Cisco FabricPath vs Juniper QFabric comparison

Cisco and Juniper are both solutions in the LAN Switching category. Cisco is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.3, while Juniper is ranked #10 with an average rating of 7.5. Cisco holds a 3.2% mindshare in LS, compared to Juniper’s 4.8% mindshare. Additionally, 96% of Cisco users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Juniper users who would recommend it.

Cisco FabricPath

Read 31 Cisco FabricPath reviews

571 Views
560 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

Juniper QFabric

Read 10 Juniper QFabric reviews

356 Views
356 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Cisco FabricPath

Juniper QFabric

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 6, 2025

Juniper QFabric and Cisco FabricPath compete in the data center networking category, offering scalable and high-performance solutions. Juniper QFabric seems to have the upper hand in pricing and support, while Cisco FabricPath has an edge with its feature-rich offerings that justify its higher price point.

Features: Juniper QFabric is known for its 40 gig backbone InterConneX, spine-leaf topology for single-hop connections, and scalability. It is agile, flexible, and cost-effective, integrating well with tools like Chef and Puppet. Cisco FabricPath offers reliable network performance, cloud management, and robust security features. It enhances Ethernet performance and is stable and scalable with minimal errors, flexible protocols, and traffic prioritization capabilities.

Room for Improvement: Juniper QFabric could benefit from enhanced feature flexibility and more comprehensive documentation. An expanded support network and more intuitive user interfaces would be advantageous. For Cisco FabricPath, simplifying deployment processes and reducing the need for advanced expertise would be beneficial. Enhanced cost efficiency and an improved primary client service might also add value.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Juniper QFabric offers an intuitive deployment process and excellent customer service, which facilitates quicker adoption and issue resolution. Cisco FabricPath, despite offering extensive documentation and support resources, has a challenging deployment process that often requires additional expertise. However, Cisco's support infrastructure is more robust, providing assistance through complex scenarios.

Pricing and ROI: Juniper QFabric typically has a lower initial setup cost, making it appealing for organizations mindful of budgets and seeking faster ROI. Although Cisco FabricPath entails higher deployment costs, it delivers higher long-term returns due to its advanced features and scalability, optimizing network performance and contributing significantly to ROI. The pricing strategies highlight their focus, with Cisco offering increased operational value over time.

To learn more, read our detailed Cisco FabricPath vs. Juniper QFabric Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Cisco FabricPath vs. Juniper QFabric

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 peers since 2012

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 FabricPath

Ranking in LAN Switching

3rd

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Juniper QFabric

Ranking in LAN Switching

10th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the LAN Switching category, the mindshare of Cisco FabricPath is 3.2%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Juniper QFabric is 4.8%, up from 1.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

LAN Switching Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Cisco FabricPath	3.2%
Juniper QFabric	4.8%
Other	92.0%

LAN Switching

Featured Reviews

AmrFouad

Technical Project Manager at Cairo International Airport Co.

Offers seamless integration and boosts operational efficiency with minimum downtimes

I find stability to be the most effective feature of Cisco FabricPath; it is stable. Cisco FabricPath has good scalability; I don't have any problems with scalability as I can add any switches or distributors without any problem. I utilize the multipath routing architecture feature in Cisco FabricPath, and it's good in load balancing. Cisco FabricPath's compatibility to support Dynamic Layer 2 multipath routing in complex virtualized environments is good; I don't have any problems with it. Nothing comes to mind regarding metrics for using the Layer 2 multipath routing feature; it was good, and there were no problems at all with Cisco FabricPath. Cisco FabricPath's integration with Cisco Nexus works with virtual port channel (VPC) and is good for dual home servers and edge switches. We are using VPC in every layer of the Nexus center. Implementing Cisco FabricPath positively impacted my organization by providing minimum downtimes as the service is always up; everything is working properly with the VPC and Cisco FabricPath. I have experienced operational efficiencies with Cisco FabricPath that are 200% better than the old legacy equipment and protocols.

