Meraki MS Switches Reviews

Meraki switches are appropriate for small and medium-sized businesses. Most recently, I worked with Meraki switches when I was helping my last two clients transition to a new service provider. One is a printing company, and the other is a tourist and convention center. One was moving from Ubiquiti to Meraki. 

Meraki switches greatly increase our clients' security.

I like the flexibility of the Meraki firewall. It gives you the ability to lock things down. Having multiple VLANs is helpful for the switching infrastructure and firewall. It's crucial when you have a public-facing VLAN, a private-facing VLAN, and a secure VLAN. 

The documentation could be more extensive. For example, it could describe more scenarios.  It would be great if they could incorporate AI engines into the switching infrastructure and firewall so you can configure it to prevent intrusion. They have intrusion prevention and detection, but they could enhance it by incorporating AI into their firewall.

The switching infrastructure doesn't need AI so much, but it would undoubtedly benefit their firewalls. That would be enormously helpful in creating the secure infrastructure most clients want. Hacking is a significant concern as the country becomes increasingly dependent on digital infrastructures.

I've used Meraki switches for around seven years. I'm an integrator and a networking consultant. I assess the client's infrastructure and develop solutions for them. For example, I had one client for more than 20 years. I set up their initial infrastructure and updated it as it grew and increased in complexity over two decades.

In general, Meraki switches are highly stable. In one implementation, we had some issues, but that had more to do with how the facility was constructed. Some switches went down. The electrical setup in the facility wasn't as robust as it needed to be, so we had things go out because of storms. However, I've had no problems whatsoever with other clients.

Meraki switches are highly scalable, but I've mostly dealt with small and medium-sized businesses. You need to add enough devices to scale up to a thousand or 5,000 users. These days, that can be challenging because of supply chain issues.
 

Meraki support is fine. Sometimes it's a little slow, but I think that's due to the pandemic. It was superb prior to the pandemic. I rate Meraki support eight out of 10. 

I've worked with solutions from different vendors, including Cisco ASA 400s and Fortinet FortiGate firewalls. I had one client on FortiGate, but I transitioned them to Meraki when they doubled the size of their office. They needed a more robust solution. 

The other client had Ubiquiti in place, but the whole network was cobbled together and hadn't been maintained properly. Their server infrastructure was toast. They had been a client many years earlier. I was called in to remedy their predicament because their in-house support was useless, so we designed some things and stabilized everything. Their security was far superior to what it was before. 

Deploying Meraki MS switches is pretty straightforward if you have a background in networking, and I've been doing this for 25 years. The deployment time depends on the complexity of your environment, but a simple deployment takes less than an hour. It will take longer if you are doing a more complex deployment with multiple DHCP servers and VLANs. 

The switches don't require much maintenance, and you can manage them remotely once they are deployed. It's convenient to have someone on site, but not necessary.

My clients say they're fine with the investment. In one case, I work with the vice president and CFO. He's pleased with it, but I don't have the financial data points.

You can buy licenses for one, three, five, or 10 years, and it's pricey. The hardware changes. For example, you couldn't get the speeds we have today unless you had some high-end internet. 

You may have had a nice infrastructure that was fine for a hundred megabits per second, but the minute you get up to 500 or 1 gig or higher, the infrastructure is insufficient, so you need to purchase new equipment. That's just the name of the game. Equipment and licensing costs go up. I don't know if there's a way to get around that. I really don't think so.

I stopped evaluating other solutions later in my career because I was sold on Meraki by that point. If you spend too much time looking at other options, you don't solve the problem necessarily. 

I'm a tiny outfit, and I was pretty much retiring. I knew Meraki to be a good solution, and I use it personally. It's something I'm familiar with that I can support remotely. If a device goes down, we simply get another one in place, and everything downloads from the cloud. Replacing or scaling up is simple once things are configured correctly and working, 

I rate Meraki MS Switches10 out of 10. I must add the caveat that I don't have experience with hundreds of different solutions. I haven't made a lot of comparisons, but Meraki solutions have worked extremely well for my clients. I'm happy with that. 

