Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Reviews

We rate customers' sites in four categories, platinum, gold, silver, and bronze. Depending on the type of site, such as how many connections or internet circuits, we gather information about the site and how it is operating and place them into one of the four categories. At this stage, we will migrate the legacy site to Cisco SD-WAN. We are using three different types of devices using a template for the customer's needs.

The most valuable features of Cisco SD-WAN are reliability and scalability.

The integration of Cisco SD-WAN with cloud solutions could improve. For example, if any of the applications are hosted in the Amazon AWS cloud we can use a virtual transit gateway for integrating Cisco SD-WAN.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for approximately five years.

The solution is stable. Other solutions provide better stability, such as Silver Peak SD-WAN.

I rate the stability of Cisco SD-WAN an eight out of ten.

Cisco SD-WAN is scalable.

Our clients are large enterprises. 

I rate the scalability of Cisco SD-WAN a ten out of ten.

The support is good from the vendor. When migrating some sites from China we have to manage some of the controllers differently I did not receive good support, and they took a lot of time to respond.

I rate the support of Cisco SD-WAN a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I have used Silver Peak SD-WAN and Prisma SD-WAN. When comparing Prisma SD-WAN and Cisco SD-WAN, Prisma SD-WAN takes less time for the provisioning of devices to the controllers.

I have a lot of customers using Palo Alto hardware because of the support and discounts they provide.

The initial setup of Cisco SD-WAN is easy because I have been working with the solution for five years. The time it takes for the deployment depends on the environment as a whole and the connection to the legacy environment and the creation of policies. A typical deployment can take three to four months.

I rate the initial setup of Cisco SD-WAN an eight out of ten.

We do the deployment of the solution. The number of people we use for a five-hundred branch site is four teams and each team has five people. The teams consist of L2 and L3 engineers and a reviewer from the project team. From the first day of deployment to the handover, it took one year to complete.

The price of Cisco SD-WAN is expensive. We pay approximately $50 monthly for the use of the solution.

I rate the price of Cisco SD-WAN a two out of ten.

We have a team of 25 people for the maintenance of the solutions.

I would advise others that Cisco SD-WAN security is not highly secure. It is best to use a SaaS solution, such as Prisma SD-WAN and Primsa Access.

If cost is not a concern then this is a good solution to use.

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

Our company uses the solution to provide secure connections for customers. 

We have a hybrid data center model that bridges the gap between cloud and on-premises for customers. It is a mixed design to consolidate resources. 

We also replace expensive NBLS lines with SDN and the internet to provide cost efficiency for telecom business lines. 

We have quite a few customers who use the solution. 

The solution provides good consolidation, centralization, and manageability for edge routers. 

The user interface needs to be more friendly.

The solution should be more cost effective. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

The solution is very stable. 

The solution is very scalable. 

The technical support is excellent and perfect. 

The setup is quite straightforward and the solution is easy to deploy. 

Deployment time depends on the size the customer or enterprise. Each customer has its own use case so it is difficult to give a time estimate. In any case, the work is straightforward with no obstacles or challenges. 

We implement the solution for customers. 

The solution is quite expensive so it is important to enhance its cost efficiency. 

I recommend the solution and rate it a seven out of ten. 

We use Cisco SD-WAN backup as a failover, from the MPLS circuit. We also use the solution at remote sites where we were going over cellular satellites to secure the data.

We deployed the Cisco SD-WAN FlexVPN version. At the organization I was at, the Cisco SD-WAN solution allowed us to reduce costs by getting off MPLS circuits and using a regular IP provider, cellular provider, or satellite provider for primary and backup networks. The SD-WAN solution cut costs and was well adopted by the IT department since most corporate IT departments are Cisco brand.