Read full review

Suresh Pathipatti

Senior Information Technology Administrator at Aighospital

Performs well, is easy to set up, and the vendor maintains the product well

QFabric is the core switch. We also have two Brocade switches for the Fibre level The product works fine. It is an excellent product. There are different element systems and different options for each generation of the tool. We maintain the data center and analyze issues. I have no negative…

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The technical assistance is good."

"Cisco is the best choice in terms of cost, quality, and post-procurement services."

"The most valuable feature is the ability to migrate VMs between data centers."

"We can also enhance our service line with disaster recovery."

"The setup is straightforward."

"Cisco FabricPath is highly beneficial for network performance and relatively easy to implement. It also offers straightforward monitoring capabilities."

"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable soltuion."

"It's a reliable product and you know that it will work in the enterprise environment."

More Cisco FabricPath pros

"QFabric supports redundancy and includes all of the enterprise and service provider features that customers would want in data center or service provider network."

"The solution is stable."

"The most valuable features of this solution are the fabric backplane having upwards of 160 GB of communication. It is a top-of-the-rack solution where you have your directors sitting in the main area and then you have your nodes expanded out to your multiple cabinets. It has a very good design and could be your server backbone."

"It's user-friendly."

"The 40 gig backbone InterConneX was valuable for our use case. It is even faster now. QFabric has spine-leaf technology or topology, which basically makes every single hop only one hop away in terms of connecting from one device to another. It is a pretty good and robust solution. It works pretty well in terms of scalability, and their technical support is amazing."

"It is known for being agile, flexible, and cost-effective when working with various vendors."

"The most valuable feature of QFabric for network performance is its stability."

"The solution is easy to use and has good performance."

More Juniper QFabric pros

Cons

"The solution should offer better reporting."

"The documents could improve for Cisco FabricPath. There are times when the relevant information is not present in the different sections of the documents, such as deployment. The documents should be more detailed and enhanced."

"The solution is costly."

"The prices for FabricPath are very high, and Cisco also takes a long time to deliver products (in Mexico, the delivery time is eight months)."

"Cisco FabricPath's pricing is expensive."

"Layer 3 does not have higher availability."

"In terms of the series, I find that the integration with other teleconferencing applications needs to be more seamless. I have suggested to Cisco that the endpoint device should allow joining calls from Microsoft Teams, Zoom, and other teleconferencing applications. Additionally, I appreciate the recent inclusion of breakout sessions in the Cisco Webex application, which enhances its relevance in the networking field."

"I would like to see better interoperability with other IT solutions."

More Cisco FabricPath cons

"Improvements could be made to QFabric's life cycle management, particularly in maintaining stable versions and extending product support."

"It would be nice if Juniper provided the system integrator with training, similar to that of Cisco."

"The pricing structure could be more budget-friendly."

"The disruptive upgrade was an issue for us."

"They are working on the virtualization of the actual fabric layer. They are moving away from the original spine-leaf design to a different infrastructure. Instead of having three tiers, which was the director of the interconnected nodes, they cut them back, and they still have that kind of structure."

"It works too much on rebooting and there is some memory leakage."

"I do not use GUI's very much for switch stacks. I am always in the CLI. However, I do know that Juniper in the past has lacked on their GUI's, but they have been working on it."

"Having support for all OpenFlow versions would be beneficial."

More Juniper QFabric cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate it seven out of ten on pricing as it's a bit expensive. It would be better if the price were lower, but we prioritize quality over cost."

"The solution falls under the pricier category, but it provides value for the price charged."

"The pricing for this product is good."

"I rate the product's pricing a ten out of ten. Cisco switches cost around 15,000 dollars, and DNS licenses cost around 25,000 dollars. The total amount is 45,000 dollars, which is too expensive."

"Cisco is expensive but offers good-quality features, so I would rate it high on the pricing scale."

"The pricing of Cisco FabricPath can be quite high depending on the architecture, but it's justified by the stability it offers."

"FabricPath is very reasonably priced."

"It is very expensive."

