Arista Networks Platform Reviews

I use the solution in my company's data center, so I use ethernet switches.

The tool's most valuable feature is its cost per port compared to what other vendors offer.

A lack of skills across multiple teams is a concern when it comes to Arista Networks Platform. Arista Networks Platform isn't one of the major players. Even though Arista's operating system looks very much like Cisco, it isn't so. A weakness would be that in our company, we don't have many people within our team who support the product because there are different vendors, and most of them are not tier-one vendors, so the skills required sometimes are just not there. With Cisco, everyone is certified by Cisco in the area of DC.

There are some commands in the tool which I don't understand because I am a Cisco person. Everything that we need for it to do, it does quite well.

I have been using Arista Networks Platform for five to six years. My company has a partnership with Arista.

In my company, we have a global team of 12 people, and we have a global workforce of about 5,500 people.

We may expand the tool as we are currently setting up new data centers in Europe.

I have never contacted the technical support for the solution.

I have used Cisco and pretty much all the big vendors. I have used Cisco, Juniper, Dell, and HP for storage. My company started to use Arista Networks Platform as it helped with the cost-savings part.

The product's implementation phase was easy.

For each site, the solution can be deployed in a week.

I am satisfied with the tool's ROI. If you compare Arista Networks Platform to Cisco NAC, Cisco DNAC, or even Cisco DNA, the tool is almost 50 percent cheaper. It offers huge cost-saving benefits. I work in a global company with over 500 sites. Our data centers are fairly robust, and they are at a global level. You can imagine the sort of cost savings we would have if we had four of the switches from Arista per data center running six days a week so there would be a huge cost-saving benefit.

I am satisfied with the tool.

Arista's EOS has not really helped solve a complex network challenge.

AI as a platform is nowhere near stable enough to be used in a real network.

I recommend the tool to others.

I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

Arista Networks is my go-to for network security at work. It is excellent for controlling access, blocking malware sites, and managing web filtering to keep users focused.

The user-friendly policy manager lets us apply different controls for various user groups easily. Plus, deployment is a breeze, and if issues arise, restoring a backup takes just 30 minutes. Arista has become a reliable and efficient solution for our network security requirements.

In my view, Arista could enhance the Wide Area Network balancer and failover. While the failover is swift, less than five seconds, it tends to be overly sensitive, triggering unnecessary alarms and emails. A smoother transition between ISPs during failover would improve the user experience by reducing unnecessary notifications and interruptions.

I have been working with Arista Networks Platform for ten years.

The stability has been outstanding. There is no lagging or crashing, and downtime is minimal, usually only required for significant updates. The system maintains a detailed uptime record, and despite hearing about potential issues, I have never personally experienced any.

Arista Networks is highly scalable, especially when it comes to VRP routing. Handling VRP routing requires some expertise, but for general use, configuration, and maintenance, the platform is surprisingly user-friendly. The GUI is one of the most intuitive interfaces I have encountered, making everyday tasks straightforward to manage.

Arista's tech support is impressive. They typically respond in less than two hours with effective solutions. The only consideration is the fee for support, which might be an issue for some, especially if not factored into the initial purchase. However, their support offerings are transparent, with clear options available during the checkout process. Overall, I would rate the support as a nine out of ten.

Positive

Deploying Arista Networks is a one-person task, and it is straightforward. Deploying it from scratch, including downloading the main ISO for the AVO file, typically takes around 35 minutes. Before diving in, ensuring compatibility with OEM layers like Bitdefender is key. The platform is backed by 85 million sensors globally, offering robust internet security, including malware solutions. Arista's user-friendly interface makes it easy to implement comprehensive security policies across different layers. 

I find Arista's pricing to be good. While it is not the cheapest, it's more affordable than Cisco or Palo Alto, offering a comprehensive solution that includes everything I need. There are no false alarms or unexpected fees, making it a cost-effective choice for the features and reliability it delivers.

I considered Meraki, CentOS, ClearOps, and SonicWall, before choosing Arista. Arista stood out for its flexible security suite with automatic alerts, unlike other options that felt manual and less comprehensive. My past experiences with Arista and as an MSP recommending solutions to clients confirmed its reliability and effectiveness.

Overall, I would rate Arista Networks Platform as an eight out of ten.

Arista Networks Platform is designed for next-generation data centers. They support asymmetric IRB, symmetric IRB, flood and learn types, EVPN types two, five, three, overlay and underlay. When Juniper first came out, they did not support symmetrical IRB. They only supported CRB, central routing and bridging, and asymmetrical IRB.

