to network engineers. I would be very pleased if Cisco were to enable its product to work with these automation tools. This is where the challenge lies in deployment for most network engineers. Automation is key. 

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst Switches for around 13 or 14 years.

The solution is very stable, durable and resilient. We had many issues in regards to other people and products and upgraded these solution so that they would be on par with Cisco.

I have not had to make use of direct technical support. Mainly I have taken advantage of the one which is online and this works very well for me. There are no issues to report. It has provided me with much assistance, especially the forum, and I would rate it as pretty good. 

We have worked with switches from other vendors, specifically SP and Ubiquiti. Then we worked with Cisco, as well. However, multiple infrastructure mainly applies to Cisco and this is in accordance with our enterprise standards. This means that we deploy Cisco for all sites that we take over.

When it comes to the access points side, we found Cisco to be a bit pricey and have utilized a different product that we combined with the Cisco switches. 

The pricing is on the high end. Recently, at the beginning of this year, we actually did a  comparison of Cisco and HP products. As far as I see it, given the same specifications and features, Cisco is comparatively expensive.

Cisco delivers when it comes to business value. So, I would advise others to go for it. But, they should be aware of budgetary considerations vis-a-vis the pricing. This is key. 

The product is one which delivers, especially as concerns large enterprise networks that put an emphasis on visibility and the time it takes for deployment and reaction to situations. Keeping this in mind, I would say that Cisco Analyst is the best for me. 

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches as an 8.5 out of ten. 

We have Cisco Catalyst 2960 series. We're using them for core switches at two locations. We are also using them as endpoint switches and distribution switches. 

The warranty and continued firmware support are most valuable.

Their centralized management could be better. There should be some kind of software for centralized management so that I don't need somebody else to manage it.

We have been running them for 12 years.

They are extremely stable. We've been running them for 12 years, and we lost the uptime only due to power loss. We had only one of them go bad, and it was through the lightning.

It is very scalable. We have at least one in every building, and we have over 70 buildings that we maintain. Some buildings have even up to five of these.

Their tech support is great. We never had any issues. It is also easy to find a solution by using their community forums. Because Cisco is so widely used, you can find answers for any issue online.

It was straightforward.

The price of these switches is on the upper end. It is around $3,500 plus for a 24-Port switch. These switches are more expensive than Linksys and TP-Link, but you get what you pay for. If you look at the pros and cons per switch, you can justify the cost compared to a lesser and cheaper brand.

I would 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.

LAN access, distribution and core. 

We are Cisco partner and sell Cisco solutions, we have sold this platform for last 20 years. Its quite robust and work in worst environmental conditions.

In terms of the switches, the uptime and the robustness of the hardware are the most valuable aspects. 

Cisco devices are quite good. They do not fail specially the Catalyst Switches. 

The solution offers quite a robust infrastructure, hardware-wise. 

Cisco provides very good support services.

Cisco is improving and investing in R&D right now. They are investing a lot in research, and keep improving their products.

For example, they have recently launched the SDA, SDWAN, ACI etc. Software Defined-Solutions, in which you can automate your operations and enhance your operations, and avoid manual stuff.

With their constant innovation and investment in R&D, there isn't really very much the solution isn't lacking or building upon in terms of features.

The pricing could be better.

We've been using Catalyst for long time. It's a very old Cisco brand, I have been deploying catalyst switches for last 20 years. 

The solution is extremely stable.

You can scale the solution quite well. It's good in that regard.

We're quite happy with their support services. They also offer very good documentation.

Since we are reseller / partner we sell different vendors solutions.

The initial setup is very easy.

On top of that, they have complete documentation available on their website. Whatever scenario you are deploying, you can search for an example of it on their website. That can help guild you during the process.

We are reseller / partner.

licensing model is changing from perpetual licenses to subscription based licensing. Subscription based licensing model is cheaper but reoccur every year or 3, 5 or 7 years.  

Not relevant. 

I am a solution architect and design authority. I define what we need and in which direction we are going to look. We then do some detailed investigation, get reports back, and make a decision. We are working on air traffic control systems. We use this solution for data centers and remote clients.

It is a pretty good product. I don't see a problem with this product. Cisco Catalyst Switches fit the best for the type of systems that we deploy. Our customers usually are happy with Cisco equipment. Many partners and third parties have ordered this solution.

Its initial setup can be simpler, and it would be great if we can work with a reference architecture.

Cisco has the capability to provide a very integrated solution. They have DNA Center, Cisco ISE, Cisco Prime, FMC, and AMP. We are looking at all the products, but it is rather complex to pick out the right licenses that you need. The license structure is a bit complex. Sometimes, there is an overlap in products, which does not really make sense. For example, you have DNA Center and Cisco Prime, and it is not really clear what you would use for what exactly.

There is a lot of information on the Cisco website, but it takes a while to go through all this and look at the presentations that are available from Cisco Live. These presentations are appreciated, but sometimes, they are a bit too much like bullet points. You don't exactly know what's behind it, so you have to do a second guess. Overall, there is a lot of information but not always to the point.

I have been working with Cisco switches for 30 years.

It has pretty good stability.

Scalability is pretty good.

We have experience with professional services. If we do a design, usually we can get some support. After we deploy a new network, we can get professional services from Cisco to help us. I think that is fine. I had an experience with Cisco last week, where they wanted to sell professional services to help us in the early design phase, where things are more conceptual. They shouldn't do that. 

