Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

In my organization, we primarily use Cisco Systems Catalyst Switches across the access, distribution (aggregation), and core network layers. They play a critical role in delivering stable and scalable connectivity throughout our infrastructure.

At the access layer, we use PoE-enabled Catalyst switches to power and connect devices such as CCTV cameras, IP phones, wireless access points, printers, and end-user desktops. These switches provide reliable internet and LAN connectivity while simplifying deployments through Power over Ethernet.

At the distribution (aggregation) layer, Catalyst switches connect multiple access switches to the core network. We use Link Aggregation (LAG/EtherChannel) with dual 10Gbps uplinks combined into 20Gbps logical interfaces, ensuring higher bandwidth, redundancy, and improved resilience between access, distribution, and core layers.

At the core layer, Catalyst switches serve as the backbone of the network, interconnecting all segments efficiently. They also handle Layer 3 functions such as routing and DHCP services across approximately 20 subnets, delivering strong performance and dependable network operations.

One of the standout qualities of Cisco Catalyst Switches is their reliability and durability. They maintain excellent uptime, rarely experience failures or freezes, and continue operating effectively even in environments with unstable power conditions.

I have also used Catalyst switches in an ISP/WISP environment, where they were deployed to connect uplink radios, power third-party PoE devices, and perform inter-VLAN routing for customer segmentation.

From legacy models such as the 2960 and 3570 to newer platforms like the 9300 series, Cisco Catalyst switches have consistently proven to be dependable, high-performing, and enterprise-ready solutions for on-premises network environments.

Cisco Systems Catalyst Switches have positively impacted our organization in several key ways.

First, they have significantly improved network reliability and uptime. The switches operate consistently with minimal failures, which has reduced downtime and ensured stable connectivity for users, business applications, IP phones, CCTV systems, and wireless networks.

Second, their strong performance and scalability have allowed us to grow the network efficiently. With features such as VLAN segmentation, Layer 3 routing, PoE support, and link aggregation, we have been able to support increasing business demands without major infrastructure challenges.

Third, they have lowered long-term operational costs. Although the initial investment is higher, their durability and long lifespan mean fewer replacements, less maintenance, and better return on investment over time.

Finally, the availability of Cisco documentation, training resources, and a large support community has made deployment, troubleshooting, and management much easier for our IT team.

Overall, Cisco Catalyst Switches have provided a stable, secure, and scalable foundation for our organization’s network infrastructure.

One thing that stands out about Cisco Systems Catalyst Switches is their reliability and durability. They maintain strong uptime and do not easily fail or freeze, even in environments with inconsistent power supply.

Another notable feature is support for LAG interfaces (EtherChannel), which improves bandwidth, redundancy, and overall link performance between access and distribution switches.

They also support a robust DHCP environment, efficiently serving up to 20 subnets, while providing strong PoE capabilities for devices such as IP phones, CCTV cameras, wireless access points, and other powered network devices. This makes them highly suitable for both enterprise and ISP environments.

From a cost-efficiency perspective, the older Catalyst 2960 series switches that were deployed many years ago have remained operational for nearly 20 years and still perform reliably today. That level of longevity represents an excellent return on investment and highlights the long-term value of Cisco Catalyst Switches.

Cisco Systems Catalyst Switches are highly regarded for their performance, reliability, and enterprise-grade capabilities. My main reservation, however, is the pricing.

The cost of Cisco Catalyst Switches—and Cisco products in general—is relatively high, especially in many African markets where organizations often need to balance budget constraints with required functionality.

There are alternative vendors that offer comparable features at a lower price point. While they may not always match Cisco’s ecosystem, stability, or full feature depth, many businesses still choose them because of the significant cost savings.

Another consideration is licensing, which can add to the overall total cost of ownership depending on the deployment model and required features.

Overall, Cisco Catalyst Switches remain premium enterprise solutions, but when compared with other OEMs, their higher acquisition and licensing costs can be a major deciding factor for cost-conscious organizations.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for about seven years.

I gave it a 10 out of 10 because Cisco Catalyst Switches does not fail. It is very predictable.

What you tell it to do is exactly what it does. There are no disappointments while using Cisco Catalyst Switches.

It is the perfect switch to use. Cisco Catalyst Switches is very stable.

In terms of scalability, Cisco Systems offers modular switch platforms where you can deploy a chassis-based system and expand capacity as network demands grow.

One of the strongest scalability advantages—especially at the core layer—is the ability to procure additional line cards and install them with relative ease. This allows organizations to increase port density, uplink capacity, and feature capabilities without replacing the entire switch.

For core network environments, this modular design provides a practical and cost-effective path for future expansion while maintaining performance and operational continuity.

The first switch we used was Cisco Catalyst Switches.

I can say in terms of money saved because up until now, in the previous places where I have worked and also now, we still use the older model, the 2960 model Cisco Catalyst Switches, which has been in existence for almost 20 years and up until now it still functions very well.

I would say that is a good return on investment on those devices.

For deployment costs, we handled the network infrastructure setup internally, so there was little to no external implementation cost.

One major advantage of Cisco Systems products is the strong availability of documentation, training resources, and technical knowledge. Cisco provides extensive learning materials, configuration guides, and best practices that make deployment and troubleshooting easier.

In many cases, when issues arise, you can quickly find solutions through the large Cisco community, forums, or professionals who have previously handled similar scenarios—often before needing to escalate to official Cisco support.

We evaluated other options. Other options we evaluated were HP Aruba and Juniper.

Especially in the internet service provider environment, you need network devices that are highly durable and capable of delivering reliable services to customers consistently.

