VMware VeloCloud SD-WAN Reviews

Our clients use the product for connectivity in their headquarters and branches. They use the product for cloud connectivity in their branches.

The solution helps connect the branches to the cloud. It's the most desirable technology at this time. The product is consistent and is one of the best despite the competition. It provides a variety of solutions. They are always up to date with the features.

The product should have on-demand tunnels instead of fixed tunnels. When connectivity is established, the tunnel is fixed. It is permanent. Other products have tunnels that are established and terminated based on demand. When the traffic needs connectivity, the tunnel will be established, and it will be completed after the traffic is done. The solution could provide some advanced security features.

I have been designing the solution for a couple of customers for the past eight to twelve months.

The product has high stability. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

I don’t deal with support much, but from my point of view, it is not the greatest.

Neutral

The initial setup is not that much straightforward. It's easy, but we had some complications while deploying the solution. I rate the ease of setup a seven and a half out of ten.

The time taken for deployment depends upon the customer’s size and the number of branches. On average, the deployment takes three months.

I am a system integrator. My customers are using the latest version of the solution. Our clients use the solution both on-premises and on the cloud. In my country, our clients choose the on-premises solution more. The solution is competing with Cisco. Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

My company uses this solution to migrate workloads between clouds.  When  doing quality assurance testing or developing a new release, we'll move environments back and forth.

Extending VLAN across clouds seamlessly is a great value.

I like the on-demand capability. When extra capacity is needed, we can get it very quickly. 

It has a lot of major restrictions and it's a little costly. For example, the requirement to have the separate nodes from VMware to monitor and control nodes is a big expense. We looked at it from a Dell perspective and the minimum they want just to monitor and have that capability is $10,000 a month. It's kind of expensive. There's always improvements to be had, but the problem is the price. That's always the driving decision point.

We don't want to have a SD-WAN for our business users and then have to go to someone like Zscaler for our private VPN. We would like to see one product do it all, so we're only dealing with one source when we talk about remote access, whether it be large installations or remote users. Having multiple products is a drain.

I have had experience with this product for over seven years. 

It's extremely stable. VMware is one of the best products out there.

It is a scalable solution. We have about 2,500 VMware users. We have a team of three people who handle maintenance for the solution, but they're not full-time. 

The technical support used to be better. It used to be excellent. Now, you can't really reach them. Everything is done via emails and online. Since they got divested from Dell, they've changed their whole approach and it's a little bit difficult. I would rate them as a three out of five. They used to be a five out of five. 

There was the product that Oracle puts out. It never had all the features, and they were late to marketing. They could never catch up on the functionality that VMware introduced. They had the basic functions, even going back to the mainframe days, but VMware got a jump on all of its competitors and nobody could ever match them on a product set.

VMware in itself is not difficult to set up. Being able to run guest machines takes a couple of hours. It has a network component that can be a little bit complex, but other than that, if you've done all the prep work, it's pretty innocuous to set up VMware.

We did most of the deployment in-house. 

It's hard to quantify, but we have seen an ROI because we're able to move back and forth between production and tests. We've gotten productivity gains that are hard to gauge, but we don't have to have all the on-prem infrastructure all the time. When we need incremental, we move the workload to the cloud and let it work in the cloud and then we bring it back. It's more of a time-to-market issue than actual quantifiable savings or results.

The minimum cost is $10,000 a month to have a monitoring station set up, plus the fact that you have to pay for the compute you want to have on-prem and the compute you have in the cloud.

My advice is that networking is the major issue. The prep time and understanding what you want to do and how much bandwidth you'll need and how you're going to configure it on the network, that's more of an issue than anything else.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. 

There is a cloud gateway feature that centrally locates every space, which you don't get with Cisco. The cloud gateway is a very good feature for scaling purposes, etc. It's a very simple feature. In fact, everything about VeloCloud is quite simple, including the concept of the circuits, and, from a  technical perspective, it's not as challenging as Cisco VPNs. They have VPN 0, VPN 1, VPN 2, VPN 3, but they're very simple in that approach — the concept of circuits. Overall, I think both products are good. 

Cisco has begun to push its SD-WAN code within all of its ISR routers. This has made deployment quite challenging. With VeloCloud, deployment is much easier because they include all of their own hardware.

Cloud-based, it's okay because they roll up the device and provide you with a link for access. In regards to in-house, when you want to deploy the orchestrator, it becomes very difficult. Currently, I don't see any such good documentation compared to their competitors, like Cisco, etc.

Also, If you look at Cisco, just Google it and you'll get every detail: what to do, what specific system, what server, how much RAM, how much storage, all the details — it's just much easier.

If a customer has an optimization solution within their network, then you have to be very careful when designing — optimization and all. This can make your design very complex. If the customer has an existing optimization solution, then you have to be very careful when designing any part of the SD-WAN solution — Cisco or Velo.

They should provide us with the flexibility to scale up.

I have been using this solution for two and a half to three years.