So, to make it work, we had to do IBGP for the overlay, EBGP for the underlay, and then use the IBP as a route reflector so that the spine could be the server and the top-of-rack could be the client. So it reflects the route down for all of the overlay. When you deal with internal activities, it's hard to troubleshoot, which is why we like the Arista Networks Platform. Unfortunately, Juniper doesn't support CRB anymore.

They support open standard features, and they have one feature that is proprietary and is marked VARP. That is the way for any cash routing. You can do that at the top of the rack layers. Juniper doesn't support this, and they don't have a chipset. Juniper claims that they have a feature where they can do symmetrical IRB, but their product hasn't been tested. Arista Networks Platform is widely used for all data centers.

Arista has done a pretty good job, but there's room for improvement. They should have a more stable code. Their code is a lot better than Juniper, but there are a lot of bugs, issues that arise and memory leaks.

We have been using this solution for 12 years and are using the new release. It can be deployed both on-premises and on cloud. For example, if you use their CVP (cloud vision portal), you can deploy it using their orchestration management. You can also deploy it manually, and I prefer doing it that way because you can see all the features being enabled.

It is a stable solution as long as the top of the rack and the spine are at the same code level. For example, if you use the same code level and run 4.21 on the spine, then run 4.21 on all the top racks, and it will be stable.

Their technical support is very good, and I rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

I've used Cisco and Juniper. I built a network in Juniper, CRP, leaf and spine design, and the same in Cisco using leaf and spine design. I've also used their ACI, which is very cumbersome and complex.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. They have a zero-touch feature where as long as there's a DATP service somewhere, you can grab an IP address, take over the switch and then automatically configure the switches for it.

The time for deployment depends on the environment. It could take a couple of hours to deploy 50 switches or even 30 minutes to deploy three or four switches. We completed the deployment in-house. We have ten of thousands of users, and we are always scaling.

We have seen a return on investment, which is worth the price. Unfortunately, the pricing is a little out of touch because most companies do not have the budget. Arista Networks Platform is about 40% more expensive than Cisco and about 70% more than Juniper. Juniper gives you their hardware for free, but they get you on the backend for support, maintenance, and service contracts.

Arista Networks Platform is the most expensive of all the platforms.

We evaluated LinkedIn, Cumulus, Big Switch, and Mellanox as smaller players. There are only four major players, Brocade, Cisco, Arista and Juniper, but the three most prominent are Cisco, Arista and Juniper.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten. I would recommend Arista Networks Platform for next-generation data centers because it is very stable. They have stable hardware and code, which is better than Cisco and Juniper. However, it has one operating system for all platforms, which could lead to problems because you're running on one code.

At my current job we have a requirement to use only Arista switches, which I have been using for about a year now, even though I have more than 15 years of prior experience in Cisco security switches.

We are using Arista Networks products in data centers and we typically use VXLAN and BGP EVPN in our customer networks. We also use Cisco's BGP EVPN as well, but we have found that the configuration of Arista products is much easier compared to Cisco products. The Arista products are extremely stable and we hardly ever see any problems, whether with the hardware or the software.

Most of the time, we will use Arista's BGP EVPN and VXLAN features, which are very similar to Cisco's features, just simpler and easier to understand especially when throwing together advanced configurations.

We use Arista products not only because they are so stable, easy to adopt and configure, but also because they have high throughput ratings (e.g. 40 / 100 / 400 gigabits), making them very scalable. In my country, most companies that need high throughput generally prefer Arista products.

All the Arista switches we are using are on-premises and I generally interact with them through the CLI, as I prefer not to use features such as Cisco's CDP. I work solely from my tablet, such that when our customer needs work on configuration, I use my tablet to prepare and code the configuration requirements in order to test them out.

As part of my team, we have one member who works on Arista products professionally, while about four of my other colleagues are responsible for the integration of each Arista product that we use.

The most valuable aspect of Arista Networks products is their ease of configuration, especially when compared to Cisco products. When we implement advanced features for data centers such as BGP EVPN and VXLAN, Arista's configuration process is similar to that of Cisco's process, but at the same time it is simply much easier, clearer, and more understandable.

It's important to us that Arista devices have only one operating system, whereas in Cisco products, there are several different products and different features and not all of them are compatible with one another. Arista devices can be managed more easily this way, and it gives us peace-of-mind that we can quickly tell which features we have access to.