You need equipment that can withstand power fluctuations, operate for long periods without requiring power cycles, and remain stable under continuous demand. In service-driven environments, predictability and uptime are critical, and devices must not fail because of minor voltage instability.

That is one of the qualities that stands out most to me about Cisco Systems Catalyst Switches—their durability and long-term reliability.

While other vendors may offer similar features and functionality, Cisco devices consistently stand out in terms of hardware endurance, operational stability, and lifecycle value. Even today, it is common to find Cisco switches that are nearly 20 years old still functioning effectively in modern network environments.

If you are looking for a long-term investment in network infrastructure—something durable, predictable, stable, and scalable—Cisco Catalyst Switches are an excellent choice.

Based on my experience, I would rate this product 10/10.

Cisco Catalyst Switches serve as my main solution for providing reliable and secure connectivity across our offices and network infrastructure at Gigabit Technologies. Day to day, I use them for VLAN configuration, trunking, access port management, and troubleshooting connectivity issues. For example, when onboarding a new user or device, I typically configure the appropriate switch port, assign it to the required VLAN, verify connectivity, and check the switch logs and interface status if there are any issues.

Cisco Catalyst Switches have helped me mainly with reliable LAN connectivity, network segmentation, and troubleshooting. For example, in our office environment, I use Catalyst Switches to connect users, IP phones, printers, and other devices while separating traffic using different VLANs. Day to day, they help me quickly identify and resolve issues such as a new user losing network connectivity, a faulty switch port, or a VLAN trunk configuration problem. I can check interface status, VLAN assignments, MAC addresses, and logs to isolate the issue and restore connectivity.

Apart from day-to-day connectivity and troubleshooting, I also use Cisco Catalyst Switches for network security and stability. I work with features such as VLANs, STP, port security, EtherChannel, and access control configuration. They have been especially useful for maintaining a stable network, isolating different types of traffic, and quickly troubleshooting issues when they occur.

Cisco Catalyst Switches have had a positive impact by providing stable connectivity, better network segmentation, and easier troubleshooting. For example, using VLANs and proper switch configuration, we have been able to separate user, voice, and other network traffic while maintaining a reliable LAN. They have also made troubleshooting more efficient because I can quickly check port status, VLAN assignment, MAC addresses, and logs to identify connectivity problems. Overall, this has helped reduce network downtime and made day-to-day network management more organized and predictable.

I haven't formally measured a specific percentage reduction in downtime, so I would not want to give an inaccurate number. However, Catalyst Switches have made troubleshooting noticeably faster. For example, when a user loses connectivity, I can quickly check the switch port, VLAN assignment, MAC addresses, interface errors, and logs to narrow down the problem. In my routine cases, this allows me to identify the issue within a few minutes instead of spending much longer checking the network manually. The main improvement has been faster issue identification and reduced disruption to users.

One of the main challenges with hybrid and distributed networks is maintaining consistent connectivity, security, and visibility across different locations and environments. Troubleshooting can also be difficult when traffic moves between on-premises networks, branch offices, and cloud services. Cisco helps address this through centralized management, network segmentation, monitoring, automation, and security features. For example, if a branch user has a connectivity issue, I can use centralized monitoring and switch information to identify whether the problem is with the local switch, VLAN, uplink, or a connection to another network. This helps reduce troubleshooting time and keeps configuration more consistent across locations.

I would assess Cisco as operationally efficient in our IT environment, particularly for network reliability and troubleshooting. Cisco Catalyst Switches provide good visibility into interface, VLAN errors, logs, and connectivity, which helps us identify and resolve issues quickly. From an operations perspective, the main benefits are stable performance, consistent configuration, and stronger monitoring capabilities. There is still room for improvement in automation and centralized management, especially when managing a large number of devices, but overall, it supports efficient day-to-day network operations.

Cisco can optimize the experience in a hybrid distributed enterprise by providing centralized visibility, consistent network policies, automation, and monitoring across different locations. For example, in a distributed environment, centralized management can help us maintain consistent configuration across branches, offices, and on-premises networks. Monitoring and analytics also help identify connectivity or performance issues more quickly. Network segmentation and security controls help keep different types of traffic isolated while users and applications access control resources across location and cloud environments. Overall, it helps reduce the complexity of managing multiple sites while improving visibility and operational efficiency.

End-to-end visibility helps us troubleshoot more efficiently because we can identify where a problem is occurring instead of checking every device individually. For example, if a user reports connectivity issues, we can look at switch ports, VLAN, interface errors, uplink status, and relevant logs to narrow down the root cause. It also helps us distinguish between a local network issue and a problem somewhere else in the infrastructure. This reduces troubleshooting time, improves root cause analysis, and helps minimize disruption to users.

In my opinion, the most useful features of Cisco Catalyst Switches are their reliability, strong Layer 2 and Layer 3 capabilities, VLAN and trunking support, STP, EtherChannel, and security features such as port security and 802.1x. I also find the monitoring and troubleshooting capabilities very useful because they make it easier to identify interface connectivity and performance issues. Overall, these features make Catalyst Switches practical for managing secure and stable enterprise networks.

The feature I rely on most in my daily work is VLANs and VLAN management. It is most important because it allows us to logically separate different types of network traffic such as user, voice, servers, and guest devices while using the same physical switching infrastructure. For example, when adding a new user or device, I can assign the switch port to the appropriate VLAN and verify the connectivity. VLAN configuration also makes troubleshooting easier because I can quickly determine whether an issue is related to the device, port, VLAN, or uplink.