Cisco products are rated to handle the heat and are very rugged, making them a good corporate standard. They are slightly more expensive than some other products but are still an affordable corporate-grade solution. We have had some issues with the ISO versions of the SD-WAN, but the FlexVPN solution has since resolved them. Cisco SD-WAN is a good, solid product, but requires a certain skill set to use. We cannot simply switch from Peplink to Cisco as the two are different. The upgrade to iOS 11 has fixed any issues we had with the product, and it has been reliable for the past four years.

Cisco's management function has room for improvement, and I believe they have something for that now. At the time, the management of the device and the configuration of the device could have been more user-friendly, with a point-and-click or GUI style, instead of using the command line. We had to use the command line to configure everything. I believe Cisco has a management port.

The initial setup is complex and can be improved.

I would like to have stable, SBI, or IPS functions in the routers at our edge points.

I have been using the solution for 15 years.

My first impression of the solution's stability was that it was quirky. We had some dropped sessions where the VPN session would just drop if we had a carrier drop and some sessions where the solution would drop the VPN session. It wasn't a virtual device; it was a piece of hardware in the data center. I saw it and had that drawing. The solution would drop the VPN sessions whenever they got too loaded because we had a priority on the session screen devices and they had an issue there. My initial thought was, "Why didn't we use something else?" After Cisco made changes to their FlexVPN appliance in iOS, it became really stable. We had a workaround for it, which was to tear down the session every few hours and round-robin the remote devices to set up the sessions. This would help to load balance the solution into the data center. After Cisco fixed their software, we no longer had to do that and we didn't have any issues because it would automatically shift the remote to set the load across all the appliances.

I give the scalability of the solution a nine out of ten. The solution scales out very well. We just need the right product in our data center to integrate Cisco SD-WAN. For this particular solution, Cisco SD-WAN would scale out successfully. The amount of memory required is substantial, as we have many TCP connections that require a lot of memory. We also need a lot of processing files. Initially, the solution was lacking in this area, but it has since been improved. We used the solution for twelve hundred sites, while the company I was at previously had twelve thousand. They have since migrated to Palo Alto, although I have not used it. We were unable to use it on remote sites as Palo Alto did not have a hardware version. However, Palo Alto now has a hardware version, so we can use it in a controlled environment.

The technical support is good.

I had previously used a solution called SpamFeed Network, which is owned by ComTech EF Data, for application acceleration over satellite. It was Linux based on OpenSuite and had compression, security, and firewall features, as well as packet inspection if desired. It worked very well, but was extremely expensive, more than double the price of a Cisco solution.

The initial setup was complex. If we weren't familiar with it, we needed to be aware of the solution's features and set up our VPN connection. It was more cumbersome, but it worked out. Cisco has the best documentation that I have seen so far; we just have to read and find it. Cisco does a good job of making it available, but we have to be familiar with their product to understand it.

I've never had eight or nine people on a phone call before; normally, it would only be two. With the new security model, we need a minimum of two people: one in the data center to manage the firewall and one in the field to do the configuration and installation. We had nine people on the call because we had project coordinators, but this is not Cisco's best practice. This is how the younger IT people operate. I prefer to follow the Purdue model, which only requires two people.

The implementation was completed in-house.

There has been a return on investment since we began deploying Cisco SD-WAN in 2018, prior to the onset of COVID. They are still functioning, and they will begin refreshing their devices and changing them out at five years. They usually start changing the model when they are able to write off the product, and they typically acclimate over a three-year period or when Cisco discontinues the product. They are still hanging in there.

I give the price a seven out of ten. Cisco hasn't quite reached the top yet, from what I've seen. I didn't look at the price, but I'm sure VMware is more expensive than Cisco Verdi.

I evaluated Mushroom Networks, but they did not meet corporate standards. The company may have considered Cradlepoint, Peplink, or Mushroom networks, but they ultimately decided to go with Cisco or Juniper, which are more widely used.

I give the solution a five out of ten because there are some competitors that provide a better interface, which is easier to configure and requires less scripting. Cisco is slower to implement such features. Cisco has some better products with a management system and virtual VPN solution, as they have been doing this for a longer time.