VeloCloud is very stable — it's a very good solution.

I have not done a scale with something like 6,000 to 7,000 sites; however, if you look at the pure design, phase-wise, then you have to be very particular about new designs. Velo is purely based on design. I don't think the SD-WAN is that new and scaling that amount of sites requires a simple design rather than a complex solution.

With Cisco, we were working on a huge scale — I think it was around 1700 sites for that customer. After 900 sites, it started having problems. The controller was not sending the new site updates to the hub and it was not reflecting in the routing table; however, in the end, it scaled, but there were some challenges that we had to overcome.

There are not enough people within their support team. I would give them a rating of three out of five.

They have to improve, they have to be quicker and understand the types of problems customers face. 

The initial setup is straightforward. The initial setup is very simple compared to Cisco. Cisco claims to be Zero Touch Provisioning, but I think they have a lot of complexity surrounding that Zero Touch. With VeloCloud, you can generate and send emails, and the receiver just has to connect to the device, open up the email and the configuration improves. In this way, I think Velo is good with Zero Touch Provisioning.

Deployment time really depends on what you deploy. If you want to roll out a small site on a single device, then the designing and the policies are all done — it's a really quick job. Your circuit and site will rollout quickly, everything will be up and running roughly within two to two and a half hours. If you're looking at a complex site, then of course, the complexity increases.

VeloCloud is a good solution. They are only lacking in regards to the in-house version. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give VeloCloud a rating of seven.

VMware SD-WAN can be deployed on the cloud and on-premise. We use Microsoft and AWS as our cloud services.

The most valuable feature of VMware SD-WAN is the virtualization platform. You can use the software on any hardware. Additionally, the solution is easy to use.

VMware SD-WAN can improve on the security features.

In a future release, VMware SD-WAN could improve by adding a VPN without IPsec.

I have been using VMware SD-WAN for approximately three years.

VMware SD-WAN is a stable solution.

The scalability of VMware SD-WAN is good.

We have under 100 people using the solution in my organization.

We have vendor support from VMware SD-WAN and the service they provide is of a medium level.

Neutral

The initial setup of VMware SD-WAN is straightforward. The time it took to implement took weeks. We tried to implement the solution slowly and securely over time.

We did the implementation of VMware SD-WAN in-house.

We have approximately 10 to 15 people that maintain and support the solution.

The return on investment has not been achieved. It is taking longer than anticipated.

The solution's price combines the license and the bandwidth you used.

I rate the cost of VMware SD-WAN a four out of five.

My advice to others is that not every SD-WAN solution fits every customer or requirement. If the requirements work with the solution, I would recommend using VMware SD-WAN. It's a good solution.

I rate VMware SD-WAN an eight out of ten.

I am an infrastructure architect and I use SD-WAN to connect sites for clients. My client is a bank and they are planning a wireless connection where you put SIM cards on the SD-WAN.

My client saved money because SD-WAN is more cost effective compared to MPLS.

SD-WAN is cloud-based and you can manage multiple sites within one single pane of glass.

If you don't have an Internet connection, you can’t control it. It is also not that cost effective because it is a subscription.

I’ve been working with SD-WAN for a little under a year.

The solution is easy to scale because it’s on the cloud, but the hardware could be difficult to get because it's made to order. That or the client’s stocks of hardware will be limited. We currently work with a large enterprise client.

Customer support is good. They are helping with most of my requests.

Positive

The initial setup is easy if you have a background working with networks or connections. The initial setup will be much easier with support. Depending on the size of the network, SD-WAN takes about seven days to deploy. Maintaining the solution can be easy if you know the technology and you have the background and training. But if you have no idea about the product, you will have a hard time because it will be new to to you.

Price would be a challenge for customers, because it is expensive. We only had to pay for a license that included support and maintenance.

I rate SD-WAN a nine out of ten because most of the necessary technology is there. But there is room for improvement.

We use the solution as an SD-WAN; we provide one connectivity with MPLS service on remote premises or virtually. By that, I mean anywhere on the planet. We have something like 190 or 200 sites being rolled out on all continents, with stuff in Japan and soon to come in Korea and China. We have a site in the USA, Norway, Sweden, Italy, France, and the UK.

It's part of a SaaS (software as a service) solution.

We are using VMware only on some of our setups. For most of it, we are using custom development. We are using the VMware solution only when we have no other choices, either due to the fact that the customer doesn't want us to come with a custom solution and prefer an off-the-shelf standard that is a fully supported solution by a third party. We prefer to come up with our own custom SD-WAN solution whenever we can.

The solution is a good off-the-shelf choice with full support.

It's stable and reliable.

The solution can scale. 

We found the initial setup to be pretty straightforward.

The solution is pricey. It could be cheaper.

Support could be more helpful or responsive.

We've been using the solution for three or four years. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

It is a scalable solution. That said, as you expand, your costs rise. 

Most of the time, the tech support is not active enough. What we typically have is our own level two and level three skill sets on board, and we manage to fix the solution ourselves.