One feature I would also mention is the troubleshooting and monitoring capabilities. Being able to check interface status, MAC address table, VLAN assignments, logs, and interface statistics is very useful in day-to-day operations. It helps me quickly identify where a connectivity problem is occurring and resolve it without unnecessary downtime.

My impression is that Cisco provides strong end-to-end visibility, especially for monitoring network health and troubleshooting connectivity issues. I can get useful information about switch interface, VLANs, traffic errors, device status, and logs, which helps me understand where a problem is occurring. For a distributed environment, having visibility across different network components is particularly helpful because it reduces the need to troubleshoot each device independently. I think the main opportunity for improvement would be bringing even more information into a single intuitive dashboard and making the correlation between network events and application or user impact clearer.

One area I would like to see improvement is making configuration and troubleshooting more straightforward, especially for engineers managing a large number of switches. Some tasks can require multiple CLI commands and checking different outputs to identify an issue. Better centralized visibility, more intuitive automation tools, and clearer troubleshooting information would make day-to-day operations more efficient. That said, the CLI gives experienced network engineers a lot of control, so I would see these improvements as making the existing capabilities easier and faster to use rather than replacing them.

For on-premises deployment, I would like to see easier centralized management and more automation for larger switch environments. Firmware upgrades, configuration changes, and troubleshooting can take significant time when they have to be handled across many physical devices. Better zero-touch provisioning, simplifying firmware management solutions, stronger integration with monitoring and IT management platforms, and more proactive hardware health alerts would make operations easier. I would also like better visibility into hardware capabilities and lifecycle status from a single dashboard so we can identify potential issues before they affect users.

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst Switches for several years, primarily handling configuration, VLAN, trunking, STP, EtherChannels, inter-VLAN routing, and troubleshooting. I have also worked with switch security features and network monitoring as part of day-to-day operations.

Cisco Catalyst Switches have been stable in our environment. We have generally experienced reliable connectivity and consistent performance under normal workload. When issues do occur, they are usually related to configuration, cabling, interfaces, and connected devices rather than the switch platform itself. The available monitoring and troubleshooting tools also make it easier to identify and resolve those issues quickly, which helps maintain overall network stability.

In my experience, Cisco Catalyst Switches scale well as the network grows. We can add more switches, VLANs, users, and network segments without having to redesign the entire environment. For example, when expanding a network or adding a new office area, we can deploy additional Catalyst Switches and integrate them into the existing switches infrastructure using standard configurations such as VLAN, trunk ports, and EtherChannel. Centralized management and automation can also help maintain consistency as the number of devices increases.

Overall, I have found Cisco support to be good, particularly when dealing with more complex network issues. The technical documentation, troubleshooting resources, and support cases are useful when an issue goes beyond normal day-to-day troubleshooting. For critical problems, having access to Cisco technical support and escalation options is valuable. The main thing is that the level of support depends on the support contact and service level the organization has purchased.

I would rate Cisco customer support around 8 out of 10.

The main reason for moving towards Cisco Catalyst Switches was reliability, stronger enterprise networking features, better troubleshooting capabilities, and easier integration with our existing Cisco infrastructure. The biggest difference for us was having more consistent management and better visibility into things such as VLANs, interfaces, logs, and network performance. That made day-to-day troubleshooting and network administration more straightforward.

I have seen a positive operational return mainly through reduced troubleshooting time and fewer network disruptions. I do not have a formal financial ROI figure or a documented reduction in headcount, so I would not want to give an inaccurate number, but a practical example is troubleshooting connectivity issues. With Catalyst Switches, I can quickly check interface status, VLANs, MAC addresses, errors, and logs to identify the root cause. Issues that might previously have required an extensive manual investigation can often be isolated much faster. The main ROI for us is therefore better network reliability, less time spent troubleshooting, and reduced impact on users rather than directly reducing the number of network staff.

My experience is that Cisco Catalyst Switches can involve a relatively significant upfront investment, especially when you consider the hardware, support, and licensing requirements. The total cost depends on switch model, required features, scale of deployment, and licensing package. For setup, the initial configuration and deployment can also require an experienced network engineer, particularly in a large environment. However, once the switches are properly deployed, their reliability, management capabilities, and troubleshooting features can help reduce operational efforts. From a licensing perspective, I think it is important to understand exactly which features and support services are included, so the organization can choose the appropriate licensing level and avoid paying for capabilities it does not need.

We evaluated a few alternatives before choosing Cisco Catalyst Switches, including Aruba and HP and some other enterprise switching options. We compared them mainly on reliability, performance, and security features, management, scalability, support, and total cost of ownership. Cisco Catalyst Switches fit well with our existing network environment and provided the features and management capabilities we needed. The existing Cisco expertise within the team was also a practical consideration because it made deployment and ongoing troubleshooting easier.

I would recommend first understanding your network requirements, such as the number of users and devices, VLANs, security requirements, scalability, and the expected traffic levels. Then choose the Catalyst model and licensing that match those requirements rather than paying for features you will not use. I would also recommend planning the deployment carefully, including configuration standards, monitoring, backups, and firmware management. Finally, make sure the team has the necessary Cisco skills or training because that makes day-to-day management and troubleshooting much easier. I would rate this product 8 out of 10 overall.

I was working with L3 and L2 switches. Currently, if there is new infrastructure, they will work with L3 switches as a core switch. We are in the middle, and at the perimeter level, a firewall will be positioned. From there, they will configure one single interface as a management interface. From the management interface, it will connect to the core switch. In the core switch itself, we are creating multiple interface VLANs and creating a DHCP lease for that VLAN. Then we need to create a return route on the firewall side. Only then will the VLANs get the internet. For IP route, we are going to give the default gateway as the management IP of the firewall. Then all the VLANs will pass through the firewall end. This was the common configuration for the core switch levels.

