Cisco Ethernet Switches Reviews

We use this solution to connect our computers.

The most valuable features of this solution are guidance, cover sheets, and access control.

The command-line interface is easy to use.

The licensing needs to be improved. You have to know upfront what kind of license you require. If you want to check quality assurance then you need to use an IP-based license. You can get that done, but sometimes it's a nuisance. For example, if you want to run certain commands then they are not all available because it depends on your license.

On the new switches, it is a bit hard to do the SPANning. The SPAN ports on the 9K series should be improved.

The stability of this solution is good.

The scalability of this solution is fine.

We have just changed partners for technical support so we are not able to rate them yet.

We did not use another solution prior to this one. We have always used Cisco.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

We do part of it manually and part of it automatically. The biggest part is the installation and the connecting and cabling. The actual deployment of the CD itself can be a couple of hours.

We use a partner for technical support.

The price of this solution is good.

In general, Cisco is ok. It's convenient and well-documented. If you have a big landscape then Cisco is a good way forward. It is well supported and a lot of engineering people know the Cisco switches. It's like the default environment, and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution on our equipment.

The VPC feature is the solution's most valuable aspect.

The quality, like all Cisco solutions, is very high. The fact that it's Cisco is one of the reasons we chose to use it.

Cisco has a licensing procedure that is very complicated and it changes every six months.

The solution is very stable.

Scaling and upgrading the solution is easy. Our group has about 500 employees and all of them use Cisco and its switches.

Technical support is okay, but they do need to respond quicker to tickets.

I have personally previously used Dell, which is very unstable in comparison to Cisco. You must review all documents and if you don't correctly do this, you must open a ticket. It takes  a few days for a simple question about the licenses to get answered. It can be a very frustrating process and should be simplified.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I handled the implementation myself.

The cost of licensing is very expensive, especially if you compare it to Fortigate.

We're using the on-premises deployment model.

I'd recommend the solution. It has all the features we need included within it.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for access aggregation and IP routing.

The queue functionality is the solution's most valuable feature, specifically because we are delivering a lot of Layer 2 services. Layer 2 protocol tunnels work well on Cisco switches.

The solution needs to work on lowering the amount of bugs. We find them quite regularly.

Cisco should offer different equipment. Some features which are needed at present, for example, require making ethernet loopbacks for testing purposes are not available. They need to offer something like this.

The solution isn't quite stable. We do find a lot of bugs. 

For Level 2 switching only, it's okay. 

When you look at advanced features, from time to time we have memory issues.

Some versions of the solution can scale with a stacking option. So far, we've been satisfied with the level of scalability we can achieve. We know what we can do using the right point in the network.

We're satisfied with technical support. They answer quite fast when it comes to troubleshooting on the Cisco side. 

The initial setup was straightforward and easy.

How long deployment takes depends on the configuration of standard features. It may take a few hours. It's more complex when we are using IP or VRF light functions.

You only need one person for deployment and maintenance.

We handled the implementation internally.

The equipment we bought with a perpetual license. We're not using a monthly or yearly licensing model. Any additional costs are reasonable. The hardware and software support came with additional costs.

We are using a variety of Cisco ranges, including 2900, 3600, 3700, 4900, and 7600 series.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

In terms of advice I'd give to those considering implementing the solution, I'd say that they should know what features they want to use in order to choose the right platform. There are solutions, such as Juniper, for example, that vary in performance and in features. Be sure to ask Cisco or any other vendor lots of questions in the design phase to ensure you're choosing the right solution for your company.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. The solution lacks some stability but it compensates by offering great features.

We use Cisco as a business switch on a small network of about 30 users. We use it for internet sharing, as centralized management for the network and active directories, as a domain controller, and for file sharing.

This product provides us with stable security and configurable VLAN management.

The most valuable part of this solution for us VLAN (Virtual Local Area Network), MAC authentication and security.

