No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Broadcom Network Flow Analysis vs Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 2, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Broadcom Network Flow Analysis
Ranking in Network Management Applications
25th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Network Monitoring Software (81st), Network Troubleshooting (11th)
Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN
Ranking in Network Management Applications
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
101
Ranking in other categories
Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions (2nd), WAN Edge (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Network Management Applications category, the mindshare of Broadcom Network Flow Analysis is 2.2%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN is 2.4%, down from 2.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Management Applications Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN2.4%
Broadcom Network Flow Analysis2.2%
Other95.4%
Network Management Applications
 

Featured Reviews

Purneswara Rao - PeerSpot reviewer
Principal Consultant at KyndleIT Consulting
A stable tool that helps identify the complete flow analysis in a network
The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that the complete flow analysis can be identified through the tool. The classification of each protocol and how the bandwidth utilization is happening with the protocols while managing to get SLAs, IP protocols, and QoS metrics is possible because of the product.
ND
Network Manager at HPCL
Faced complex visibility and policy challenges but have improved basic traffic routing control
I have found some other solutions more insightful and user-friendly as compared to Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN, but the basic SD-WAN functionality is good enough. I am using it only because it was done as a pilot project, specifically for my 60 to 70 sites. For the majority of the sites, I am using Fortinet's Secure SD-WAN solution and I found that more viable and more in alignment with my requirements. For example, there is not any Internet Service Database available in Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN intrinsically. If I want to write a policy based on applications, I am not able to write it, at least in Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Viptela deployment that we have done, and that is fairly easy to do in Fortinet. The second issue is the logging capability. I think the visibility that Fortinet Secure SD-WAN has is not even comparable. Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN does not provide that sort of insight or control as far as traffic steering is concerned. With respect to the SLAs, I barely know which sort of SLAs are violated in Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN, so I do not have clear visibility on where the traffic is moving from at my spoke or hub locations. I believe Fortinet gives me a very clear picture of where the traffic is going. Overall visibility, whether it is data traffic or logs, is much better in Fortinet compared to Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN. The complexity of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Viptela is noticeable and quite complicated to configure. If something breaks, you have to involve TAC and others to fix it. On the contrary, you can work with underlays. Even if your IPsec overlay tunnel is down, it does not impact your production. Thus, we find Fortinet's solution significantly better than Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN solution. I have used Application-aware Routing in Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN. However, I found it to be very complicated, especially regarding policy writing. For my breakout of VC traffic, we had to write a bunch of IP addresses for Zoom, Webex, and others. Presently, it can only identify Webex as an application, and I highly doubt whether there is any application identification for Zoom and other platforms, as we were not able to find it during our implementation. It is done through static whitelisting of the IPs, which is not a scalable solution since IPs can change at any time. Overall, the application-aware routing policies are not as flexible and scalable as the Internet Service Database feature of Fortinet provides. The struggles encompass policy writing, logging capabilities, traffic visibility, and complex configuration. There is also the issue of load balancing. We have faced considerable challenges with traffic load balancing between the links. Although the SLA targets are configurable, understanding how traffic flows is challenging, making troubleshooting exceedingly difficult. Overall, I find it a quite complicated solution with not that much operational usability.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The custom report is the most valuable feature."
"For supporting flow-traffic monitoring, this product is the best option."
"Despite the low level of support, I would still fully recommend this product, because even when not all the features are used, the advantage of having such a wealth of useful information about the network traffic in real time, together with such flexibility of its presentation, is undeniable."
"It is an overall stable solution."
"Anomaly Detector - This detects the anomaly flows in infra environment and makes job easy to analyze issue."
"This solution has helped our organization by allowing us to have visibility. We deal with cybersecurity, so visibility is very important."
"The product's brand recognition is one of the most valuable aspects of the solution."
"Encryption, which is native to the solution, is a valuable feature. Also, central management, onboarding of devices, QS, and routing applications are all okay."
"It has a very good GUI."
"The solution offers good quality of service, visibility, connectivity, and security."
"The first part that we like is that we can reuse certain hardware, which is a valuable asset. You can use hardware SKUs that already exist in the network. The second part that we like is the integration with the cloud and the measurement of the cloud's quality. These are the two values that this solution gives as compared to other implementations that we have seen."
"Any technical support we needed was great."
"If a company really wants to go with SD-WAN, Cisco is one of the greatest in this area, definitely."
"The deployment is quite simple and straightforward."
 

Cons

"Prefer this product only if the scope of flow analysis is vast and for a limited scope I don’t prefer this product since the product licenses are very costly and it is a waste of money."
"Enhanced support should be given with APIs that work to maintain collected information."
"Currently, Broadcom Network Flow Analysis does not support high-availability solutions, making it an area that needs improvement."
"Sometimes the custom report jammed in the MYSQL database."
"I would like to see more security features, like a lost protection package."
"If one is able to find it at all, the documentation is often no help."
"The solution is expensive and could be cheaper."
"Cisco's router and voice gateway has not been available since the launch of SD-WAN."
"One area for improvement in Cisco SD-WAN is reporting. The report needs to give more visibility to the customer. The security feature in Cisco SD-WAN also needs improvement, particularly if Cisco wants to challenge other brands, such as Fortinet."
"One of the major areas that Cisco can improve on with their SD-WAN offering is their security features. When compared with Fortinet, who have what they call their 'security pillars' (e.g. firewall and security features built-in to their SD-WAN solutions), Cisco generally comes up short. With Cisco, if you need a security component, you have to pay more to get it done. So if they could add more security features that come part and parcel with their existing solutions, then I think Cisco could be very aggressive in the market."
"The solution could have better stability."
"It is expensive."
"Cisco SD-WAN's clustering mechanism needs to be improved. If there are more than five milliseconds of latency time between installations of the VM manager, the cluster automatically breaks down."
"Releases and updates/upgrades for the software in each component are not simple to configure."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"If you make a DX NetOps-based purchase and the complete suite of products that fall under DX NetOps from Broadcom, then you get Network Flow Analysis along with DX NetOps Performance Management and DX Spectrum."
"When purchasing, there are so many features available that it's quite confusing deciding which to choose. And some of the devices force you to buy licenses you don't want."
"The initial cost is quite significant, but the investment is worthwhile."
"The price of the solution is the only negative factor, it is much more expensive compared with the Cisco Meraki SD-WAN solution."
"The product's license is expensive."
"There is no license required for this solution."
"The costs are a bit on the high side."
"It's expensive. If you compare Cisco with Fortinet and Juniper, you'll find that Cisco is more expensive than other vendors."
"I give the price a seven out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Management Applications solutions are best for your needs.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
15%
Construction Company
15%
Healthcare Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Construction Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business45
Midsize Enterprise15
Large Enterprise48
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco SD-WAN?
Cisco offers premium enterprise capabilities, but its pricing, setup cost, and licensing models represent the most significant hurdles for IT organizations. Cisco hardware commands a premium price ...
What needs improvement with Cisco SD-WAN?
Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN is a strong and reliable SD-WAN solution, but there are a few areas where it could be improved. The user interface could be more intuitive for new users, and reporting and ana...
What is your primary use case for Cisco SD-WAN?
My main use case for Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN is managing and monitoring SD-WAN connectivity across branch locations. I primarily use it to monitor network health, troubleshoot tunnel and routing issu...
 

Also Known As

CA NetQoS Reporter Analyzer, CA NFA, CA Network Flow Analysis
Cisco SD-WAN
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Empowered, BCBST
Doyle Research, Ashton Metzler & Associates
Find out what your peers are saying about Broadcom Network Flow Analysis vs. Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.