Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Reviews

We use it for network services. We use them as edge network devices, edge network routers, and firewall routers.

We looked at an SD-WAN service and Cisco was a vendor that provided termination of those services. We bought it and it met the specification. Cisco Viptela solution met the specification for our network.

I would recommend better-integrated management. Some of the other vendors have moved to integrated management platforms. Better analytics and operational consoles with a deployment configuration that can work easily across the network. 

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

It is pretty good. We have been reasonably happy with it.

The scalability is fine. The issue has not been an issue of technology, it's been one of price. 

It was straightforward.

We had a vendor and it was not hard. We took a while to get the templates, but not that long. 

Cisco SD-WAN is a good product, but as I said earlier, it's not priced competitively. There is nothing wrong with the product, but it is not as good as what you can buy from other vendors for a lower price. It depends because it's bandwidth-based licensing. It depends on how much bandwidth you put through it. Other products on the market do not have any licensing for bandwidth and that is one of its cost issues. 

We will be migrating to a different vendor. I would rate Cisco SD-WAN a six on a scale of one to ten.

Cisco SD-WAN is primarily used in the banking industry in Pakistan for bandwidth development and application control.

Cisco SD-WAN's best features are the development of network links, application control, and bandwidth monitoring.

Cisco SD-WAN's clustering mechanism needs to be improved. If there are more than five milliseconds of latency time between installations of the VM manager, the cluster automatically breaks down.

I've been using Cisco SD-WAN for a year.

Cisco SD-WAN is stable.

Cisco SD-WAN is very easy to scale.

Cisco's technical support is very good, and they're one of the few companies that provide local support. If we face any problem, they respond to and resolve it within three to four hours at most.

Positive

I previously used Forcepoint, but they have no local support, which means we had to wait much longer to get resolutions to our issues. Cisco's knowledge base was also better.

The initial setup wasn't easy, and I would rate the setup experience as two out of five.

In the first phase, our partner implemented the solution, but afterward, we managed it by ourselves.

For 600 links, the license for Cisco SD-WAN costs us US$250k a year. In Pakistan, we have the option to get this solution at a more discounted price.

I would give Cisco SD-WAN a rating of seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for connectivity.

The connectivity is great.

The dashboard is excellent.

It's a scalable solution.

The product is stable. 

Technical support is very good. 

The solution is a bit complicated. They could work on simplifying the product. For example, doing configurations could be easier. 

The initial setup is tedious.

It was a bit expensive. They can improve their licensing model.

We'd like to see more monitoring features. 

They can improve in terms of their GUI. 

They can improve in terms of hardware.

I've been using the solution for five years. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The product is scalable. 

We have been satisfied with the technical support. They are great. There is always room for improvement, however, they're always resolving the issues

Positive

We also have experience with Meraki. The differences are licensing and pricing, however, the features are pretty much comparable.

The solution is difficult to set up. It's tedious. We'd like it to be easier. You really need to know a lot of stuff before initially trying to configure everything.

I'd rate the process a three out of five in terms of ease of use. 

It took us about two weeks to set up.

It's one of the more expensive solutions out there. I would rate it two out of five in terms of affordability. All you need to pay is the licensing fee. There are no extra costs. 

I'd rate the solution a six out of ten.

I am using Cisco SD-WAN for access to the internet.

Cisco SD-WAN could improve the integration with the cloud.

I have used Cisco SD-WAN within the last 12 months.

Cisco SD-WAN is a stable solution.

The scalability of Cisco SD-WAN is good. 

We have approximately 2,000 people using the solution and approximately 25 of them are engineers.

The support from Cisco SD-WAN is good.

The setup of Cisco SD-WAN was easy.

There is a monthly subscription to use this solution.

I rate Cisco SD-WAN a ten out of ten.

The purpose of this solution is mainly for migration from the LAN circuit to the internet using a secure edge SD-WAN for communication.

We are using the latest version of this solution. The solution is deployed on-premises and on the cloud.

This solution is mainly used in the pre-sales department, and then it's implemented by the implementation team.

The scalability is the most valuable feature.

The platform needs to be updated to be more stable and simple.

I have been using this solution for three years.

Sometimes it's a little buggy, so there needs to be some updates to make the solution more stable.

The solution is scalable.

Technical support is generally useful.

Cisco SD-WAN was our company's first choice, but they also use Fortinet.

The solution is "plug and play," but sometimes it needs manual intervention. Maintenance depends on the customer's number of devices.

Deployment is mainly done in-house.

It's costly. The cost is high compared to competitors.

There are many different licenses and devices. There's the license and the device itself as hardware, and the license as software. It varies between the hardware and software, and they have many free licensing models. So, there isn't an exact price. There are also many discounts in the middle before they provide it to the customer.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10. 

My advice is to identify your real needs for the solution. Do you really need SD-WAN or are you just following the trends?

We use this solution to interconnect our branches with the headquarters and interconnect other countries with the hub.