Relying on third-party support is really for when we have no other choice. Most of the time, they are not proactive enough or don't know enough about what we're doing, so we try to get away as much as possible from this type of support. 

We are not a traditional end user or customer. We are an integrator or service operator. As such, when we have an issue, basically, we are already the last line of support for our customers. That's why we're also mixing different technologies. If we're having trouble with one technology on one side, we can easily swap and basically migrate to another technology to sort out the situation.

We also use homemade solutions.

The solution offers a very easy setup. It's not overly complex. 

It took some time for the initial site due to the ramp-up of the skills and understanding of exactly what to do and what not to do. Right now, the site takes between 15 and 30 minutes to deploy.

We are an integrator on a hosting company, so basically, we can handle the initial setup process.

The solution can get expensive as you grow. 

We have about 200 clients using the solution. 

The licensing costs are part of a subscription from us. In other words, we are the owner of the license, so we are providing a service. It's up to us to deliver a service that is working. The benefit of the solution is that we can pick up anything that can work and meet the requirements. The customer doesn't really have much to say, except for some customers that are really picky and really have very special business requirements or because they are very large. 

We've evaluated Juniper as well. 

We gave up looking at this solution either due to the fact that the scope of features was not matching the requirements or the pricing model was not matching what we could do as a SaaS service operator.

We use both on-premises and cloud deployments.

I'm not sure which exact version we're using.

We're a service provider.

This is one of many SD-WAN technologies I'd recommend to clients. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

Initially, we had a scattered environment, but VMware SD-WAN helped us achieve centralization, which was beneficial.

I liked the stability and performance, as it facilitated different types of work under one centralized unit.

It made the event deployment easier and allowed us to see the centralization process of all virtualization places. It had a positive and real-time impact on our business and provided a centralized view.

Better price model would be appreciated.

I have been using it for two years. It's version 6.0.

The stability was 100%. It is a stable solution.

There are around six users in my organization using the solution. 

The initial setup was easy. Not complex.

It is expensive. It is a yearly payment. I would recommend opting for a quarterly license model. 

I would definitely recommend using the solution. I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

Our customers are using VMware SD-WAN based on their specific requirements. One of the main use cases is for WAN connectivity and disaster recovery connections. They need secure connections and database synchronization between primary sites and disaster recovery sites. That's why we introduced VMware SD-WAN.

We primarily deal with VMware SD-WAN, and we handle services, configurations, and technicalities related to it. Our customers are quite satisfied with VMware SD-WAN, and they haven't encountered any problems. The operations are running smoothly.

One of the main reasons customers appreciate VMware SD-WAN is its comprehensive set of features. It covers network software services, starting from the underlying hardware and creating a virtualized network overlay. As a result, many customers find VMware SD-WAN to be highly beneficial for their networking needs.

VMware SD-WAN Orchestrator provides centralized enterprise-level installation, configuration, and real-time monitoring. Additionally, data flows through the cloud network, enhancing performance. The solution offers simplified operations with RapidZERO Touch provisioning and cloud management, optimizing application performance.

Security is one area where the solution is comfortable and reliable for us, especially in managing on-prem and cloud adoptions and accelerating performance through bandwidth optimization. So, it's very beneficial for us. 

There is room for improvement in the pricing. 

Another area of improvement is in terms of security. It could be better. 

Approximately, I have been working with VMware SD-WAN for the last few months. I don't have the exact timeframe since I'm new, but I know that my company has sold a significant number of SD-WAN solutions.

The stability is a hundred percent. It is a stable solution. 

Most customers are satisfied with the scalability. So it seems to be quite manageable and without problems as of now.

Most of our customers are SMBs. 

Customer service and support are good. If a customer needs support, they can open a support case through the Customer Connect portal. Our team will then work with the customer, discuss the issues, and collaborate with VMware engineers to address and resolve the problems.

Positive

The initial setup is not troublesome at all. The initial configuration and deployment are quite easy. There haven't been any issues with deployment and configuration.

We have a dedicated implementation team that takes care of deploying the solution for various events, including cloud-related setups.

For the deployment of virtualized networks, storage of servers, and clouds, we usually have a team of 10 to 15 engineers involved, so it's a collaborative effort.

The pricing can vary depending on the features and the cloud resources utilized. It may seem a bit costly when considering cloud resources, but in terms of quality and configurations, it offers significant value compared to other products.

There are additional costs to the standard license because the licensing model can vary based on the customer's deployment and preferences.

For example, there may be additional costs depending on the customer's requirements. If a customer needs 24/7 support or other specific features, we will tailor the solution accordingly to fulfill their design and requirements.

VMware SD-WAN offers competitive features and benefits for various requirements. It is especially effective for customer branch offices, remote offices, and scenarios where seamless connectivity is crucial for voice and video-sensitive applications like Salesforce, Google Mail, AWS, and Office 365. The product is highly customizable and can provide a solid foundation for networking needs.

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten.