Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Reviews

The product helps to aggregate network links. The tool increases security and makes it possible for you to have remote workers. 

The product needs to have more understanding staff in their support team. The tool needs to provide support in every stage of deployment. We did not get the expected support from their team. The product is also not easy to use. 

I have been using the product for two years. 

The product is stable. 

The product's initial setup is difficult and you need Cisco personal to assist you with it. 

The product's license is expensive. 

I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. If you have the money, then you should go for the product. The tool's performance is good. 

Cisco SD-WAN is used to connect users to network applications securely.

The segmentation, high security, and flexibility of the Cisco SD-WAN are the most valuable features.

The cost of Cisco SD-WAN is high and has room for improvement compared to competitors such as Fortinet which has similar functionality.

The technical support has room for improvement.

The UI has room for improvement.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for a couple of years.

Our engineers dislike dealing with Cisco technical support as they frequently face redirection and have to wait for months to get their issues resolved.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward and easy to deploy.

The price is based on the types of routers being used as well as the product licenses.

Fortinet FortiGate has a more comfortable UI and better logic than Cisco.

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

Cisco SD-WAN is mainly intended for medium to large enterprises as it provides significant benefits for organizations with distributed offices across different regions or countries.

I recommend that new users become familiar with all the features that Cisco SD-WAN offers, to enable them to complete their tasks effectively.

We are an IT integration company that implements this solution for customers and clients. We deploy the solution on-premises.

The solution is stable.

The solution is expensive and could be cheaper.

The solution is stable.

It is a very scalable solution. 

We have experience with customer service and support.

The initial setup is straightforward in a laboratory environment, but when we started implementing it in the field, we had some problems. We are deploying a pilot of the solution for a few branches.

We have seen a return on investment.

We have a subscription and a three-year license.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten and I would recommend it to others. 

With other routing protocols, we have had to send team members to perform installations and configurations. There is a lot of work involved. However with SD-WAN, once it is installed it is fully automated, and we can do all other tasks remotely. We don't have to send staff out to the client's location.

It's very independent, and we can establish SD-WAN connectivity easily. It is secure as well.

The cost is too high for certain countries, for example, those in Africa. The solution needs to be more cost-effective.

I would like to see AI functionalities added to future releases. I would also like to see endpoint protection features with encryption technology to prevent data from being copied from different locations.

We have been working with Cisco SD-WAN for one year.

Cisco SD-WAN is a stable solution. I have not seen any issues with stability. If you do the preventive management exercises, ensure that you have the right temperature, regularly perform inspections, and monitor the solution properly, then everything will work perfectly.

It is certainly a scalable solution. For example, you could start with the 10G module and upgrade to 40G, 100G, or DWDM. It is handled on a module basis.

We probably have 400 to 500 users.

The initial setup can be straightforward if you have experienced staff.

Cost-wise, Cisco SD-WAN is comparatively high. 

Cisco SD-WAN is a wonderful solution, and I would give it an eight out of ten. I recommend it because it is easy to establish connectivity and is an independent solution that does not require you send staff out to a client's location.

We replaced all our legacy routers with Cisco SD-WAN. The number one use case is more to do with network management, better policy integration, and keeping the policies consistent across all our locations. That was one of the major areas where we thought SD-WAN has reduced a lot of burdens so that the engineer can focus on actual issues. 

We were doing a lot of policy-based routing earlier for our hub and spoke topology. With SD-WAN, the hub and spoke, of course, stays. However, manageability, scalability, and ROI are the three major factors with which it has helped a lot. 

We could eliminate most of our expensive MPLS links, move them, do the local internet breakouts, and integrate with the NGFW firewalls. These were an added benefit to us. It was a tectonic shift. Right now, we are not spending as much on resources or engineers to keep the lights on.

The integration, scalability, and ROI that Cisco SD-WAN provided are the main features that helped the organization advance further.

The solution has helped us to lower expenses.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. 

It is very stable. 

We can scale the solution. 

SD-WAN itself is vendor locked in. At one point, Cisco should make it open so that if we have multiple mergers and acquisitions happening, it's easier to consolidate. Right now, if we are running Cisco, and the other organization in an acquisition scenario is deploying some other competitive vendor, the communication, the manageability of running two separate ESD instances, becomes a burden that falls back on us, especially the network administrators. It's better to consolidate and come up with better products, especially targeting AWS as their underlying transport.

Traditionally, what Cisco has done, is they have always considered internet gateways or links and the MPLS links as their transport technology. In some devices, they have also used ELTs. Now, since we have 5G in place, they could look at private 5G ELTs, and they could expand that line, again, particularly in the ESD space since AWS has recently released their own SD instance where they are allowing their customers to backhaul.

