We performed a comparison between Cisco FabricPath and Juniper QFabric based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two LAN Switching solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution has excellent stability."
"The fact that the solution is on the cloud is its most valuable aspect. If you are on the cloud, you can manage your network from anywhere, any place. It's very good."
"The technical assistance is good."
"The setup is straightforward."
"The best features of Cisco FabricPath is performance and reliability."
"It's a reliable product and you know that it will work in the enterprise environment."
"The technical support we get from Cisco is excellent. It's the best in the industry. We're more than satisfied with the level of service they provide."
"It's very stable."
"The solution is stable."
"The vendor maintains the product well."
"The most valuable feature of QFabric for network performance is its stability."
"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."
"The solution is easy to use and has good performance."
"It is known for being agile, flexible, and cost-effective when working with various vendors."
"QFabric supports redundancy and includes all of the enterprise and service provider features that customers would want in data center or service provider network."
"Juniper QFabric has various advantages including scalability, simplicity, performance, and flexibility."
"The product lacks AI...The initial setup of Cisco FabricPath was a bit complex."
"The solution is complex to set up."
"Improvements could be made on specific technical issues such as implementation."
"While Cisco products are excellent, the problem is the cost. Cisco products are product, Cisco products are very expensive. I rate Cisco FabricPath three out of 10 for affordability."
"The initial setup is a little complex."
"The price is a little bit too high."
"Cisco FabricPath's pricing is expensive."
"I would like to see better interoperability with other IT solutions."
"It works too much on rebooting and there is some memory leakage."
"The stability needs to be improved."
"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."
"The pricing structure could be more budget-friendly."
"Having support for all OpenFlow versions would be beneficial."
"It would be nice if Juniper provided the system integrator with training, similar to that of Cisco."
"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."
"Improvements could be made to QFabric's life cycle management, particularly in maintaining stable versions and extending product support."
Cisco FabricPath is ranked 8th in LAN Switching with 22 reviews while Juniper QFabric is ranked 9th in LAN Switching with 10 reviews. Cisco FabricPath is rated 8.2, while Juniper QFabric is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco FabricPath writes "Makes multi-layer networking easy and increases network efficiency". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Juniper QFabric writes "Performs well, is easy to set up, and the vendor maintains the product well". Cisco FabricPath is most compared with Cisco Nexus and Arista Campus LAN Switches, whereas Juniper QFabric is most compared with Cisco Nexus. 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.