At the next level, POE switches will release power plus, which means the traffic. It is only used for the access points and cameras.

Currently, I am working in the implementation team. They assign a ticket to me, and I go to a data center or anywhere to work on that. Other than that, if any troubleshooting calls arise, they assign them in tickets. I receive a mail and through that, I take a remote call or a virtual meeting with customers. I remotely resolve issues because I am currently working in a partner company.

I am currently working with Cisco solutions and multiple solutions as well. In Cisco, I am currently in cybersecurity.

The best feature is that we can manage this in the DNA license. If we have a DNA license, we can manage it in that platform. Other than that, Catalyst switches can be converted to the cloud platform as Meraki. We can convert that with the serial number and use it in the cloud console as a Meraki dashboard. That is another use case.

I work with Nexus switches and Catalyst switches, both of them.

I work with firewalls, switches, access points, and SASE.

Cisco Catalyst Switches uses a common protocol. We can see the documents and what the things are in every scenario because Cisco is the enterprise switch. Everyone can see the commands and we can get the commands online. We can find the troubleshooting commands we need to set. But in other competitors' switches, we cannot get those commands. That is the best way. Additionally, Cisco switches rarely need RMA support. If I purchase Cisco Catalyst Switches once, they will be used for more than ten years. We will not encounter anything on the RMA side regarding replacement devices.

Pricing needs to improve. Competitors such as Arista, Aruba, and others are giving lifetime support.

In the enterprise network, we are facing issues at the stacking point. We are unable to stack the switches because of compatibility issues. Other than that, port channels exist. In most cases, the VLANs were not passing to the access switches level. What they will do is miss out on allowing the respective VLANs in the port channel. The spine-leaf concept will be there. In the spines, they do not allow the VLANs in the port channel level. That is why the down switches are unable to ping the upstream switches.

There is no other advice. These are the only couple of things: the firmware and customer support.

I have been using this solution for four or five years.

There are no challenges. Cisco Catalyst Switches is very easy to configure.

I have not seen new features introduced recently. When they introduce a new feature, such as AI guardrail, we can integrate Cisco Catalyst Switches to the AI guardrail for any AI security. Other than that, I have not seen any other new features in the switches. Viptela Manager exists from previously and we can manage all the switches with it.

Customer service is okay and fine.

If I raise a ticket, they will not come immediately. The time duration they take to come is very high.

I have five years of operational level experience. Currently, I am working fully in the security side, so there are limited calls only for the networking side. In the last one year, I have been working with firewalls and SASE, NetScope, and Zscaler. I switched to a security company one year ago. Previously, I was working in a networking-based company.

I have four years of experience in hybrid setups. In the previous company, I have full experience with Cisco Catalyst Switches.

Yesterday, I implemented one Catalyst 9500 switch. It is a star switch. I implemented it at one of our sites as a Nutanix star switch.

I am part of the implementation team.

The return on investment is positive.

Cost-effective alternatives exist. Arista offers the same switches and same capabilities as Cisco Catalyst Switches. In the data center side, Arista is very competitive to Cisco and they are doing data center switches. Compared to Cisco, they are providing more cost-effective options.

Aruba and Arista have only one common firmware for all switches. If I download one series with firmware version 7.0.1, I can use that firmware for all model switches.

I do not know much about improvement scales because we directly configure things. Currently, every year they are introducing new technology and new features, but on the switch side, nothing is up to mark. There are no new features that I can identify. Cisco Catalyst Switches is good. My overall review rating for this product is ten out of ten.

I deal with everything in the Cisco product line, including switches, routers, and firewalls.

Nexus series switches serve a different purpose, and I can share my experience with them. Nexus series is mainly for cloud and data center environments. I am not in that segment because it would take six months to one year to get into that from the starting stage to the ending stage, and we do not have the luxury to deploy so many people in that segment. Additionally, we need to get support from the OEMs, which are Cisco, Arista, and others who are the people operating in the data center and cloud segment.

Nexus can also be used for enterprise, but it has generally shifted to the data center segment. Nexus is slightly older technology. They have the UADP 2 and 3, and Three is now coming to enterprise itself with Catalyst switches. Catalyst switches are actually more expensive than Nexus.

Meraki MS switches are primarily purchased for cloud management. Meraki is used when deployment is across the globe or even in India across districts or states, and organizations do not want to spread their IT team everywhere. Organizations that want to change policies or implement agile networking would prefer cloud-managed network solutions.

Cisco Catalyst DNA Center can help people use Meraki cloud. Nowadays, it is not necessary that you have to buy Meraki to use Meraki cloud. Meraki devices cannot function without Meraki cloud.

The main thing is that Catalyst switches or routers can now directly use Meraki cloud with the same license when talking about using Meraki cloud with Catalyst switches. There is absolutely no problem. For on-premise deployments, organizations use Catalyst Center, which was earlier called DNA. If the solution needs to be cloud-managed, then they use Meraki cloud. It is not necessary that you have to buy Meraki separately, as there are no additional charges.

Initially, I started by discussing features. Cisco has all the features that are being given by any other switch. Features exactly do not matter much. The main thing is how we apply certain things and how easier it is becoming to use them. Particularly in India, people talk about compliances more. Cisco has the best hardware and some of the best things available is Cisco iOS. These two give you the combination of complying with anything that any site needs. People do not buy switches just for better features, regardless of whether the application is there or not. Nowadays, without compliance, you cannot run any business.