With SD-WAN being a very custom solution and a vendor-specific solution,  we would end up having multiple software-defined instances where one is running in Cisco, and one you are running with AWS, and then again tomorrow, another SaaS-based player or a similar player will come up with something else. 

For example, when two organizations merge with each other, there is likely a scenario where organization X is running (for example) Juniper, and the other organization is running Cisco. The administrators would end up having to separate ESD controllers. You do not have a single ESD controller that is open in nature, where you can manage Cisco and Juniper devices. That is a concern. So if the controllers were made open, with compatibility between the vendors, that would be a very good thing for the industry overall.

As a market leader, they are better positioned to go ahead and make that kind of change. If you look at the history of Cisco, before MPLS came into the game, it was Cisco, Juniper, and a few other vendors who came together and created a very good protocol. 

We need them to start focusing on the SD-WAN compatibility with other environments and not being so vendor locked with Cisco environments.

They should get better controllers that can especially talk with AWS and Azure. Right now, I have taken a subscription with AWS Project Gateway. I will have to place a Cisco CSR image if I want to make it a true SD-WAN solution. Instead of using a separate image, if they could make the Cisco's controller open or a transit gateway solution, that would be ideal. 

I've used the solution since 2018. We've used it for around four years. 

We found the solution to be quite stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We haven't seen major issues. 

The product is pretty scalable. 

In terms of Cisco SD-WAN, we have close to 200, and that's a pretty big number. We have about 12 engineers around the clock using the solution. 

For the SD-WAN portion, we are getting good support. We have no major concerns about the level of attention we get.

Positive

I did do a POC with VMware, and it was not great. We struggled with configurations. I've also done a POC with Aryaka and have used Fortinet and Palo Alto, as well as Viptela. 

The difference between Cisco and other options is that you get a good number of engineers. Second, the amount of time required to troubleshoot the protocol level is lower. I'm using the word protocol on the operating system that gets loaded and comes with the software. They don't even have a proper support line, and the support will not be aware of the production issues. The other competitors are three years away compared to where Cisco is today.

The solution is very straightforward and simple.

We did engage with Cisco during the initial POC and rollout. Later, with adequate materials and training materials, engineers, and resource availability, we never ran into challenges. 

When I speak with my other colleagues in other organizations where they did use Fortinet, they did use other products, they ended up spending a lot of labor hours and only figuring out that near the end after they struggle with configuration.

I'd rate the setup a four out of five in terms of ease of implementation.

From a maintenance perspective, it's not that frequent. Every quarter, the manufacturer releases its own patches and updates, which we are following through its life cycle. That's very normal. 

We handled the implementation ourselves. We did not need to worry about getting help from outside vendors. 

We have seen a positive ROI and a reduction in costs.

The price varies. They have different products, including routers, some of which are now being removed or deprecated. The new platforms with the CSR 8,000 series have competitive pricing, and the kind of features they're providing justifies the cost - especially when you look at the number of features and support that comes with it.

I'd rate the pricing at a four out of five in terms of its competitiveness.

We are a customer of Cisco.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. 

Cisco SD-WAN provides centralized telephony for our company. 

The most useful feature is centralized telephony.

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

Cisco SD-WAN is stable.

Cisco SD-WAN is scalable. 

Cisco needs to improve the technical support for this solution. I rate Cisco support eight out of 10. 

Positive

Deploying Cisco SD-WAN wasn't complex, and it took about one month. 

I rate Cisco SD-WAN 10 out of 10. I recommend it.

The most valuable feature of Cisco SD-WAN is its compatibility and integration with the rest of the infrastructure.

Cisco SD-WAN could improve on the ease of integration, the configuration should be easier. At the moment the process is more command line based and it would be better if it was able to be done through an interface.

In a feature release, Cisco SD-WAN could add more features for wireless SaaS-based solutions.

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

Cisco SD-WAN is stable.

The scalability of Cisco SD-WAN is good.

The support sometimes is delayed. They could improve their response times. They are knowledgeable about the solution but you have to reach the correct person.

I rate the support from Cisco SD-WAN a three out of five.

Neutral

The initial setup of Cisco SD-WAN is not overly complex, but there should be a good understanding of the configuration and setup. There are many technical commands for the process that one should be aware of.

I rate the initial setup of Cisco SD-WAN a three out of four.

We used a third-party vendor help to implement the solution.

Overall, we are receiving a better financial cost advantage using Cisco SD-WAN than what we were using before.

I rate the ROI of Cisco SD-WAN a four out of five.