Cisco SD-WAN is not quite as easy to configure, as Peplink or mushroom network. From what I can see on the Cradlepoint, we have to have a little more skill for Cisco. Cisco SD-WAN does work well and It fails over well. What I'd do is read due to the session to load balance at the time, but I think Cisco has since automated that. Cisco is a corporate standard and if it was my money, I'd probably not use Cisco due to cost. Cisco does actually have products that are more cost-effective than industrial products on the market, such as the Eagle30 product. Cisco is more on the high-end cost-wise. Cisco SD-WAN is not as easy to manipulate a program. If we're looking for people that are trained to administer Cisco, it is a lot easier to find compared to any other solutions even though the other products may be easier to install. A lot of people won't use them because they are not the industry standard.

We have to give Cisco credit. They have put a lot of effort into education, which I appreciate. They have excellent documentation on how to do basic configurations, which is enough to get our network up and running. That's what I like about Cisco.

Cisco SD-WAN is a good corporate solution that scales well. Cisco is prompt in providing fixes. They may not be instantaneous, but if we open a case, they are usually quick to provide a solution. We should opt for a product that has been around for a while; if it is a new product, we may encounter a few issues. We should stick with something that has been around for at least a year or two, such as Cisco. I can confidently say that Cisco is stable and is a corporate standard.

We use the solution to interconnect the branch network.

Cisco's performance is very good. The branches that we installed went on smoothly. We operate with no complaints. When it comes to management, it's simple. One PIN will allow us visibility into everything. Another thing is troubleshooting; we can see the issues quickly, dig down, and know exactly what the issue is.

Since the new one comes with the included IPSec tool, we don't have any security issues. It's already covered because all the data is fully encrypted between the branch and the office.

Cisco provides visibility. We can see the performance of the branch. Troubleshooting is swift, allowing for fast turnaround times whenever we encounter an issue.

The user interface needs improvement. Users should be able to find various features faster without much tweaking.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN since 2019.

The product is stable. We don't have any downside so far.

Cisco is very stable, whether a branch network or the branches. We don't have any issues with them.

Seven members of the team interact with the solution.

We haven't encountered any issues with scalability when adding more branches or refining the solution.

We interact with them whenever we need access to the services.

Positive

I have used SilverPeek. It is made for the end user, not for technical engineers. It is easy to deploy and has better visibility of how the network is performing than Cisco.

I have used both solutions. I have evaluated some other solutions. Technically, all the SD-WAN solutions work the same, so it depends on the organization. Cost is a factor. Cisco is on the higher side but is stable. There have been a few upgrades.

The initial setup is straightforward. Initially, it may seem a bit complex, but overall it is straightforward.

Deployment typically takes from four to six months to complete. Additional time may be needed, especially if issues with procuring hub routers were not included in the original plan. Developing the actual network implementation plan may take around six months. However, the actual migration process after that is quick. It usually takes less than three months to migrate the network fully.

We work with three guys from the internal team and four from vendors.

From a technical perspective, we used to experience failures, especially when using two service providers where data wouldn't come up if one link went down. We no longer encounter that issue. We're able to utilize both links simultaneously. Thus, we haven't faced the necessity of quick upgrades as we did when relying on a single link. Having one link operational at any given time was less elastic.

Cisco is expensive.

We need to renew the licensing after three years whenever updates are required. These licenses are valid for three years. There's no longer a need for routine physical maintenance of the devices, which is typical for network devices.

We initially faced some challenges with sizing and acquiring the necessary devices. We encountered some issues with missing hub routers. However, once we overcame those obstacles, we involved Cisco professional services. They assisted us in creating the low-level design and supported the initial site deployments. After that, we were able to proceed independently. Our corporate professional services team guided us through the process and helped us develop the design.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We have numerous use cases where it can optimize cost savings, particularly in terms of connectivity. By avoiding the need to backhaul traffic through expensive central locations, organizations can achieve significant cost reductions, avoiding unnecessary capital expenditures.