If you asked me why, I would say it's the robustness of the solution. Cisco continues to invest in Meraki and come out with new products. Their support is top-notch, and the configuration is straightforward and logical. It's one of the better solutions out there.

These last two clients have been pleased with Meraki, though they also use FortiGate. This is probably their first real in-depth foray into Meraki infrastructure. 

If you're considering Meraki, do your homework. You must have a clear idea of where your client is now and their expectations. What do they hope to get out of the solution?  It has more to do with building a proper client relationship than it does with hardware and licensing costs. You have to be upfront with all of that, of course, because they're looking to you to get that information. You must be thorough in your research and present multiple options. 

My company currently has about a dozen switches in operation in multiple locations. We've got probably about four or five of them in our main headquarters, then we've also rolled out to individual sites to utilize them. We remove the Cisco router and go directly into what we currently have as an SD-WAN solution.

Updates are easier to administrate. Security is handled in real time updates.

Overall a great solution.

The most valuable features are the cloud and throughput visibility, the ease of configuration, and being able to implement them into our umbrella DNS solution.

As far as the downside, I would say that they're not data center ideal. They're definitely missing some of the higher end data center Cisco features, but I'm sure those are coming down the road. Probably the only other downside I see to these is that they're very limited in their GUI for the initial configuration. 

3 Years

So far, I have not seen any of the switches go down. 

I think the only downside that I've seen so far in the scalability of the product is that they don't have anything that's more than a 48-port switch. They're more useful as access switches than as core switches for large environments. I mean, you can stack them nicely, but I haven't seen anything like a blade switch. It's different from what we standardized on in the past, with the Cisco 6500 or the 4000 series blade switches.

The support has always been really good. 

This product is very straightforward. They're a little bit of a change from the standard Cisco gear, but if you understand the networking and how things work, they're pretty simple to set up.

We have the switches on the cloud, so we can centrally administer updates from the cloud pretty simply. It's nice in that respect because you don't have to have hands-on maintenance. 

Everybody would love for the pricing to be cheaper than it is, but I don't know if that's a legitimate ask.

It's $150 per year for licensing on each 250 switch. The 425 switches are about $500 a year for the enhanced enterprise licenses. 

My advice to those looking at implementing the product would be to understand how to get into the console before implementing the switches because, in a secure environment, they may not be able to call back initially without a little bit of configuration. However, if you have broadband with DHCP, it's simple to get the initial configuration downloaded.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. If they had a little bit more advanced features, I'd raise them up, but they're real good.

For our customers, there are multiple locations, around 3,500.

My configuration is to do the configurations on Cisco Meraki Dashboard. There are MS Avant switches, MS switches, MS routers, et cetera. Mostly, I work with all the switches, switch modems and routers, and access points also.

The switches are very stable. 

It's able to expand.

The product is easy to set up. 

Sometimes, when we plug the new switch into the internet, they will upgrade there and it'll take time. At times, we didn't know whether the switch was operating or not so we have to take the console and we have to do some troubleshooting. In the console, we can find out there if the Cisco Meraki switch is not connected with the Meraki cloud. 

The MG21 is not working on a 5G SIM card. It requires 4G SIM cards. Therefore, we are using two links, an internet broadband link and one for MG21 that is on SIM card based for small sites. We all suffer a lot of issues for MG21. 

I've been using the solution for five years. 

It is stable as a product. The solution is reliable. There aren't any bugs or glitches. 

It is a product that can scale. It's not a problem.

Typically, if I run into issues, I'd run them by my team lead. I don't reach out to Cisco directly. It's a good solution. We don't run into many issues. 

I previously used Cisco and HP switches. 

I've also used an Alcatel switch.

The solution is very straightforward, actually. It is not complex. This is a simple product to configure.