The Arista switches are also extremely stable and are capable of high throughput (up to 400 gigabits) for maximum scalability.

Something that you will often hear about Arista products is that the price is a bit too high and, like with Cisco, we sometimes have problems with our customers because of its pricing. However, price-for-price I would say that Arista may still be better than Cisco, and I would even go so far as to say that Arista products are the number one solution in the world for data center networks. It is commonly accepted that Cisco switches are the perfect product for data center environments, but I believe that Arista switches are even superior.

Almost all of our customers that use Arista products are happy to use them, with the only complaint being the price. Thus, if the price of Arista's products were the same as Cisco's product, it's possible that customers would actually prefer Cisco over Arista. 

When it comes to working with and setting up the Arista Networks Platform, things are not too difficult because the configuration is so similar to Cisco products and almost all of our network engineers have experience with Cisco. However, Arista lacks a comprehensive set of loopback commands as compared to Cisco. With Cisco devices, there are several loopback commands such as "ip bgp" which can be used to easily diagnose problems, but with Arista many of these commands are absent, making it so that troubleshooting and getting certain problems under control is more difficult in comparison with Cisco. It would be very helpful if Arista brought more loopback features to the CLI.

I have been using Arista switches for one year now.

Arista products are extremely stable. We have had no issues with either the software or the hardware.

Arista devices are scalable and come in different models with varying throughput ratings (up to 400 gigabits).

Although I have only used Arista switches for one year so far, I have over 15 years of experience with Cisco switches (especially the security type of switches).

The initial setup is not difficult, mainly because almost all of our network engineers have experience with Cisco, and much of the configuration is very similar. Thus, the administration and control of the networking with Arista is easy for us.

One feature that would make the setup easier would be more loopback commands in the CLI, as Cisco currently has much more support than Arista for loopback commands. Loopback commands help us troubleshoot problems in the network, and having better functionality in this area would help.

As my company is a partner of Arista, we have a department that takes care of the deployment and configuration of these products with various technicians. As for myself, I'm not directly responsible for integration or deployment. Instead, my primary work is in checking configurations and troubleshooting them.

There are several different platform arrangements for Arista devices and Cisco devices. I cannot say exactly what the prices of each arrangement are. However, I remember that when our customers were offered the Arista Networks Platform, they used a checklist to compare the prices between Arista and Cisco for their requirements, and found that the prices were almost the same. With Cisco, I know that they are generally a bit more expensive than other products such as Hauwei and Aruba.

First of all, because the price of Arista products are so similar to those of Cisco, we often need to coordinate the opportunity to provide a proof-of-concept, usually with demo devices. Generally, we will first use the demo devices, and only then buy the devices from Arista.

Most of the time, Arista products are used in data centers and most of our customers typically need to use BGP EVPN and VXLAN. When working with a customer to decide on either Arista vs. Cisco products, we will first explain how the configuration process works with both of these solutions. At this point, the benefits of using Arista become clear to the customer, since the configuration is much easier. The fact that there is only one operating system that works across the devices (if one device supports a feature, it's likely that most of the other devices will, too) is one more reason I would recommend going for Arista.

If the price weren't so high, I would probably rate Arista the highest score, but because of this I would rate Arista Networks a nine out of ten.

In my previous job, I used the solution to make connections, remove connections, to work plans, plan for the future, et cetera. We had a big Cisco router with 9,000 connections and we were connecting and disconnecting. I wasn't the person directing the equipment so deeply, as I wasn't a member of the network team. I was a member of the broadcasting and distribution team. This solution was used largely for making physical connections. 

The solution offers a lot of features. We were able to organize our network around them.

The configuration capabilities were good. 

I do prefer the Cisco interface.

Cisco is not too user-friendly, however, in terms of the comments to deploy the configurations, to change or update configurations, Cisco is easy compared to Arista.

We did at one point have a software bug. I remember that sometimes they used to make the physical connection and then everything was all right, however, the port, the physical port didn't come up. We needed to set the port down and then up again to work. 

We also had a problem when using the internet service providers that connected to Arista. When the internet was down and came up again, the suite couldn't recognize and keep the status as unavailable.

The solution is a bit pricey.

I am at a new job, however, I have used the solution within the past year. I used it for about five months. 

The solution did have a bug when I dealt with it. 

I have previously worked with Cisco solutions. Not deep, but I have some experience with switches and with routers.

I am focusing on broadcasting and broadcasting solutions, broadcasting equipment, and cloud solutions. I have some experience with Azure and Azure deploys using PowerShell, using ScriptRunner, and this kind of stuff.

I know that Arista is more expensive than the Catalyst or Nexus.

I can't speak to the exact pricing. 

I was an Arista customer. 

I wasn't a part of the integration process and therefore can't speak to those capabilities. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Arista Networks Platform is used for non-blocking switches. We are using them in the data centers for spine-leaf connectivity. There are servers hooked to these switches.

Arista Networks Platform is comfortable, easy to deploy, and easy to manage, with non-blocking technology. Additionally, it has a useful CloudVision platform and automation capabilities.

Arista Networks Platform should focus on improving the compatibility or integration with Cisco solutions.

I have been using the Arista Networks Platform for approximately two years.

I have found the Arista Networks Platform to be stable.

Arista Networks Platform is highly scalable.

We have approximately 250,000 users that go through the data center which passes through the Arista Networks Platform.

The technical support is good from the Arista Networks Platform. However, we are waiting on a response back from them regarding enhancements. We have not received a positive response.

We were previously using Cisco Nexus switches, Cisco Catalyst switches

The installation is simple. It takes approximately two hours for each Arista Networks Platform to implement.

We used an integrator to implement the Arista Networks Platform.

We have three to four engineers who work on Arista Networks Platform deployments.

We have decided not to expand the Arista Networks Platform because of some of the issues we have had.

There is an annual license required to use the Arista Networks Platform.

I rate the Arista Networks Platform a seven out of ten.

In the broadcasting industry, I use Arista extensively for production trucks, especially with media involved like video and audio. Arista switches have excellent PTP support. I also find Arista useful in setups such as Spine-Leaf architectures in networks, where each port on the device acts as a gateway.

I find the operational system used by Arista to be very valuable, and the hardware is exceptionally nice. Arista has a unified operational system called EOS that is easy to set up and replicate on other devices. 

The ease of configuration and transition between devices is a significant advantage for me.

In my opinion, the solution for network monitoring is quite expensive. More ACLs and traffic filtering make setups complex. I believe there could be improvements to make the initial configuration less prone to errors.

I have a lot of experience with Arista as it is heavily used in the broadcast industry.

When I configure it properly, the setup is stable and reliable.

I have not dealt with Arista's customer service, as we do not have Arista devices on our premises.

Positive

We have used RTL devices before, which, in my view, offered almost the same features but were less powerful.

From my experience, the complexity of the setup depends on the network. For simple networks, I find it manageable with CLI, but more complex networks requiring ACLs and filtering increase the difficulty.

Two years ago, I found Arista to be more expensive than RTL devices with almost the same features.

We have used RTL devices before.

I would recommend Arista to others because of its powerful processors and superior performance.

I would rate Arista a ten out of ten.

In the media industry, if you work for a channel, even a single second of screen loss will lead to a business outage and impact the business. After Arista solutions came into the picture, we deployed it, particularly for multicasting purposes. We were quite happy when I was in the media industry at the time.

I like the spine as a leaf model and low latency. The hardware is robust and meets expected latency in all environments, mainly if you belong to the media or trading industry. For multicast-based solutions, Arista is number one. 

They need to enhance their code and their EOS. They need to improve some security features, and there are quite a number of bugs in their system. So, they need to work on that piece.

In the next release, we need to have a modular feature. Instead of providing an integrated solution, they should go for something modular. They need to come up with modular highly scalable models. Even at the chassis layer, I want to see some improvement. 

I have been using the Arista Networks Platform for about six years.

It could be more stable. There are so many issues and vulnerabilities they need to fix.

Arista Networks Platform is scalable. This design is not for a particular user. This is a backbone that we are using, and the whole business relies on Arista.

On a scale from one to five, I would give technical support a three.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward. The architecture, framework, and command line are approximately the same as Cisco. In terms of deployment as a network guy, I didn't face any issues. We need about two to three people per shift to manage this solution.

Because of latency, as per our business needs, it is meeting our expectations.

Specific tools definitely require a license for the subscription. But we are not using these tools in our environment. In terms of licensing, you need to spend approximately $10,000 per month. 

I would tell potential users that if they are supporting a media or trading kind of business, they should go for Arista because it is a low-latency switch that will meet the expectation of the business.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Arista Networks Platforma nine.