The most valuable features, application awareness, and failover resilience, stand out as key considerations for users.

As the majority of our applications now reside in the cloud, there's a growing need for solutions that revolve around cloud-centric policies. Currently, the convergence between on-premise and cloud policies lacks centralization. The platform that seamlessly facilitates the translation of on-premise policies into cloud-compatible equivalents would enhance efficiency, ensuring that policies are consistent and stable, regardless of the hosting environment, allowing for smoother service delivery. An area for improvement lies in enhancing the integration with the security functions of the SD-WAN.

I have been working with it for a year now.

The stability of the system is quite robust. Initially, there might be some minor challenges, particularly in the first couple of months, regarding certificate issues.

The scalability is highly efficient. When operating on-premises, scaling up involves a comprehensive analysis of the architecture and the provisioning of service resources. The scalability is directly linked to the provisioning of these resources. In terms of licensing, there is a notable benefit as Cisco now offers free licensing.

The technical support experience has been consistently positive. If there are any delays, they are minimal, and the overall efficiency is commendable. Notably, the support structure allows for direct engagement with the assigned support personnel without the need for multiple escalations. Opening a case typically connects me directly with the responsible assistant, avoiding the frustration of having the case passed through various levels. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Positive

Having worked with both Fortinet and Cisco, a notable distinction lies in the user experience. Cisco offers a more sophisticated and customizable experience, particularly evident in meetings. However, Fortinet excels in simplicity, making it a preferred choice for those who prioritize ease of use. In terms of customization, Cisco stands out, providing a more granular approach, while Fortinet is considered more straightforward and suitable for users who prefer a less intricate setup. The choice between them depends on the specific needs and preferences, with Fortinet being a good option for a straightforward approach and Cisco offering more advanced customization possibilities.

The initial setup involves a learning curve that can be steep, especially for local professionals who have direct access to private campuses like OneTrack. However, once you become familiar with the process and navigate through the online procedures, you'll find that it becomes more straightforward and kicks off smoothly.

As a new contractor, the deployment process is expected to take around six months, approximately half of which will be dedicated to virtualization and fine-tuning.

While the initial deployment costs are undoubtedly high, the significant monthly savings are notable, particularly in terms of operational efficiency and online-centric functions. The achievement is at least a thirty percent reduction in overall costs.

The initial cost is quite significant, but the investment is worthwhile.

Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

I'm in Indonesia, where I use Cisco SD-WAN for DC and DRC to communicate with bank branches. One customer uses traditional simple routing via VGP or SPF to communicate to the head office data center or disaster recovery center. Still, I proposed using SDN technology, Cisco SD-WAN, to improve the application experience, have visibility to the provider link, and communicate directly from the branches to the application, such as Microsoft 365.

The customer also wants to access an application in the cloud from the branches, which requires a proxy, so the traffic goes to the data center and then to the cloud. You can directly connect all components to the cloud with Cisco SD-WAN, so I've implemented the product for the customer.

The primary use case for Cisco SD-WAN is direct internet access, including onboard security. Customers don't want just a simple routing. Customers also want a firewall and IPS feature from Cisco SD-WAN.

One of the benefits of Cisco SD-WAN is cost reduction for customers. In Indonesia, it's costly to use NPLS and Metro for connection, so I always propose using an internet link to communicate between branches to the data center or disaster recovery center. Cisco SD-WAN can provide that service; the product also keeps traffic secure. Some customers may be afraid to use the internet link or connection to communicate between the branches and the data center because of some critical applications, so it may not be the best practice for some customers.

However, as my company is a partner of Cisco, I give the customer the PLC first before providing the solution, and I have customers happy about what I propose, in this case, Cisco SD-WAN.

If a customer wants access to cloud-based collaboration apps, such as WebEx, Google Meet, Zoom, and Teams, Cisco SD-WAN can integrate with Cisco Umbrella for cloud security.