Cisco should help based on the reference architecture. They should help the potential customer to get started without asking for money. I think Cisco equipment is expensive enough for that. I have no problem paying for professional services after we deploy it or when we do a detailed design. When it is early in a project's phase, we should get help from them to go in the right direction. It should be part of the normal business to work with an initial customer.

The initial setup works well if you can build on earlier projects, but if you really have to make a completely new design, you will struggle a bit. We are working on a project now, and we have our experienced network engineers on this project, and they are struggling. The initial setup could be simpler.

It would be great if we can work with reference architectures. I have also seen something like this with other suppliers, and I really liked it. I have seen some of the ideas in the Cisco Live presentations, but I'm not sure if it is really complete and clear enough. It should be worked out a bit further so that we can work with reference architectures, and then let's say base it on multiple products that you would apply in the reference architecture. 

Cisco products are not that cheap.

I would definitely recommend this solution. I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches an eight out of ten.

We use Cisco Catalyst Switches as access switches, for connecting to what we call the last mile within the office. We connect from the patch panel to the wall jack. 

We use layer three switchings to interconnect between branch sites.

It is easy to use. I have only had one course on Cisco Switches.

The pricing needs improvement.

Price stops entries in Africa. We are not at that level where IT is considered a very big business enabler.

When I compare with the competition, MikroTik or NETGEAR I can purchase the switch and use it for whatever I want. I don't have to add the license, or the BGP routing license, and an ERGP writing license. Other switches are the providers that work out of the box without additional hidden fees.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches since 2005.

We have 1,500 end users.

I have only ever contacted Cisco support once in the time that I have been using it, but it was not related to the switches. Rather, I contacted them regarding Cisco ISE.

We started out with Cisco Linksys in 2006, now we are fully using Catalyst.

It was very easy to install. The last switch I implemented took me 15 minutes to install and set up a complete network.

We have 15 admins to manage this solution

We love Cisco, but the price is very prohibitive. We don't require any licensing, we scaled down to 2960.

I would not recommend using this solution in Africa.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a six out of ten.

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 use case will depend on the customer's requirements. Generally, if they want the access layer, the 2960 works pretty well. If they are in the SMB market, we go with the SZ series which is okay. If the primary use case is more on the PoE side, Catalyst switches give the most. And with respect to two-port, the 2960 is better.

With respect to the technology, when we talk about DNA and SDN as a whole concept, that is where, as a partner, our pitching point is, where we can show our edge to the customer. For example, if we are providing a switching solution, it's not just switching, it's a whole solution with DNA. That is where the whole concept of Network Management and Network Assurance comes in. So Catalyst plays a big role in putting everything together and providing a whole solution to the customer. 

Regarding security, with Stealthwatch, Catalyst switches play an important role as well.

When we talk to the customer, giving a full solution is important. From the switching to the network DNA to the security, I can deliver the whole thing with Cisco. That is how I position things when I go to the customer. We don't just go and talk about switches. We talk about the total solution that Cisco can give.

One good feature is UPOE. Another is having a built-in controller, the customer doesn't have to ask for another controller. For example, you get a built-in controller with the C650. And two-port is one of the premium factors from Cisco.

Something I like about the 2960-XR is that you get a lot of Layer 3 features.

One issue is that the competition is giving a lifetime warranty, whereas Cisco has a limited warranty on most of it.

Also, Dell switching is coming up with a solution where you can put your own OS inside their switching infra. That is where they are talking about open networking. We can show that our Cisco is also an open-source. We are open to different switching operating systems if the customer is willing to put it in. We can support multiple operating systems inside the switching infrastructure. It removes the hardware and software dependency on each other. That is where I think there is room for improvement so we can talk about open networking. Cisco should also come up with open networking access.

In terms of stability, Cisco is the premium solution in the market. It has a cost, but it gives you that stability. That is one thing Cisco has always delivered. That is without doubt, from my perspective and also from a customer perspective. They know that reliability and stability are prime features of Cisco.

I really haven't found any issues with respect to delivering the solution. If you talk about security I would give you a different picture. But with respect to just Catalyst, there are no issues. It is totally straightforward.

Pricing is an issue I have been facing, in comparison with HPE or Juniper. The Nexus series is out of the question right now. Scalability is more an issue on the pricing side and less on the technology side.

I will always tell you to go with Cisco Catalyst 9000 Series. That is the one to go with because you never know - any day, Cisco could make certain devices or certain components of a switch end-of-life. That is always a concern for our customers: "Are you giving me a product that is not end-of-life?. Will it not go end-of-life in the coming years? I need that assurance." I always tell customers to take a device that is very new so at least it's unlikely to go end-of-life in the near future.

So Catalyst 9000 is the one we are positioning because it has a lot of new features, plus it is new in the market. If a customer asks, "Should I go with 3850 or the 9000 Series, I will say that they should go with 9000 Series because the 3850 is an older version and costs almost the same. The 3850 has been on the market for a longer time. You never know when it will go end-of-life in the coming five years or seven years.

I would rate Catalyst at eight out of 10, from my experience. I have mentioned, above, a couple of things that Cisco can come up with, technically as well as commercially. All these aspects lead me to rate it an eight. Those technical and commercial differences mean we have to work hard.