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

Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN vs Junos Space Network Director 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

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)
Junos Space Network Director
Ranking in Network Management Applications
19th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Network Management Applications category, the mindshare of Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN is 2.4%, down from 2.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Junos Space Network Director is 2.5%, down from 2.9% 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%
Junos Space Network Director2.5%
Other95.1%
Network Management Applications
 

Featured Reviews

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.
Ibrahim Reda - PeerSpot reviewer
Network and Security Engineer at CITG - Continental Information and Telecom Group
High scalability network management with centralized control and an intuitive interface that provides efficient monitoring and configuration capabilities
A centralized platform is crucial for efficiently managing all of our switches, which were previously handled individually, leading to significant challenges. This unified dashboard simplifies tasks like simultaneous switch upgrades, streamlining the process. It enables us to create reports that monitor site statuses, including uptime and downtime, which helps us evaluate each site's monthly uptime and assess its revenue potential based on operational time.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Cisco provides the best support among all the vendors."
"Troubleshooting is swift, allowing for fast turnaround times whenever we encounter an issue."
"This is a good product and I totally recommend it."
"Cisco is always good with technical support, it's easy and the contact is fast when you really need it."
"Cisco SD-WAN is valued for its operational efficiency and ease of operation."
"The regular net routing is a good feature."
"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."
"I have been working with Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN for close to two and a half years now."
"It allows me to do more of the basic firewall features, like traffic management and others, in a single pane of glass."
"The most valuable feature is the management from a single pane of glass."
"The most valuable feature is the technical support, as it is better than others."
"For edge switching, this product is fantastic."
"A centralized platform is crucial for efficiently managing all of our switches, which were previously handled individually, leading to significant challenges."
"Junos Space creates one pane of glass managing your switching, routing, and security infrastructure as long as you have the modules for it."
 

Cons

"We have had issues where the configuration or IP spoofing on the network was not so good."
"They have taken away our ability to do what we are good at, which is working on the CLI, the interface right on the router. They have limited the commands so much that troubleshooting is nearly impossible."
"The integration to the LAN could be improved. It should be an end-to-end solution, not only on the WAN side but also on the LAN and wifi, so a full end-to-end solution."
"The solution should not be so bound to ISPs."
"What I also find should be improved is the possibility of really separating the software layer from the hardware layer since today the current offer is not well adopted by the service providers, which is why it does not reach the end customers."
"Cisco could do more to offer bundling of the SD-WAN and other solutions."
"We have found that their SD-WAN has a lot of scope for improvement."
"We have had some problems with the licensing model, and it is something that should be improved."
"I feel like it's been taking a back burner to other things, and I think that they're trying to go different routes."
"I would like to see Space created to fully functional, where it's got multiple modules, particularly SD-WAN working on Corporate, or maybe become part of the Orchestrator portion."
"Its interface should be improved and enhanced to offer various functions, with flexible pricing"
"I would like to them include network real-time performance and come up with a dashboard report."
"The upgrades are very time-consuming and difficult, and they often have to rebuild the product."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The license consists of an annual fee."
"The cost is reasonable. I would rate the price as seven out of ten."
"The Cisco SD-WAN licensing model needs to be simplified. There are currently three types of licenses: enterprise agreements, individual licenses, and DNA subscriptions. This can confuse customers, requiring a dedicated person to determine which type of license is right for their organization."
"It is expensive. The license limitation is there in terms of bandwidth. Basically, Cisco is always good in terms of performance and related things. However, if you want to have a license, for example, for 100 Mbps, they charge you because of their 100 Mbps. If you want to go without the license of 300 Mbps, it is a bandwidth license as well. This is not happening with other vendors. That is the reason why we moved away from Cisco. The bill gets a little bit high. I do remember that one time we were trying to increase the bandwidth for at least five devices, and the license got as high as 20-grand for five devices, only for the license. It was expensive for us at the time. Our company is not a big company, but it is a solid company. The price was very high, and we moved away from Cisco because of the price."
"The product is not too expensive."
"In the Russian market where we operate, this solution is expensive."
"There is no license required for this solution."
"You have to pay between 3000 and 10,000 euros, or something in that range. The core switches Nexus cost me between 10,000 and 20,000 euros."
"We would like the price to be reduced."
"Typically, Juniper is more expensive than Cisco in initial costs, but overall, the long-term licensing fees that you're going to pay for Juniper versus Cisco is going to be less."
"This product is set at a good price point."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Management Applications solutions are best for your needs.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Construction Company
8%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
18%
Construction Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

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

Questions from the Community

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Cisco SD-WAN
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Doyle Research, Ashton Metzler & Associates
St. Catherine's University, OneNet, University of New Haven, Frederick County Public Schools (Maryland), America's Test Kitchen
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN vs. Junos Space Network Director and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.