With Cisco SD-WAN, customers can enjoy cost reduction. Customers also don't need to use a third-party DNS or process security solution because Cisco SD-WAN integrates with Cisco Umbrella. This is how beneficial Cisco SD-WAN is to an organization or business.

The most valuable features of Cisco SD-WAN include the DIA and its integration with Cisco Umbrella for DNS security.

One area for improvement in Cisco SD-WAN is reporting. The report needs to give more visibility to the customer. For example, the report should provide API information. I have a customer who wants to integrate the application via API and wants a summary of the utilization, branch links, and all internet connections on Cisco SD-WAN. The product has a monitoring menu, but it's very simple and needs to be more detailed, so that could be improved.

The security feature in Cisco SD-WAN also needs improvement, particularly if Cisco wants to challenge other brands, such as Fortinet. Fortinet has a firewall layer with an IPS feature, plus it can also run SD-WAN within the same box or device, while Cisco SD-WAN has a limited firewall and IPS feature, which could be improved.

In the next release, I also want to see more flexibility in the product when integrating with other infrastructure or monitoring solutions.

My experience with Cisco SD-WAN is around two to three years. Just last week, I implemented Cisco SD-WAN for one of my customers.

I found the stability of Cisco SD-WAN good enough.

Cisco SD-WAN has good scalability, so I'm giving its scalability an eight out of ten.

I'd rate the Cisco SD-WAN technical support team as seven out of ten because my company had difficulty getting the best engineer for a partner and a customer.

Neutral

Some customers need more detail about Cisco SD-WAN, so it takes a long discussion before the product is implemented, but for a customer that knows Cisco SD-WAN, at least how it works, signing up for it and implementing it takes three to six months. Sometimes, completing the deployment of Cisco SD-WAN takes one year if the customer requirement is complicated and challenging.

For simple routing, Cisco SD-WAN is easy to set up. It's an eight out of ten. If you're setting up the product with some security features, then the setup would be more complex, and that's a three out of ten for me.

The last time I deployed Cisco SD-WAN, mainly for three hundred to four hundred cases, the deployment took six months to one year.

I deployed the product for a bank, so the deployment and maintenance should not disrupt the production, which means it takes more time to migrate the current connection or the current infrastructure to Cisco SD-WAN because my team also needs to build the data center and the RC, and then migrate the traditional link with Cisco SD-WAN, and refresh the router at the branches. For three hundred to four hundred cases, that required many field engineers, about fifteen engineers. The bank also had project and implementation teams, but I have no idea how many people made up the teams.

I implemented Cisco SD-WAN with fifteen engineers, plus implementation and project teams from the bank.

The ROI from Cisco SD-WAN is good for me, so it's an eight out of ten.

The pricing for Cisco SD-WAN is more expensive than other brands or solutions, such as Fortinet and Palo Alto Networks, so it's one out of ten.

Cisco SD-WAN also doesn't have flexibility using bandwidth tiering licenses, while Palo Alto Networks and Fortinet have more flexibility with the licensing.

One customer is on a three-year subscription, while another chose a different type of subscription and tiering license. Customers only pay for the standard licensing fees.

I'm a pre-sales engineer, but only for Cisco products, such as Cisco DNA Center, Cisco SDI, Cisco SD-WAN, and other Cisco technologies.

I implemented the latest version of Cisco SD-WAN for a customer.

I deployed Cisco SD-WAN on the public cloud for customers, but I'm unsure if it runs on AWS, Google, or Azure cloud.

Cisco SD-WAN requires two types of maintenance, on-call and onsite. Three engineers handle onsite maintenance during office hours—two from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM and one from 5:00 AM to 11:00 PM. There's a second or backup engineer on standby that handles troubleshooting for the customer.

In each bank, Cisco SD-WAN has many users. Based on how many panels or bandwidth each bank uses, I'd say one bank already has two thousand to two thousand five hundred.