In terms of the ease of setup, I'd rate it a nine out of ten. 

I'm not familiar with the exact cost of the solution. 

Our organization has a partnership with Meraki.

It is a good product and it is scalable. It is not too complex in terms of configuration. It supports a lot of technology.

I'd rate the product eight out of ten. 

I am a Solutions Architect. I work in presales. We make projects with our customers and then provide the solutions. We position the MS Switches. If the company changes from 24 ports to 48, for example, I will see that. I am also aware of when licenses are renewed.

Meraki MS Switches are used with the PoE version together with an access point. The solution is most common in the access layer. 

My clients value the application visibility of this solution. For example, for the Layer 2 switch, our customers are able to see not only the wireless aspect, but its cloud management.

The price of Meraki MS Switches should come down, particularly for the Layer 3 switch, which is the most expensive switch. 

Because we have Wi-Fi 6, which is 2.5 or sometimes 5 Gigabits, we want the biggest ports in the lowest, entry-level switch. Sometimes we have to provision the equipment because there are some gaps.

I would like to see improvements to the dark mode in the next release, as I prefer the dark mode.

I have been using Meraki MS Switches for more than four years.

The product is stable, however, after we closed the project, our clients reported that they had some problems. 

Meraki MS Switches is scalable. Buy the licenses, and then plug them into the network.

I require technical support when I need information regarding the product during presales. They meet my expectations and answer with clear and thorough information.

I would rate technical support a five out of five overall.

Positive

The initial setup of this cloud based solution is very easy.

Meraki MS Switches is easy to use and implement. The solution has good support, functions, and features.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10.

I've got the appliances and I've got the switches and I've got the access points.

I have switches for the phones and the access points. I have standard switches for the network. However, I'm doing the layer-two switching. I don't do any additional programming on them. The advantage that I have with them is the user portal. I can find the endpoints by port. Therefore, if I need to control it, I can do it from the portal and shut a port down, however, I don't do any additional programming beyond layer two.

I like that I can patch and manage them remotely from the user portal. It's easy to patch and manage from anywhere.

The initial setup is easy.

I don't see any need for any improvements for my particular use case. 

They could lower the price.

At my latest company, we've used the solution for three years. However, I've worked with the product for seven years. 

In terms of stability. they're as good as any other switches I've used. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

I don't know that you scale switches. You get them for whatever amount of ports they're on.

I have sites with 24 port switches and I have sites with 48 port switches. Their size is growing to meet the needs we have.

Before this, I had HP and Cisco and was actively buying HP switches. We switched, not that it is cheaper. I am required in our industry to always be on the current firmware. That would, in the past, require either working late hours or scheduling downtime to do those updates. Now I can schedule them for any time of the day in the off hours. It happens automatically. There wasn't much difference between any of the switches. 

It's a straightforward implementation. 

I just did plug-and-play.

I can maintain them from my desk. I'm a one-person shop. They are very easy to take care of.

For example, I can schedule patch management. The biggest concern is keeping them patched or updated so that the firmware is always current to avoid potential bad players or issues. I can schedule that and do that all from the console. I don't have to worry about staying up late at night to do it or taking it down in the middle of the day and scheduling downtime. In the middle of the night, I can say, "Patch it," and it'll be done.

The pricing is high and could be reduced. 

The initial cost is above HP and probably comparable to Cisco. HP, on their switches, still has a limited lifetime warranty. You buy it and you'll get support and replacement for the life of the switch. The maintenance on the Meraki is not that great. I buy it three years at a time. It's not a big number.

Visibility is part of the Meraki mindset or the culture. You manage your infrastructure from a single portal. I have visibility into what's going on from a single portal, and I can manage and update and maintain it from that single portal. I don't have to have multiple solutions. I don't have to log into the switches. Everything's managed from that single portal. It's great.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. 

We are a technology consultant and we work with a variety of products, including Meraki MS Switches. We have installed these switches in certain hotels in Egypt.