For Cisco, the interface between fiscal small business switches and the Cisco Catalyst or Enterprise switch is a little bit different. So, I needed to take some time to understand how this will impact the network if we plan to scale it in the future and to learn the different interfaces. I think it would be better for Cisco to unify the interfaces between their products. It might make it easier for users to use different models concurrently as different versions of switches and improve scalability.

It is not really a feature of the solution itself, but I also think that the technical support directly from the company should be better in the area of handling integrations.

I am very satisfied with the stability. We have not suffered any stability issues with the product being unstable on the network and it is not difficult to support. It is a very rare thing to have something happen that is related to the stability of the product.

Once you understand how the product works, it is easy to configure. I do not see any significant limitation on the scalability of the product so long as you have chosen the right product for use in your environment.

In most cases when I need to solve an issue, I search for a solution on Google and in the internet communities. I usually find what I need there. So mostly I don't need any help from support.

When I contact support, most of the time they provide good information and they are helpful, but sometimes they will not help. The problem is with acknowledging the need for integration support. If you call about integration between products, they might say something like "this is Cisco and we do not support this other product, we are supporting only Cisco products." Cisco is not the solution for everything, and they must know that the product integrates or gets integrated into a network. They are aware of that and should have the experience to help users integrate products when their product is involved. 

So, overall I'm satisfied with technical support if I call with an issue that is related only to the Cisco product, but sometimes I'm not satisfied when an issue is related to integrating or connecting with other products.

Technical support could be better in this way.

As I moved around between three or four companies to get better jobs and positions, all of them were using Cisco. In some places, we were using HP ProCurve switches. Having that experience previously is the reason why we went with Cisco for the network at this company. It costs more, yet we get a stable product with the most features. Cisco is more reliable, especially in a critical environment.

For small networks, the initial setup is straightforward. You can simply connect the product to the network and it would work. But the configuration for VLANs, to configure specific ports, and to configure security, the product has a little different interface than other Cisco solutions. So the first time setup it easy. You just have to connect and it is plug-and-play. But the difference in the interface between models makes it harder to understand the version and adapt to the differences from the other types of Cisco switches. If the interface had been the same, it would have been very quick to set up.

Actually, I did the deployment by myself. I didn't need any help or support from the vendors. If I do ever need help, I usually go to the internet and use the community and forums. In extreme cases — and very rarely — I contact the vendor directly. 

It is certainly not the least expensive product for switching, but I think it is the best and if you have the budget it is worth it.

I evaluated other options by my previous experience, so, in a way, we did evaluate other choices, but I had already made up my mind because of what I knew.

Cisco is the better solution if someone is considering it and they are willing to pay for it. The product is expensive to buy. In my current position, the budget is not a problem. If other people are in a similar situation where they can afford Cisco, I recommend Cisco. If they do not have a big budget and they need to be more budget-minded, I can recommend the HP ProCurve (now HP Networking) and D-links (Ethernet Switches) as my first choice for less expensive options.

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Cisco ethernet switches as an eight. It is not a ten because of the differences in the interface and the quality of integration support with other products.

We primarily use this solution to connect networks and devices.

What I like most about this product is redundancy like Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) or resilience protocol so the datacenter continues to function when there is some level of failure.

What I would improve in this product is simulation. You can simulate switches, but you cannot really simulate industrial Cisco switches. The ability to use industrial switches is missing and I would like to see compatibility with industrial switches.

I would like to see an updated feature search toolkit. The ability to look for certain features and select the features that you want or need would help to target desired results and workflow. To know what a tool is able to provide for you and the devices that can be used with those features would make research and configuration a lot easier.

This product is stable. I have seen no bugs, glitches, or crashes. It is absolutely dependable and was designed to be that way.

I think this product is extremely scalable. I am fairly sure everyone in the world who's working with a computer is using it. Even you — whomever you are, and whether you know it or not.

I have had the opportunity to use Cisco's support for this product. If I were to rate them on a scale of one to ten with ten being the best (and separately from the product itself), I would give them a six. On some days they take and answer a question easily and they are a ten, and other days they take too long to answer or give the wrong solution. More times they are better, so that makes them a six.

