Exinda vs Steelhead comparison

Why PeerSpot?

GFI and Riverbed are both solutions in the WAN Optimization category. GFI is ranked #5, while Riverbed is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.0. GFI holds a 6.7% mindshare in WO, compared to Riverbed’s 15.5% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of GFI users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 95% of Riverbed users who would recommend it.

Exinda

Read 9 Exinda reviews

1,489 Views
1,400 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

Steelhead

Read 26 Steelhead reviews

3,389 Views
2,271 Comparison Views

95% willing to recommend

Exinda

Steelhead

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 10, 2024

Steelhead and Exinda compete in the WAN optimization market. Despite both having strong offerings, users favor the comprehensive feature set of Exinda, suggesting it is worth its cost, while Steelhead is often preferred for its support and pricing.

Features: Steelhead is valued for efficient data compression, application acceleration, and reliable support. Exinda excels with granular bandwidth management, real-time monitoring capabilities, and advanced analytics.

Room for Improvement: Steelhead users suggest improvements in reporting capabilities, scalability, and software updates. Exinda users desire more intuitive configuration options, enhanced technical support, and better user interface design.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Steelhead is noted for its straightforward deployment and reliable customer support. Exinda offers complex deployment but compensates with superior customization options and better network optimization. Users highlight the need for better deployment documentation for Exinda.

Pricing and ROI: Steelhead is seen as more cost-effective, with a faster ROI due to lower initial setup costs. Exinda, although higher in price, is justified by potent features and network optimization that deliver significant ROI. Differences in pricing strategies affect user demand, with Steelhead being favorable for budget-conscious buyers while Exinda attracts those prioritizing advanced capabilities.

To learn more, read our detailed Exinda vs. Steelhead Report (Updated: September 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Exinda vs. Steelhead

September 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 913,806 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

Exinda

Ranking in WAN Optimization

5th

Average Rating

8.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Steelhead

Ranking in WAN Optimization

1st

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

WAN Edge (13th)

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the WAN Optimization category, the mindshare of Exinda is 6.7%, up from 5.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Steelhead is 15.5%, up from 13.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

WAN Optimization Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Steelhead	15.5%
Exinda	6.7%
Other	77.8%

WAN Optimization

Featured Reviews

Marek Jaworski

Senior Engineer, Team Lead, Network Operations at a comms service provider with 1,001-5,000 employees

Allows us to have better control over our network by shaping traffic more gently

There might be room for improvement in the speed and throughput of some of their devices. They're getting a bit slow on some of the bigger devices. It would be helpful if there were some sort of an ISP model. Also, while I don't think it would be possible for them to do, it would be better if they had the Citrix support and the visualization to visualize your network. Besides that, it fits its purpose as a shaper and accelerator. Some people would say things like, "Add a firewall to it," but I disagree. I think a firewall's a firewall, and Exinda's a shaper and accelerator.

Read full review

Chaudhary Muhammad Moez Manzar

Senior manager at a tech services company with 201-500 employees

Reduces operational costs through bandwidth optimization but struggles with high traffic licensing and complex deployments

The logs in Steelhead are fantastic. There is a deep level of logs such as top 10 docker and top 50 docker. I can check from the top 50 docker which type of application is optimizing well and which type of traffic is not optimized. Steelhead provides logs and percentage levels, which is good. I can see any type of log report, report security, different types of report availability, but it is not customizable. Overall, this is a good feature. Steelhead provides real-time optimization with graphs and tables on real-time optimization, informing us packet by packet including port, source IP, destination IP, and destination port number. This reporting and real-time monitoring is fantastic, although I faced a problem in Oracle. Steelhead mainly saves the money that needs to be paid to ISPs. My actual traffic is around 2 GB, but I purchased a link from the ISP for only around 700 to 800 MB. All the prices that need to be paid monthly to the ISP are saved, which is a significant saving for my company after using Riverbed.

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 most valuable features are the shaper, accelerator, and the reporting... it will shape the traffic better than, for example, a Cisco, because it's more gentle on the shaping side of things. Suppose you were selling a 20-meg link. Because you can shape to the nth degree of traffic, the 20-meg link feels like about a 30 to 40-meg link."

"Getting Exinda was a life saver for our voice traffic"

"Customer Service: Top notchTechnical Support: Top notch"

"The most valuable feature is the ability to create policies where we can tailor them to the customer. It enables us to prioritize apps and users for bandwidth."

"A customer can either buy 50 Mb with us or 50 Mb with somebody else, but they'll get a 70 Mb feel with us because we can shape it a little bit better."

"One of the great things for us is that the solution works, and it works whether you're looking at it or not."