One of the hotels we work with has standardized on Meraki.

Meraki's support for outdoor switches is something that we're facing problems with. This is an area that needs to be improved.

Meraki should include an application to assist users with the design of access points.

We have been working with Meraki MS Switches for perhaps two years.

This is a good switch for a small installation, such as a hotel, but it's not an enterprise-level solution. In that regard, it is not very scalable.

The hotel network has almost 300 rooms.

We have no problem with technical support from Cisco. They have good support, although it's not cheap. 

We have experience with switches from different vendors including Cisco and HP.

HPE Aruba is very popular in my country, and we have done a lot of these installations. Most people, given the choice between Aruba and Cisco, choose to implement Aruba.

One of the advantages to Aruba is that the switches have a lifetime warranty. They are also cheaper than Cisco.

We have not faced any problems with respect to installation. They just need internet connectivity for the cloud configuration.

Installation is done by the system integrators.

Meraki is not an expensive switch, like Cisco. However, the cost of technical support is expensive.

We have researched different Cisco solutions. One of the things that we have found is that Stealthwatch for Cisco has the sensors built into the switches. We are interested in knowing whether that feature is compatible with other hardware because we don't want to be tied to a single vendor.

Some companies in Egypt are not allowed to use cloud-based services, so the use of this type of product has not been popular.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We primarily used the solution as a switch.

The product offered a lower CapEx cost for the appliance. That's why they tried that infrastructure.

It was easy to set up.

We didn’t like the performance, which is why we ended up stopping usage.

We had issues with the stability, issues with the pricing, and the total cost of ownership.

The feature set is less attractive than other or similar equipment from other companies.

You can’t really scale the solution.

We’d like to have on-premises management in the future versions of the product.

It would be great if there were industrial protocols with more on them for an IT environment.

We’ve used the solution since 2018.

We faced some stability issues when using the product.

It’s not a very scalable product.

It’s used for energy generation, and we only really need 5% of our team managing it, so it doesn’t really require that many users per se.

I recall technical support being good. They were pretty helpful and responsive.

Positive

We used Cisco switches, among other options.

The solution was relatively easy to deploy. It was straightforward and not overly complex.

The deployment itself only took a couple of hours.

You only need one person to handle the deployment tasks.

We used an integrator. They helped us manage the initial setup.

We’ve removed all of the switches. We didn’t really witness an ROI.

In the long term, we likely did not get any ROI as we had to buy the switch. We should have bought it a couple of years ago. At this moment, it was a good return on investment in the sense that we had a switch working. However, it was not doing everything we wanted, yet we had it quickly working for low pricing. In the beginning, it seemed reasonable; however, in the end, it was not, as we have to replace everything.

The solution offered low Cap-Ex pricing.

However, it ended up being expensive. We purchase dit as a package from an integrator. There were some extra fees, for example, for maintenance.

We didn’t really evaluate any other options. A company approached us about the product, and we decided to try it out.

We are currently removing our Meraki switches. I’m not sure which version we were using. The latest was likely MS 120. We replaced the switches with others, and we’re bringing in ways to interconnect with other systems, which was providing us with more stability.

I’d rate the solution a four out of ten and advise potential users to go with a different product.

We are partners of Meraki and operate as a service provider for Meraki switches, notably the Meraki MS Series 410, 420, and 450. Our responsibility is to help customers deploy these solutions, which are always situated on-premises.

The main use cases for our customers include end-user connectivity, IP telephony, and security purposes such as for the cameras and access points.

The top feature of Meraki MS switches for me is Layer 7 application visibility. Another positive in general is that you don't need to set up a console to the switch itself; it dials in to a single dashboard where you can completely manage all your network devices.

In my opinion, there's room for improvement cost-wise. With Meraki's licensing terms, you're required to pay an annual licensing fee, which can be for a one-year license or perhaps a five-year license. But if you analyze the costs involved, there are huge expenses incurred as far as the licensing is concerned. It's very costly.