More Cisco FabricPath pricing and cost advice

"The pricing is high."

"The price for Juniper QFabric could improve. There are subscription, maintenance, and add-on feature fees."

"In terms of price, the QFabric solution is going to be probably in the middle of the road for a fabric solution."

"The price is relatively high, but it offers an advantage over its competitors by providing better performance and functionality."

"The pricing is high and it is possible to find better pricing option solutions on the market, but the licensing model is quite flexible."

"Juniper QFabric is a high-level solution but it could be less expensive."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which LAN Switching solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

University

13%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Recreational Facilities/Services Company

Performing Arts

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	14

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	5

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cisco FabricPath?

The tool makes it easy to manage multi-layer networking and increases network efficiency. I haven't faced any challenges in integrating it into our existing infrastructure.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco FabricPath?

Cisco is somewhat expensive, but it provides good quality products and operations, so I can't complain about licensing cost and setup costs. There is room for improvement in terms of pricing for th...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Cisco FabricPath?

In future updates, I would prefer to see features such as more AI functionality or better integration added to Cisco FabricPath; more AI would be useful.

See all answers

What do you like most about Juniper QFabric?

The most valuable feature of QFabric for network performance is its stability.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Juniper QFabric?

Juniper QFabric is not overly expensive. Licensing is required for certain features like vRRP, but setting up a virtual chassis does not necessitate a separate license.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Juniper QFabric?

Improvements could be made to QFabric's lifecycle management, particularly in maintaining stable versions and extending product support. The rapid release cycle and short life span compared to comp...

See all answers

Comparisons

ExtremeSwitching vs Cisco FabricPath

Compared 32% of the time

Arista Campus LAN Switches vs Cisco FabricPath

Compared 23% of the time

More Cisco FabricPath Competitors

Cisco Nexus vs Juniper QFabric

Compared 28% of the time

Arista Campus LAN Switches vs Juniper QFabric

Compared 20% of the time

Cisco Catalyst Switches vs Juniper QFabric

Compared 17% of the time

Dell PowerSwitch N-Series vs Juniper QFabric

Compared 12% of the time

More Juniper QFabric Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Cisco FabricPath

January 2026

Download Cisco FabricPath product report

Buyer's Guide

LAN Switching

January 2026

Download Juniper QFabric product report

Also Known As

FabricPath

QFabric

Overview

Cisco FabricPath is a Cisco NX-OS software innovation combining the plug-and-play simplicity of Ethernet with the reliability and scalability of Layer 3 routing. Using FabricPath, you can build highly scalable Layer 2 multipath networks without the Spanning Tree Protocol. Such networks are particularly suitable for large virtualization deployments, private clouds, and high-performance computing (HPC) environments. The benefits of Cisco FabricPath include: Minimal commands per switch ease configuration and operation, Autodiscovery simplifies addition of new links and switches, Provision additional network bandwidth without impacting network, Supports one-, two-, or three-tier architectures, VLAN extensibility across the data center.

Cisco

Juniper QFabric System is composed of multiple components working together as a single switch to provide high-performance, any-to-any connectivity and management simplicity in the data center. The QFabric System flattens the entire data center network to a single tier where all access points are equal, eliminating the effects of network locality and making it the ideal network foundation for cloud-ready, virtualized data centers.The highly scalable QFabric System improves application performance with low latency and converged services in a nonblocking, lossless architecture that supports Layer 2, Layer 3, and Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) capabilities.

Juniper

Sample Customers

Bellevue, Calligaris, Electricity Authority of Cyprus, Management Science Associates, Multi-Customer, Oediv, Roper St. Francis, SNAM

MCB Bank

Buyer's Guide

Cisco FabricPath vs. Juniper QFabric

December 2025

Free Report: Cisco FabricPath vs. Juniper QFabric

Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco FabricPath vs. Juniper QFabric and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Cisco FabricPath vs. Juniper QFabric report.

See our list of best LAN Switching vendors.

We monitor all LAN Switching reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.