"The most valuable feature is the ability to provide very granular classes of service. That's important because it allows us to prioritize certain traffic types over others, to a very granular level."

"The benefit that we have seen is that if we turn it off, people notice that the applications are running slowly."

More Exinda pros

"The data compression through the WAN is like being on a LAN and is even more effective when the technology uses an adaptive transfer scheme known as warm transfer."

"The most valuable feature of Steelhead is its optimization capabilities."

"You should buy SteelHead for WAN optimization because it delivers more."

"The devices were great, and proved to be a very valuable asset to the company."

"Through this product, we can easily find the bottlenecks and where the traffic occurs or is generated in the network."

"The compression features are valuable, as at most sites it doubled our effective MPLS bandwidth capabilities for transfers."

"It's helped to reduce WAN traffic by approximately 60%."

"I find the most valuable to be the compression and exchange replication."

More Steelhead pros

Cons

"The updating of applications that the system knows about could be a little quicker. For example, Zoom had been out for a while, but it took a while for it to show up as an application that Exinda could natively handle. We had to write some things in order to handle Zoom, initially."

"In terms of improvement, one thing that has always frustrated me about it is that when you look at real-time monitoring, you can only filter it by IP address. You can't filter it by anything else. It would be good if we could filter by VLAN."

"There might be room for improvement in the speed and throughput of some of their devices. They're getting a bit slow on some of the bigger devices. It would be helpful if there were some sort of an ISP model."

"It should improve the quality of service. It can improve their connection to the internet and your IP."

"More free training on the website for those just getting started."

"Fundamentally sound with WAN acceleration, but needs to expand the range of accelerated applications."

"A lot of working with this solution is really intuitive. I have picked it up mostly on my own. I'm sure that there are some things that maybe I hadn't thought of or really hadn't considered, and I think it would be good just to promote some day courses. I don't really see a whole lot that comes out for Exinda as far as training or informational sessions through our normal resellers. It would be cool to know more about the solution by utilizing educational resources or even have Exinda promoted a bit better."

"What I don't like is the fact that I haven't purchased the overall management interface. That is the interface that allows you to manage multiple Exindas. Personally, I think Exinda should provide that for free. I think that if you buy more and more Exinda boxes, you shouldn't then have to incur a charge for the overall management software. While I can manage each Exinda separately, if they provided me with the overall management platform for free that would probably encourage me to buy more appliances."

More Exinda cons

"The solution needs to have alert notifications."

"Currently what we have in the system can not support the software-defined networks, so I won't say it's scalable."

"The Central Management Console (CMC) newly named SteelCentral Controller (SCC) has rudimentary netflow capabilities, but it doesn’t have particularly in-depth data."

"The traffic is passing, but Oracle DB traffic experiences lag and slowness due to Steelhead, while other applications perform fine."

"Applicative specifics optimizations shall always be improved."

"I didn't like the way platforms were scaled – if you started with a top end model of one of the tiers, if you needed to upgrade you had to rip and replace the box with a whole new one."

"Steelhead is considered an expensive solution in our country. On a scale of one to ten for expense, it would be rated an eight."

"If we lose the primary Steelhead that handles the optimization, the secondary Steelhead cannot handle the same High Availability."

More Steelhead cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is priced well for the market, for what it needs to do."

"The pricing and licensing are pretty fair and really competitive. There are other SD-WAN solutions that are pretty costly because they build in a service where they'll manage it for you, which is really great. I don't know if Exinda has that option as well. However, we are a small shop and cost-conscious. For things like this, we are accustomed to self-managing and this solution suits us just fine. For a tool that gives you, like the graphs and reporting, it has a fair price point."

"The solution is expensive and the service contacts are costly too. The cost of the device makes the value proposition borderline acceptable for us. The service contract fees we pay is approximately $30,000 annually."

"Across our 12 data centers, we spend around $150k annually."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which WAN Optimization solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Outsourcing Company

16%

Computer Software Company

15%

Construction Company

12%

Financial Services Firm

Outsourcing Company

15%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Construction Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	5
Midsize Enterprise	7
Large Enterprise	14

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What is the best network monitoring software for large enterprises?

We just did an assessment for our 47 datacenters around North America. The top two enterprise-level network monitoring solutions were ExtraHop first, Riverbed SteelCenter second. Their negotiated c...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Riverbed Steelhead?

I am currently working with Riverbed for replication between PR to DR for synchronization purposes, and for WAN optimization between replication from one data center to another data center. The mai...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Riverbed Steelhead?

Application performance may improve with Steelhead, but it varies application to application. Some applications, such as Oracle traffic, are not working well, but other traffic performs fine. The t...