I do not really want anything more than what Cisco Catalyst Switches currently offer. Even this itself is too much for people. There is no need for any big improvement in that. Everybody talks about reducing the pricing, but if it reduces the pricing, it makes no sense, actually. People will buy more Cisco switches without knowing how to use them, and they will simply say it does not work properly. People who pay premium money know what they want, and they will use it and they will always advocate for Cisco. I do not want a person who does not even drive it properly to buy an Audi car and say that it does not work properly. They will not even know how to maintain a car. Cisco should let it remain Cisco. They are doing a fantastic job.

I have been dealing with Cisco Catalyst Switches for approximately four to five years overall.

You can even ask the competition for an assessment of the stability and reliability of Cisco Catalyst Switches. They will advocate for the reliability. Everybody or anybody can beat Cisco only on one thing, which is pricing. Many times it is also on the delivery period. Otherwise, if Cisco can be priced just like any other brand, I do not think any other brand will be able to survive.

When you inquire about Cisco and scalability, you are asking a very important question. Which other switch brand can you talk about scalability with? There are many good companies available in India, such as D-Link, Netgear, and Extreme. However, many of them are buying their hardware, which includes ASICs and CPUs. CPUs can come from ARM or Intel, but most ASICs are manufactured by Cisco for their own products.

When we talk about scalability, all these ASICs contain what we call microservices engines and reprogrammable pipelines. If a new protocol is coming, Cisco will simply patch it along with the next patch to the system. The ASIC will automatically take it and start working with the new protocol without changing your hardware. How many switches from other brands can do this? For 5 to 10 years, which other switch will perform? Arista will perform, definitely. Many of the 6000 series or 10000 series of Aruba will do without problem. But not D-Link and others. You hardly get it for about five years, and in that itself you will find about one or two ports which are going out. Once a port goes in a switch, it becomes very unreliable. There are many things apart from the features and other things.

Cisco provides the best technical support when I evaluate it. They offer next business day support in India, and no other company has got the reach. Customers believe in this. They understand and trust Cisco. Even if it is slightly more expensive, the main basic thing is how soon or how easily a company can support you if something goes wrong on the switch, which can happen to any brand. Cisco is completely available anywhere in India, and they will dispatch the material when asked. I would give them a perfect ten out of ten for their support.

Nowadays people talk about compliances more. India is now completely getting digital. There are new laws which are coming in, such as the DPDP Act, Disha, and ABM. To comply with that, there has to be consideration beyond just features. People do not buy switches just for the sake of better features, regardless of whether the application is there or not. Nowadays, without compliance, you cannot run any business.

People should understand that it is not necessary to have the best thing that complies with regulations, but whether you can afford it and whether you need it. The Indian customer will think about this practicality. The thing is that the fines are going to be 100 times more than your difference in pricing. You have to make sense to the customer. It is not exactly about the features or the brand. When you buy Cisco and if it gets penetrated, no authority can say you bought a wrong thing because Cisco is the ultimate, or Arista and others are one of the very few companies where they allow their products to get penetrated. If you buy something else from an unnamed product or a banned product from China or elsewhere, then automatically even a judge will say you are not being protective enough or investing enough to safeguard your network. Once you get into that sort of thing, anybody and everybody will start attacking your company. The direction is slightly changing from features exactly to compliance and other things. India is now getting upgraded in terms of the overall direction. It is not just a price game alone.

Price matters, but it is not just price alone. Everybody is now moving to cloud. Anything the moment data exits from your router or from your home or office, it is in a very wild space and anybody can do anything. The main thing is how safe you are. The focus is now going to compliance. Are you really safeguarding your interest and your customer interest? For a hospital, the customers are patients. Are they safeguarding enough of any data or any image of their clients within their premises? A leaky security hospital, even if it is an Apollo hospital, people do not care.

Automation is basically about doing only one thing, and Cisco has something called intent-based networking which helps to optimize the experience in a hybrid or distributed enterprise setup. It is not about configuring switches and relays and all. They talk about what is your intention. What does this particular set of switches or whatever devices getting connected do? What do you want them to do? Whether you want to route them, whether you want to put them in this configuration, whether you do not want to, whether you want to do this. We are talking about automation. You connect a new device. If it has already been accepted by ISE or profile, it automatically gets things done. You do not have to do anything else.

These are not drawbacks. Consider Mac computers as an example. I have tried using Mac Air, and I did not find it comfortable. However, people are very comfortable with them and they advocate for them. I use Linux for the last 15 years and I do not want to use Windows, but the majority of people are using Windows. Linux offers so much that people get confused by the choices. Likewise, people want simple things. Cisco is too much for them, and they represent at least fifty percent of the market. Cisco mainly offers so many things at better costing because it offers so many things. It needs at least special people who are more knowledgeable in configuring, managing, controlling, and automating all these things. For all these things, it costs more money. Cisco is selling it at higher costing. I would rate this review five out of five.

My major use case for Cisco Catalyst Switches is networking. I basically have a completely on-premises environment for Cisco Catalyst Switches.

In general, my impression of the operational efficiency of Cisco for an IT environment is good.

An example of this operational efficiency is that I have internally tried my best to keep it over the maximum threshold of the device itself. Since this is fairly within the utilization limit, I do not have any proper calculation or the KPIs for such assessment. However, overall, from a production environment working perspective, I have found those to be well-suited and working as per the intended usage.