When you see the cost of the device and the cost of the license, they're almost the same. So let's say, for example, a device costs $4,200 and you go for a three or four year license, it will cost you the same. And that's for everything; for the wireless, the switches, the firewalls, everything.

Of course, the total costs depend on several factors, including the customer requirements, the service provider, and the service integrators (which may have their own partnership bias). With Cisco partners, there are gold level partners which will have different discounts to the silver partners, for instance. Given these factors, I always try to get the maximum discount from the vendor so I can offer a solution to my customers at the lowest margin.

Apart from costs, one improvement that I would like to see in terms of features concerns the mobile application. Most users of our switches are now on the web-based interface and I feel it's time for Meraki to start developing the mobile app more seriously, because it's currently not up to standard and a lot of people aren't using it.

I've been using Meraki MS Switches for about six to eight years.

For the cloud license model, the stability of the switches largely depends on your Internet capability. For example, you will want to have both primary and secondary backbone connections for the Internet, and that's it. The stability of the hardware is fine.

I would say that it's scalable, especially in the sense that there are models up to at least 10 Mbps and at the upper range there are 10 Gbps copper switches. Then there are switches that support 1 Gbps fiber as well as 40 Gbps fiber (via QSFP). Thus, there are enough models to offer the scalability that you need as far as bandwidth is concerned.

There are fixed-model switches and also some older model switches to choose from, so it depends upon the customer's requirements to decide on their own solution. When it comes to scalability, there are various options available. 

Cisco is always top-notch when it comes to technical support. It's reassuring to know that they will be there to assist you in solving your issues. Of course, there are sometimes priority cases, but even then they make sure to be available to help you resolve the issue. It doesn't matter if you're a customer, a partner, or a service provider, they provide an excellent technical support service.

Positive

The setup is very easy. It's typically a one-touch provisioning process and it's like not traditional switches where you have to put in a lot of effort bringing the switch up and running with a basic configuration. With Meraki switches, all you need is a status page where you can log in locally. As soon as you connect it to the Internet, the device is on board and on the cloud, and you can start playing around with it.

You don't need a lot of technical staff to implement the switches. One engineer is capable of doing it alone and, in fact, most of the time it just takes a single team member to deploy. Naturally, this would be an individual who knows the product inside and out, to be able to deploy without anyone's help. You also need a few remote hands who can rack and stack the equipment, but as far as the configuration is concerned, only one engineer can do everything.

I had one scenario where I had 120 devices divided into three different models. Four of them were Layer 3 fiber switches which acted as the core switches and 16 of them were fiber switches for distribution, also with Layer 3 capability. Then we had almost a hundred devices acting as access switches, which is normally Layer 2 PoE-capable switches where we have a couple of SFP ports for the uplink. All of this a single person would be able to deploy in five working days, at eight hours a day.

When it comes to maintenance, it depends on the size of the infrastructure. In a retail mall, for example, you will have hardly 150 switches, compared to a big hotel or apartment building where you will have more than 200-300 switches. With those kinds of deployments, you will have to have multiple people to address the multiple issues with the guests.

There is a lot of scope for ROI with Meraki, mainly because your headcount will go down. With Meraki switches, you don't need to have too many people around to manage the infrastructure, and you don't have to travel much to maintain multiple branches across the globe.

Additionally, you won't need to spend much in terms of reporting tools, log tools (e.g. log collectors), or anything like that because everything is included in the product. There's a lot of sophistication and features that Meraki brings in terms of Layer 7 application visibility. You really have complete control over the end-users infrastructure.

If you buy a license for one switch, it will include the licensing for the device RMA, device failure warranty, technical support, and everything else. Also covered is support for software updates for future releases. It's a single license for everything and there's nothing that customers need to pay in addition to the license.

I would rate Meraki MS Switches an eight out of ten.