My rating for Cisco SD-WAN is eight out of ten. Despite needing some improvements, the product is already good for both customers and partners and is competitive enough.

My company is a gold partner of Cisco.

I work for a global telecom operator. I'm a system integrator. It's deployed on cloud and on-premises.

The most useful features will depend on the clients' requirements.

Cisco SD-WAN doesn't have automation capabilities, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and isn't IOT-based. There are a lot of technologies coming onto the market that Cisco SD-WAN doesn't have. I would like to see AI-driven capabilities.

It should be more cloud-based and compatible with all the clouds.

I have used Cisco SD-WAN for seven years.

Sometimes there are issues on the routing layers. Most of the time, the protocols don't meet the compliance standards. If one site is Cisco and another site is Juniper, then there is a mismatch in the protocols, so there is latency. If all the sites are Cisco, then it's stable.

I would rate the stability as six out of ten.

The scalability is good. I would rate it as seven out of ten.

I would rate technical support as eight out of ten. They're responsive, but many of the people I speak to don't have a lot of technical knowledge.

For new telecom companies that have a 5G or 4G setup, there are other service providers that they can contact.

Initial setup is easy. I would rate setup as seven out of ten. 

It depends on the sites, the connectivity, and how many tunnels there are between various planes, like the control plane and management plane.

The cost is reasonable. I would rate the price as seven out of ten.

Huawei has their own cloud, and they don't have any dependencies. The best part is that there isn't a lot of tactic latency. Cisco doesn't have that kind of feature. Huawei is more advanced compared to Cisco.

I would rate this solution as seven out of ten.

The primary use case for Cisco SD-WAN is secure segmented traffic. Cisco's micro-segmentation products are being used.

It is very simple to deploy. It's a point-and-click type of deployment, so it's fairly simple.

They have taken away our ability to do what we are good at, which is working on the CLI, the interface right on the router. 

They have limited the commands so much that troubleshooting is nearly impossible. 

They should work on their troubleshooting, in my opinion. 

They should do a better job of allowing more troubleshooting on local devices.

There are a few things on the roadmap. It is more about the specifics of how the product works than extra features. Some things don't work in the product that they are working on. It is quite good, in my opinion. It is very good.

We are currently in the process of fully deploying our Cisco SD-WAN, which was formerly known as Zetella but is now simply Cisco SD-WAN.

We started the deployment two years ago.

We are working with the latest version.

Cisco SD-WAN is a stable solution.

Cisco SD-WAN is very scalable.

We have approximately 15 users.

We used Cisco support to assist us with the deployment, and they made it very simple for us.

If I had to do it, or if we had to do it ourselves, it would have been extremely difficult.

We attempted to use Cisco IPAM a few years ago. It was extremely difficult to install and even more difficult to maintain, to the point where we just scrapped it and deleted all the VMs because it was so difficult to install and maintain.

We have F5 in the environment, and I used to be an administrator for F5.

We used GTM as well as LTM. I don't actually maintain them in this role, but in a previous one, I installed and maintained LTM and GTM.

I have also used Riverbed's Suite product.

SteelHead produces acceleration products. In addition, they have a software suite that manages end-to-end traffic. You can see the flow from beginning to end.

I worked with SteelHead for five years. We removed this solution because we disliked it.

We haven't had it in a few years, but I don't recall the last version we had.

The initial setup was fairly complex, but we used a third party. 

It is expensive.

I don't have exact figures, because we have an enterprise agreement, we basically pay one lump sum for a variety of products.

If one is the cheapest, and five is the most expensive, I would rate the pricing a four out of five.

There are additional expenses, such as hardware.

I would strongly advise hiring third-party solutions for this. Definitely outsource the initial installation and let them guide you in the right direction. Do not try to reinvent the wheel.

If you find the right company, they will have done it a hundred times before and will be able to retrofit it to your specific request and needs.

I would rate Cisco SD-WAN an eight out of ten.