As for end-to-end visibility, my impression of that aspect that Cisco offers is positive. It does affect my troubleshooting, but in some cases, especially for the visibility overall, not from a single component perspective, I have special equipment and devices integrated separately with all these components, including Cisco Catalyst Switches. I am satisfied with that angle. I am not sure how much efficient their own standalone visibility devices or whatever facility they have provided for visibility is, but overall, since this is again on top of what they are using, I am satisfied with that.

Regarding hybrid distributed enterprise networks, I find that Cisco Catalyst Switches helps to address specific challenges in this hybrid and distributed enterprise setup network. Internally, for the hybrid and distributed aspect, I have internal management tools for the network equipment. Those are well integrated with all these components wherever possible. Mostly those are integrated and communicating well with all the components including Cisco Catalyst Switches. Overall, within the ecosystem, it is working well.

As a customer, what I like the most in the product is the peace of mind and quality. I have not faced any major issue at all and I am very much satisfied with the product quality and the intended use. It is fit to purpose.

The functionality that is most beneficial for my use case of Cisco Catalyst Switches is typical switch functionality. The typical switch core functionality of switching is the prime use case for me and that is the purpose of usage also internally.

I think Cisco could optimize the commercial model further to make Cisco Catalyst Switches better. The cost itself should be optimized.

Since I am working with Cisco Catalyst Switches, it is the same scenario as with routers. It has been more than ten years now.

Regarding scalability for Cisco Catalyst Switches, I would agree that it is 99 percent stable and reliable. That is the reason I have opted for Cisco.

As for scalability, it is easy to scale and expand with Cisco Catalyst Switches. I have never faced any issue with the scalability when there is any additional requirement for any additional device implementation or further extension to the existing network. This is fairly plug and play and it is all done.

I can briefly comment on technical support from Cisco; I like it and find it helpful. Technical support is another good aspect. I am very satisfied, have never faced any issue, and all their service level agreements are met when there is any requirement or any additional support request I have submitted through their portal. It is answered and resolved within the defined service level agreements.

If one is very bad and ten is very good, I would give a perfect score of ten out of ten for support.

The other switches I have been dealing with are Juniper. Concerning HP, I have worked with Juniper and HP.

As for the deployment part of Cisco Catalyst Switches, it is a bit complicated as compared to others. However, since I had done it through the experts from the external implementer, I did not find any problem at all.

The most difficult part is from a management point of view, as this is a bit complex in terms of day-to-day management. However, this is a one-time implementation only. This is fairly acceptable.

Although it is pricey, I see value for money with Cisco Catalyst Switches, and any return is apparent. As I highlighted earlier, I have not faced any major issue and it is covered through some other means with the service provider where I have extensive support and arrangements where they simply replace the hardware when there is any problem or issue. Peace of mind and quality of support and, of course, trouble-free and issue-free workings matter, and I am even willing to pay more for that. This is fine from that perspective.

If I had to rate the price of Cisco Catalyst Switches from zero to ten, where ten is very expensive, I would say it is fairly expensive. All these things are in comparison to other products, because for us, we have even more complicated appliances and devices which are far more expensive than what we are using from Cisco. However, from a cost perspective, I believe it is fairly expensive. From that angle, if I rate it, I would say six out of ten.

I have chosen Cisco because it was not only a management decision; Cisco has been a leader in these categories for a very long time, and I usually consider Gartner and other independent research agencies for such selections, along with peer reviews and their market standing within the category. That was the reason.

I have not purchased any products, Cisco included, from AWS Marketplace, but I have in fact partnered with Microsoft. I have some footprint in Microsoft Azure cloud, not in AWS. If I had to give a final rating for Cisco Catalyst Switches where ten points is the best, I would rate it a perfect ten out of ten. My overall review rating for Cisco Catalyst Switches is ten.

My use case is for networking purposes. I am using it for network connectivity, specifically for overall WAN network connectivity.

Cisco Catalyst Switches offers user-friendly configuration, making it easy to configure and install. The operational efficiency of Cisco in an IT environment is good.

I cannot identify specific disadvantages with the product. However, the areas that have potential to be better are the timeline for the system and switch delivery. The delivery timelines for the product need to be improved.

I started using it from 2022.

I would rate the stability at 80% rather than 99%. I account for this lower rating because sometimes issues happen related to configuration or misconfiguration, and the expertise is not always present in the product.

The technical support from Cisco is helpful, but the timeline needs to be improved for P1 and P2 cases. Customers are facing issues reaching the technical support team. I would rate the support as a nine out of ten.

Currently, I see no value for money or return on investment. Sometimes Cisco Catalyst does save some time or some money for me. I cannot quantify the savings in time and money, but the product is good.

The price is very high. Compared to others, I find the price a bit high when compared to Juniper and Allied Telesis.

I see the technical differences between Cisco, Juniper, and other vendors. The technical solution is good compared to others and I believe it is better and more advanced technically.

I am working with Cisco products, including Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN, though I usually work with a different product. I am not using SD-WAN currently; I use Cisco Catalyst 9300 and 9500. I work with Catalyst switches or Catalyst Center, where the advancements are in switching and routing. Cisco Catalyst Switches is more advanced because the configuration is easier to understand compared to Juniper, where the configuration is at a different level.

Visibility affects my troubleshooting and end-to-end visibility. Visibility is adequate, and if there is an issue, I can raise a TAC call and the team or partners will support me.

I would rate this review a nine out of ten overall.

My main uses for Cisco Catalyst Switches are as an access layer and distribution core, and we are 100% all Cisco switches.