See all answers

Comparisons

Aruba EdgeConnect SD-WAN Platform vs Exinda

Compared 26% of the time

Noction IRP vs Exinda

Compared 17% of the time

Sangfor WANO vs Exinda

Compared 16% of the time

WAAS vs Exinda

Compared 7% of the time

Cato SASE Cloud Platform vs Exinda

Compared 5% of the time

More Exinda Competitors

Aruba EdgeConnect SD-WAN Platform vs Steelhead

Compared 15% of the time

WAAS vs Steelhead

Compared 7% of the time

Aryaka Unified SASE Platform vs Steelhead

Compared 7% of the time

Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN vs Steelhead

Compared 6% of the time

Circadence MVO 1200 WAN Optimization suite vs Steelhead

Compared 5% of the time

More Steelhead Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Exinda

September 2026

Download Exinda product report

Buyer's Guide

Steelhead

August 2026

Download Steelhead product report

Also Known As

No data available

RIverbed Steelhead

Overview

Exinda provides granular traffic management and application performance monitoring with policy-based traffic shaping for prioritizing critical applications.

Exinda offers a user-friendly interface for managing bandwidth, ensuring business-critical applications receive priority while controlling non-essential traffic. Real-time monitoring offers network visibility, identifies bottlenecks, and suggests policy adjustments. It supports WAN optimization, satellite link management, and bandwidth control, aiding entities from corporate offices to remote locations.

What are Exinda's key features?

Granular Traffic Management: Provides precise control over network traffic.
Application Performance Monitoring: Monitors and analyzes application performance.
Policy-Based Traffic Shaping: Prioritizes critical applications efficiently.
Real-Time Monitoring Dashboard: Offers network visibility and identifies issues.
User-Friendly Interface: Simplifies bandwidth and traffic control.

What benefits or ROI should users look for?

Efficient Resource Utilization: Ensures critical applications receive necessary bandwidth.
Improved Network Performance: Identifies and resolves network bottlenecks.
Enhanced Traffic Control: Balances and limits non-critical traffic efficiently.
Actionable Insights: Provides recommendations for policy optimization.

Exinda is implemented in industries for WAN optimization, helping manage satellite links and control bandwidth on campuses and remote locations. It aids troubleshooting by monitoring satellite services and prioritizes network traffic for customers.

GFI

Steelhead is designed to optimize WAN performance by reducing data load and enhancing network efficiency. It utilizes advanced data compression and caching techniques to improve speeds and manage bandwidth, crucial for cost reduction.

Steelhead offers enhancements in data throughput and network optimization with its ability to improve TCP and WAN efficiency. Organizations benefit from scalable data referencing and adaptive transfer schemes that simulate LAN-like speeds over WAN. Its monitoring features provide insights into network dynamics, although potential improvements are noted in areas like QoS configuration and handling encrypted traffic. Users also recognize challenges in upgrading, GUI design, and monitoring tools.

What are Steelhead's key features?

Data Compression: Reduces data size for efficient WAN usage.
WAN Optimization: Enhances network speed and lowers costs.
TCP Optimization: Improves data flow over WAN connections.
Scalable Data Referencing: Encourages efficient data transfers.
Real-Time Monitoring: Offers insights into network performance.
Local Caching: Stores data locally to speed up access.
QoS Management: Prioritizes critical traffic effectively.

What benefits can organizations expect from Steelhead?

Cost Reduction: Decreases expenses related to bandwidth usage.
Improved Network Performance: Enhances application and data transfer speeds.
Bandwidth Management: Allows prioritization for critical tasks.
Reduced Latency: Mitigates delay issues in data transmission.

Steelhead is widely used in industries like banking and distribution for optimizing traffic between data centers and ensuring efficient branch connectivity. It addresses latency problems, boosts application performance, and helps reduce data traffic. In environments with limited bandwidth, its features ensure critical data is prioritized, creating significant cost savings.

Riverbed

Sample Customers

UMass Dartmouth, MLB Network, R&R Ice Cream, Savills, Manhattan School of Music, Blum Shapiro, Cincinnati Public Schools, City of Richmond, Genting Casinos, The Salvation Army, VoIP Unlimited, Frontier Silicon, Lakeshore Toltest, CTI Foods

ElAraby, SFK Leblanc, Bobst Group, Northwest Pipe Company, Halkbank, Tradebridge, EFG Hermes

Buyer's Guide

Exinda vs. Steelhead

September 2026

Free Report: Exinda vs. Steelhead

Find out what your peers are saying about Exinda vs. Steelhead and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Exinda vs. Steelhead report.

See our list of best WAN Optimization vendors.

We monitor all WAN Optimization 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.