The price of Cisco SD-WAN could improve, it is expensive. The cost of the solution is approximately 30 percent higher than competitors.

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

There are other competitors in the market that work well, such as Fortinet. The best solution is determined by its ability to handle a use case. There is not one overall best solution, there are suitable use cases for the different vendors.

If a customer is looking for a solution for a large enterprise, then I would recommend Cisco SD-WAN. However, if they have a small setup for a small business setup, Fortinet is better. It is integrated well with all the security features.

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

The integration to the LAN could be improved. It should be an end-to-end solution, not only on the WAN side but also on the LAN and wifi, so a full end-to-end solution.

The integration of Layer 3 and application routing is great.

The technical support is a bit slow. Regarding additional features, it would be good to have a fully integrated solution with the Meraki solution, leading to a seamless Cisco solution.

We have been using this solution for about six years. It is deployed on-premises, and we are using our own management.

The stability is good.

I think the scalability fits the customer requirements. The number of staff required for maintenance depends on the complexity of the network and the number of sites. A single part does not cover it, so we have about 20 staff running our network services.

I rate the technical support a seven out of ten. They are good but not very innovative, and the feature requests take too long to implement.

We use different solutions like Viptela, VeloCloud and Versa.

The initial setup was complex, and it was completed in-house.

I am unsure about licensing costs.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The software for Cisco SD-WAN is overkill because the box is more powerful than required. Cisco needs to replace it with a normal router because the current one is very advanced. They expect a stable internet connection but then try to get sophisticated devices to connect to any infrastructure. However, the infrastructure requires only SIM cards, so it's not that difficult. Implementing a router and a dual-SIM router would be sufficient, but Cisco makes it complicated.

I cannot speak to additional features, but we've heard that Cisco may add analytics to the SD-WAN.

We have been using this solution for about nine months, and it is deployed on-premises.

I have not heard any complaints about the stability. The problem with this solution is with the interface, not the equipment.

I can not speak to the scalability, but we used Cisco SD-WAN for a big gas station digitalization project. The gas station had to be connected to a government-owned company and then deployed to 5,500 locations, so it was a big project. I believe a government-owned company currently completes the maintenance of the 5,500 locations.

Our company was just in charge of implementation and installation. I am unsure how many technicians they have, but the maintenance response is so slow, which may mean that the technicians are not well educated or trained about the SD-WAN. Regarding deployment, it took one person about two to three days to connect, configure and do the ATP.

The technical support is very responsive, but they lack resident experts. So they have to divert the support to Singapore or Australia. They should have experts locally to provide support.

The deployment is complex, and Cisco makes everything complicated. It took about two to three days to deploy, and the engineers completed it.

The solution is costly compared to Aruba. You also have to pay if you want to implement extra features like a VPN.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. The Cisco brand is strong, and its connections to the government are also strong. Cisco has very good distribution and connections with universities, unlike other equipment manufacturers. In addition, they provide free seminars to government officials and receive allowances in return. Cisco does a great job managing its customers.

I believe Cisco and Palo Alto here in Jakarta and Indonesia are very strong compared to Aruba and Citrix. I last heard about Citrix when I worked with Nokia and Motorola ten years ago. Citrix only does password and computer synchronization, which is done from Singapore. Citrix also did not have local support about ten to 12 years ago.

Cisco has been around for quite a long time and gives a very good discount to system integrators if they try to sell their product. Although they have high published prices, the price for a distributor or reseller is very attractive with discounts sometimes as high as about 20% or 30%.

The load sharing in the fabric and the cloud connectivity are both pretty flexible. The solution offers us the correct field mechanisms.

The solution is stable and reliable.

It can scale according to our needs. 

While the environment itself is not a bottleneck, the dependencies and the provisioning and the different parties involved altogether form, complexity and introduce limitations.

The initial setup is really complex.

We've been using the solution for two years. 

The stability is really great. It's definitely reduced downtime. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

For us, the solution scales well. We are far away from its limits. That said, we are not, let's say, a very big company.

Technical support has been good. They are helpful and responsive. 

We did not previously use a different solution. We had a fairly traditional wide area network without any sophisticated connection options.

The initial setup is not straightforward or simple. It's very complex. 

I'm not sure how many staff members are needed for deployment and maintenance. 

We did outsource the initial setup.

I'm on the technical side. I have no idea what the price is and don't deal directly with licensing. I do know that this is an all-in deal, meaning there aren't extra fees associated with the cost. 

We're basically an end-user interacting with Cisco on this, however, the final responsibility is with our ISP.

SD is an enterprise tool and you should not use an ISP for implementation. Better to use an NSP or do it yourself. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.