At the distribution layer with Cisco Catalyst Switches, I appreciate the virtual switch stacks where we can pair a couple of switches together for redundancy, and the stacking capability at the access layer with both power and data stacks, moving away from old traditional chassis-based switches.

Cisco Catalyst Switches scale very well with the growing needs of my organization, again going back to the stacking capabilities at the access layer with both power and data stacks on the back. I love the power stacking, so we have a little bit more PoE redundancy there as well.

My impression of the end-to-end visibility offered by Cisco Catalyst Switches is that it is pretty good. I really appreciate what I get out of Catalyst Center, the integration that it gives there with telemetry and the assurance data, though I would appreciate a little bit better alerting.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for about 23 years.

We have not had any downtime or crashes with Cisco Catalyst Switches in a while. When we have had issues in the past, it has usually been a hardware failure, and those things happen. Occasionally a software bug occurs, which is frustrating because you think it is preventable, but it has been rock solid for the most part.

For customer service and technical support regarding Cisco, I would rate it an 8 or 9, as it depends a lot on relationships, especially with our account team. I have a phenomenal SE, a really good account manager, and great relationships with other people inside Cisco. TAC really depends on the engineer; you could end up with a three, but then we can reach out to our account team and ask for help, or re-queue the case. If you get a good engineer, you are hitting a 9 or 10. TAC is whoever gets the call.

Prior to adopting Cisco Catalyst Switches, I used Enterasys.

Enterasys did not meet my similar needs compared to Cisco Catalyst Switches. This was 20-plus years ago, and it was not a quality product compared to Cisco, which led us to go with Cisco at the time for the best-in-class hardware. Now, everything has kind of transitioned to more software-based things, but Cisco has always been an industry leader from a hardware perspective.

My experiences with pricing, setup cost, and licensing with Cisco Catalyst Switches show that licensing is a major pain. I complain about it all the time, and then they decide to change it. The same thing applies to SmartNet coverage. You have to have that, you have to have licensing, you have to renew this, and now there are different levels of that. It is just really complex and a pain. I have been around long enough to remember when you bought a switch, and it just worked, but now you have to buy a switch and all this extra things.

The virtual switch stacks in Cisco Catalyst Switches are an optimization in a hybrid or distributed enterprise setup.

The hybrid piece with Cisco Catalyst Switches is really the confusing part of it. I work for a university, so we are a campus, and I do not have a lot of remote locations, but if we are talking about hybrid and remote workforce people, generally speaking, we just offer them VPN, which works great, and then everything that they do at their remote location is completely up to them.

Keeping Cisco on their toes is important. I would rate this review an 8.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are used as access switches for all departments in our organization, and we have created VLANs for each department. The implementation is working perfectly.

In our IT environment, I assess the operational efficiency of Cisco, as we have 80% Cisco Catalyst Switches in our IT network, and they are all functioning well and working great.

Cisco Catalyst Switches feature good switching capacity and are easy to manage and user-friendly.

The end-to-end visibility that Cisco provides helps us in troubleshooting.

Some models of Cisco Catalyst Switches are very difficult to manage, as they are extremely different from their regular models. We have a 110G switch, but its configuration is far more difficult than other standard switches, such as the 2960 or 2960X.

Apart from configurations, I would appreciate improvements in the web interface of Cisco Catalyst Switches and their acknowledgment of other brands. Cisco switches do not work the same way; if you use the command CDP neighbors, which is a Cisco proprietary protocol, it only shows Cisco switches directly connected to the particular switch and does not show any other brand connected to the same switch.

I feel Cisco Catalyst Switches are the best among all of them, but the only drawback I see is that they do not recognize other switches as neighbors, and some of Cisco's proprietary protocols do not work on other switches. CDP is purely a Cisco proprietary protocol, and I believe it should be available on other switches as well.

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst Switches for around 20 to 25 years.

Having used Cisco Catalyst Switches for the last 20 to 25 years, I now face no issues in deployments.

I assess the stability and reliability of Cisco Catalyst Switches as good, as some switches have been working for the last 20 years. I have not changed them and have not even touched them, and they continue to run continuously without any issues.

I assess the scalability of Cisco Catalyst Switches as excellent, as they are scalable. If I want to stack one or more switches, I can do so whenever needed.

Regarding customer service and technical support from Cisco, I have never required technical support for the switches, so I cannot provide feedback on that.

We have some other brands such as Huawei, Nexus, and HP that we have used in the past.

We do not use any other solutions currently; we are using only Cisco Catalyst Switches.

We work with on-premises deployment of Cisco Catalyst Switches and configure them on our own.

I do not have knowledge about the pricing, setup cost, or licensing aspects of Cisco switches, as I am not the manager responsible for purchasing. I raise a request when I need a new switch or something similar, and the pricing and procurement of switches is handled entirely by a different department.

My impression of the end-to-end visibility offered by Cisco is that they provide products to manage a Cisco environment, including Cisco switches and Cisco routers, and it provides good visibility for all products in your infrastructure. I am satisfied with these products.

The advice I would give to other organizations considering Cisco Catalyst Switches is that they are better than any other brand. They are user-friendly, durable, and have good switching capacity. Their switching fabric is superior to any other switches.

On a scale of one to 10, I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches as a product and solution a 9.

My main use case for Cisco Catalyst Switches is to enable network connectivity for many of our IT infrastructure devices. It is used to establish layer two connectivity for computing devices, switches, routers, firewalls, and other networking devices and IT peripherals.

I can give you a quick specific example of how I use Cisco Catalyst Switches in my environment: we have multiples of Cisco Catalyst Switches where we used them within our three-tier network architecture. We used to have Cisco Catalyst Switches in core, access, and distribution layer of our network topology. We used to have good network connectivity with Cisco Catalyst Switches.