Previously we used solutions from HP, MicroTech, and Dell. You name a popular product and we have some familiarity with it. We chose Cisco because we believe it is the best option.

The initial setup of this product is straightforward.

The deployment time will depend entirely on the size of the project and the plan for what needs to be accomplished.

The pricing varies widely depending on the support contract term and the type and number of the devices. The product is on the expensive side.

We evaluated other options through our past experiences.

Advice that I would give companies considering this solution is that you need to do your research, find the correct model for your needs and size the deployment correctly. If you don't think first you can pay too much and have more than you need or pay too little and not meet your needs.

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as an eight. It cannot be higher than that because of the pricing.

The primary use case is for LAN networking.

This solution is also used for internet routing in small businesses.

The deployment model we used was on-premises.

Lower the pricing to compete with Aruba and HPE.

If they could provide a management solution for all systems then it would be an improvement. They have a product, but it's a license, and I have to pay for it. 

It is difficult to manage one hundred switches in many areas, without having a managing board.

I would like a management product to manage both the small business and the Catalyst.

In my business, I have all of these products and I have to configure them one by one, so the troubleshooting and the monitoring of each can be challenging.

Also with a managing board, it would improve the scalability as it would be easier to handle the traffic and monitoring several users.

This may be something that they are already working on, but it would be an improvement if they could add a layer of security to layer two and layer three to protect the server and to protect the data.

This solution is stable.

This solution is scalable. If I want to add switches to the existing one, I can easily do it. 

The technical support is good and they respond quickly. I haven't had any problems.

The initial setup is not difficult, it's easy.

The pricing is reasonable, and for small business it is acceptable.

Aruba and HPE are competitors that have a lower price than Cisco.

I would rate this solution a nine out ten.

The primary use case of this solution is for connectivity of local network LAN switching.

The deployment model is on-premises.

The most valuable feature is the complete functionality, but the most important thing is support.

Pricing could be lower.

It is difficult to look for additional features to be added because there a lot of different switches, different models, and usually each model is designed according to the number of ports. It's a satisfactory unit within the usage area for that model.

Cisco solutions are usually very, very stable.

This solution is scalable.

It depends on the customer, regarding the number of users. Recently we were awarded a contract for the Turkish military, and there will be several thousand people who will be using it.

Support is the most important. If something goes wrong then Cisco's support is outstanding.

I initially started with Cisco, only afterward, I started using a different solution.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The deployment time varies on the specific project. For example, if the project requires fewer switches it can take thirty minutes, while other projects could require one hundred and fifty switches that would take a week or ten days. 

We require four to five engineers for deployment and maintenance.

Cisco knows what they are doing and their support is great.

I would highly recommend this solution.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

Our clients use this solution for monitoring and configuration purposes.

The deployment model varies from client to client.

The dashboard needs some minor improvements. Sometimes it is difficult to find items, other times it is quick, it just depends. Most of the feedback we receive are not complaints but suggestions or ideas about the dashboard.

The stability could be improved.

We have some glitches once in a while. There are times where it's a little bit slow or a bit delayed.

We have not had to scale yet, we are normally working with a fixed size. We haven't had to worry about upsizing or downsizing.

For our purposes, we are not using this, but on the client-side, we have anywhere from two to eight users, they are made up of technicians, support staff, and engineers.

For me, the initial setup was easy and straightforward, but for some of our customers who are not as familiar with networking, it can be complicated.

For a technical person, it is straightforward. Of course, now and then you have to look in the manual and read it, as nothing is completely self intuitive.

Deployment can take anywhere from one to five days, depending on the requirements.

We require two employees for deployments.

We implement this solution ourselves.

There is no favorite function or feature, it depends on what you have to do and how you do it.

My advice regarding this solution is to understand your network, definitely have a look in the manual, understand the structure and don't just rely on trial and error. It's not target-aiming, so trial and error will not work.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.