Before we deployed SD-WAN, we used to have at least two links per branch but could only use one at a time. Now we are able to use all the links together.

The best feature about SD-WAN is the ability to consolidate the links to the branch and load-balance the traffic.

There should be more flexibility in the licensing. In the next release, I would like Cisco to add all the troubleshooting tools from Viptela to SD-WAN.

I've been using this solution for two years.

SD-WAN is very stable - once it's deployed, you can just forget about it, it runs by itself.

This solution is very scalable - the only requirement is to add the licenses for the devices being brought on board.

The initial setup was not very straightforward, but it gets easier the more deployments you complete.

We used an integrator and Cisco themselves.

When purchasing, there are so many features available that it's quite confusing deciding which to choose. And some of the devices force you to buy licenses you don't want. 

As far as deployment is concerned, either get Cisco Professional Services or an integrator to assist, as the person taking lead on deployment needs to have experience with the product. I'd give this product a score of seven out of ten.

Initially, the primary use case was to lower costs, however, over time it has been to increase the availability of services according to the profile of the branches. 

Something very important is the security that this technology brings with it. We protect the data, we segment and give priority to what we need. In the same way, the possibility of being able to choose the underlay that I really need is great. Together with the type of service, the MPLS or Internet, is an advantage. In software-defined networks, the simplicity of doing things is its main characteristic.

It has allowed us to better understand the client's business. It breaks down a bit the traditional barriers of uptime and SLA and thus we are able to profile the branches in a better way.

Real-time traffic monitoring has become a fundamental tool for clients since it allows them to see what is happening in the moment and thus to be able to estimate trends or to project changes in a better and more assertive way.

The secure connection to the cloud is a gain when evaluating the traditional centralized internet links that generally exist in data centers.

Being able to see the traffic in real-time and know what application you are consuming, together with the possibility of taking your requirements directly from the cloud, has been useful.

Load balancing is a feature that allows us to take the best of our links and distribute the load intelligently, always with an eye on the end-customer experience.

Being able to prioritize, according to the applications, the exit and entrance of the traffic in a dynamic way, unlike the current quality of service that is rigid and static, is a tremendous advantage as it is done according to demands in real-time, so the customer experience is always the best.

It is transversal to all industries. What is important is to work on the costs of the solution.

On the technical side, manufacturer-independent solutions should be able to handle different topologies, simple or complex, and without having to invest more money in infrastructure or licensing.

What I also find should be improved is the possibility of really separating the software layer from the hardware layer since today the current offer is not well adopted by the service providers, which is why it does not reach the end customers. I understand this is an issue that directly affects the business goal of each manufacturer.

I've used the solution for five years.

The truth is that I started using an initial solution called IWAN, the intelligent network. It tried to take the best of current technologies and provide it in a network format. In my opinion, it did not achieve its goals.

It is not the cheapest solution on the market, however, without a doubt, it is one of the options that best handles complex topologies. Therefore there is a need to know more accurately what the client wants to do, what their applications are, what their flows are, and, after this consultation, define the best architecture and then choose the best manufacturer that obviously offers me a cost efficient option.

We evaluate the competition, however, within the same conditions, we wanted a dedicated equipment solution of bare metal, software, and hardware together plus the underlying layer.

This is a great solution.

The solution is primarily just for software-defined WAN or WAN edge solutions. We use it to connect to data centers.

All the features that they have in there have been great. The solution offers good quality of service, visibility, connectivity, and security. It's all of that stuff that makes it good. That is what's required.

Cisco is finding its footing in that area, and they're getting better.

For our team, the installation is pretty straightforward.

The solution can scale. We haven't had any issues doing so.

The quality could always continuously improve. For example, we've had stability concerns in the past.

Native connectivity into the major cloud providers would be ideal.

Often, the solution does require a specialized team to come in and assist with the initial setup.

Technical support could be more helpful and responsive. 

I've been dealing with the solution for three or four years at this point. 

The solution could be more stable. There are issues that they've had to deal with.

The solution seems to be scalable so far. For all the opportunities we've been involved with, it's been good and we haven't hit a wall.

We do deal with technical support from time to time. Their tech support could be better. We are not 100% satisfied with the level of service they offer.

For us, the implementation is easy, as we are trained to handle it. The product usually requires somebody like us to come in there and help customers through this.

Deployment times vary depending on the client and the environment. It depends on how big, the opportunity, how many sites, how many branches, et cetera. All of that stuff comes into play.

We assist our clients with the implementation process.

I can't speak to the costs associated with the product. We get involved with just the installations, that's all.

We're a service partner. As implementors, we install all versions. Usually, however, when we get involved, it's always the latest version that we are installing.

I'd advise users to understand what they're getting. It's a good idea to probably do a POC to see it and make sure it meets all the requirements that the company is looking for before buying in completely.

I'd rate the solution at a six out of ten.