The best features Cisco Catalyst Switches offer include high performance, security, reliability for enterprise-grade organizations, flexible deployment, and simplified management.

Cisco Catalyst Switches provide high performance and security features that stand out in my daily work, where they handle a high volume of traffic with low latency, making them suitable for bandwidth-intensive applications, web applications, VoIP applications, video streaming, and major data center workloads.

Cisco Catalyst Switches have positively impacted my organization by providing major network connectivity for our data center workloads and computing resources. It has improved built-in capabilities such as 802.1Q encryptions and better control over network connectivity and simplified network management using Cisco DNA Center and IOS XE automation tools to help reduce the manual work of the switches. It was actually used to provision devices in a faster manner, and we can automate devices using Cisco DNAC. The scalability of devices is much better, so whenever we have to scale our network and computing resources, it is easy to install a new device and scale our network quickly.

Cisco Catalyst Switches can be improved, especially when we have Cisco licensing models. Whenever we had to renew the license, the licensing model seems to be much more complex. It could have been more transparent and improved whenever we had to renew end-of-license and end-of-support from the OEM's perspective. In most cases, we used to integrate Cisco Catalyst Switches with Cisco DNA Center, so the subscription for Cisco DNA Center seems to be much high. It has a more costly Smart Net support contract.

I would add more about the needed improvements: the energy consumptions could have been better. Compared to other networking devices, the energy efficiency seems to be less. Also, the port compatibility could be higher for 40G ports and larger sizes of ports.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for the past seven years.

The stability of Cisco Catalyst Switches in my environment is somewhat problematic: legacy Cisco Catalyst Switches, even though they have licenses and support, present many hardware-related issues, such as interfaces going down very repeatedly, SFP modules failing in most cases, and hardware ports becoming faulty. The devices have hardware problems, such as CPU, fan, and power modules getting faulty. In most cases, legacy devices that are more than five or six years old used to have major utilization issues. They repeatedly encountered CPU and memory utilization problems. It is very difficult to perform a firmware upgrade for Cisco Catalyst Switches because we have to manually download the software files from the portal and upload them manually. In most cases, while performing an upgrade for the old devices, we come across system down and system failure issues, making it tough to bring the VM up once again. This is a reliability issue I come across.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are stable in my environment, with no major stability issues, and mostly reliable.

Cisco Catalyst Switches' scalability is manageable when we have to do the configuration manually. However, as new-age networking requires, the auto-scaling and zero-touch provisioning kind of support for Nexus switches is lacking. That kind of facility does not exist, and features could have been introduced for Cisco Catalyst Switches to improve their scalability.

I used to contact customer support for many technical issues, and customer support seems to be good for known issues. However, they take too long to troubleshoot many unknown problems, such as CPU memory utilization issues.

Previously, we used to have Huawei switches and Dell switches linked with Dell hypervisors and Dell EMC host. However, we did not have proper support and firmware releases and upgrades for the devices, so we moved to Cisco Catalyst Switches.

I find the initial setup process for Cisco Catalyst Switches straightforward and simple.

I have seen a return on investment with Cisco Catalyst Switches: they attain the expected outcome of enabling network connectivity to deliver computing resources and services in a proper manner. There is not much compliance; they will do their job.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Cisco Catalyst Switches indicates that I am not from the accounts or finance department, so I do not have much insight. However, I heard that the pricing seemed somewhat reasonable to the industry, but compared to other products, it is somewhat high.

Before choosing Cisco Catalyst Switches, I evaluated other options such as Aruba, FortiSwitches, and Huawei switches.

The advice I would give to others looking into using Cisco Catalyst Switches is that if we have an enterprise-level network where we do not require high-throughput computational resources, and we need reliable network connectivity, we can use Cisco Catalyst Switches for better connectivity, reliable network performance, and throughput. I gave this review a rating of 7.

I work with Cisco and Huawei. I use Cisco Catalyst Switches. I am the admin. Around 20 people are using Cisco Catalyst Switches in my company.

The main feature is that you will get many more people trained on Cisco Catalyst Switches than other solutions in the market. When you hire someone, you will find that they have already been trained on this product.

Power over Ethernet is very good. It can provide power for all types of cameras and is very powerful and effective.

Cisco Catalyst Switches Software-Defined Access is good in my network configuration.

It is friendly and easy to use. Everyone is familiar with their commands.

I am not aware of anything else that needs to be improved in Cisco Catalyst Switches.

The cost is not reasonable. It is the highest cost in the market. The pricing needs to be reduced.

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst Switches for around 10 years.

I am planning to increase usage in the future.

We have Smart Net, so if we have any issues, we call Cisco directly. They provide excellent support through Smart Net. We maintain an active Smart Net account at all times.

Their support quality is outstanding. When requesting an RMA, they replace defective items in just one day.

Positive

I have worked with different solutions, but not throughout the entire company. This was not my first experience with LAN switching and Ethernet switching.

We use Huawei wireless, and it is good. When you use a system, you need to have all the monitoring systems integrated with it. We built a new server for the Huawei monitoring system to use Huawei.

Huawei devices are priced around 10% less than Cisco Catalyst Switches. The main consideration is about industrial switches that connect to the Wi-Fi access point. These industrial switches are priced at about 70% less than Cisco Catalyst Switches pricing.

I am not looking for a new solution at this time. I did not work with Cisco TrustSec for enhancing security. My overall review rating for Cisco Catalyst Switches is 9 out of 10.