Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Reviews

We are a solution provider and Cisco SD-WAN is one of the products that we implement for our customers. I am a pre-sales engineer and help with the consultancy.

The idea of SD-WAN is very good and it's efficient.

You get security, all of the service you need, and it's easy to deploy.

It is a feature-rich product with a lot of components.

Cisco products are a little bit complicated, so making them a little bit easier would be an improvement. The installation is easy but having many components, and the integration with other components, is a little bit complex compared to other products and other vendors.

I have been working with Cisco SD-WAN for one or two years.

This is definitely a stable product.

It is a scalable product and it can also be integrated with other Cisco products such as NSO (Network Services Orchestrator) and the virtual CPE. The customers for this product are enterprise-level companies.

The Cisco technical support is excellent.

Prior to this solution, we used Cisco iWAN.

The initial setup is easy to do. I'm not sure of how long it takes to deploy, but it is not very complex and if all of the requirements are met then it should be straightforward.

We deploy this product for our clients.

Cisco is more expensive than some competing products.

We have compared Cisco with all of the vendors such as Fortinet and Talari. I believe that Cisco is the best, overall. It is not the cheapest, but it is the best both technically and support-wise.

With respect to other vendors, they have different strengths. For example, Fortinet is coming from a security background so they have quite a good product with a secure firewall on it. However, they lack some of the SD-WAN functionalities. I believe the routing part is still being done on the CPE, whereas with Cisco, it's done on the orchestrator.

Overall, I don't know how other vendors can compete with Cisco, and that is partly because of the integration that Cisco has with all of its products. It gives them a big edge.

Cisco is a company that has been in this market for quite a long time. They have a stable office, stable software, and all of the features are there. Having the SD-WAN on top of the routers they have has given them an advantage. Plus, they have a wide range of products and there is integration between all of them and SD-WAN.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We have deployed Cisco Meraki devices at 107 locations to connect with the cloud for centralized management. We are using MX68, MS120, and MR33.

We are currently also considering Cisco Meraki for another project for implementation at 28 locations. We have a team of three members looking into different solutions and vendors. We're looking into the firewall, SD-WAN, and email certificate.

The centralized management is the most important feature. We can monitor what is going on at every location in our network through just one center.

I would like them to add some more SD-WAN ports. We have seen one implementation where there were four ISPs. Currently, we have a maximum of two ports for ISP in this device. Therefore, we cannot connect directly, and we need other switches. There should be some option to have more than two ports for SD-WAN. 

I have been using this solution for seven to eight months.

I have faced issues with one or two boxes. We replaced those boxes.

Cisco provides the best support among all the vendors. It's the best in terms of technical support.

The initial setup is very straightforward. For one location, it would take around two days: one day for the configuration and connecting to the cloud and one day to go to the client location and deploy it.

Cisco Meraki dashboard is very good. It's simple, and you can enable and implement everything using this dashboard. Cisco Meraki is for large enterprises.

I recommend Cisco Meraki to all my clients who have different locations and want to have a centralized location. Every architecture is moving towards the cloud. Centralized management makes accessibility easier for one person. We can know what is going on at a location and what is going into the devices. Whatever configuration changes are required, we can do them from one place. We don't have to go to the client's location. We also don't have to log in to different devices to do configuration or something like that. We can do it from one centralized management.

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

We are network providers. SD-WAN is one of the main options we offer to our customers.

Clients primarily use the solution for three main reasons. The first is for cost savings when accessing the internet. The second is access to the cloud. The third is to allow customers a kind of autonomy with management over the network.

Cisco is an industry leader, so customers have a high level of trust with the brand more-so than with some newcomers that might have some more revolutionary solutions, but no name recognition.

The solution appeals to big companies that are keen on selecting a major vendor rather than an emerging one as there's an assumption of reliability.

Cisco's technical solution in itself is very reliable. From a purely technical point of view, this is one of the best options.

Overall, the solution is very advanced in network configuration and offers excellent automated routine features.

The client portal needs to be improved in order to make the solution much better.

The service care area of the solution needs improvement. That is to say, the ability to have a simplified management system is a key success factor. 

If you could have the ability to raise an SD-WAN capability just by activating a kind of license, it would great. We have too much hardware deployment needed right now. 

In the future, if the solution could make it so that there is nothing to deploy beyond a license and some firmware, it would be great.

I've been using the solution for six months.

The solution is stable. This is the reason why we ultimately chose it as a product. Cisco's experience regarding the complex configuration of networks is perhaps the more mature in the market. 

They have made some improvements to the solution, and I think these advancements make it one of the most stable in the industry. It's not great for large configurations, so it may not be as stable in those cases. However, Cisco remains the most stable on the market.

The solution is scalable, however, it may be less so than Cisco Viptela. SortNet also has a portal that is not completely mature, and quite complex. This is why we developed a customer portal, dedicated to our customers, although some portals are still Viptela or SortNet. This custom portal has the ability to simplify the considerations of SD-WAN features for all of our sign-in customers.

We have approximately nine or ten big customers that are still in the proof of concept phase. Of those, three or four are large scale projects. Those have hundreds or even thousands of users on the network.

I haven't been in touch with technical support. I personally have a strong relationship with pre-sales people, but not technical support itself.

I've worked with a variety of other solutions in the past. They have their own approaches to the industry.

Sophos, for example, approaches their solution from a security perspective. The main premise of the product is its ability to secure the network itself. Others have close relationships with VMware solutions that provide for an easy way to bind the applicable network with the network walls.

In the near future, most will need to provide for UCTE, which will become a must-have for any solution.

Fortinet does not have a UCTE itself, but it has a low segment and basic equipment that is really interesting because it is so cheap. Plus, it's not so difficult to add it in to complete another appliance. This is one thing that we sometimes use to expand security requirements while still being able to have specific SD-WAN equipment.

For Cisco or any other solution, SD-WAN's initial setup is complex. The vendor needs to explain and define the customers clearly. It's not as simple as it sounds. It's better for large clients to do a modest deployment rather than a large one as it's not so easy to deploy. This will be clear after running through a POC.

It's much better for a company to do the deployment with the help of a consultant or integrator, as they understand the solution quite extensively. I'd recommend if a company is seeking out an integrator, that they choose a portal DNA integrator.

Typically, we work to offer our customer autonomy, however, we do offer maintenance packages. Typically, we'll sell co-management packages to clients whereby they choose the priority of the application on the network and we will manage all of what is programmed on the customer's behalf.

The solution works very well for mid-size and enterprise-level organizations.

I would advise others considering implementing the solution to set aside time to strategize and create a proof of concept before diving right in. This will help a company reveal where the solution is relevant and where it is not.

Then, it's important to look at the cost and layout of all of the finances so that the board will have all of the information in front of them. It will help them decide if it makes sense to pursue implementation. The finances and P&Ls must be clear for them. 

Finally, it's important to find a good consultant to assist in the entire process. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Our Cisco SD-WAN use case involves implementing it for enterprise customers with multiple sites who want to connect it. This is achieved by turning on the product on the router or firewall.

There was a scenario where the product improved our network's efficiency. For example, we had a customer with a main office in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, who wanted to connect with their offices in Hanoi and Hong Kong. By using the product, we could establish a connection between all the IP sites, creating a local network between them. 

The tool is stable, and its troubleshooting capabilities are good. It helps us identify and fix any issues. It simplifies VPN setup for both side-to-side and multisite connections. This allows for easier data sharing between main and branch offices, creating a local network feel even for distant sites.

The most significant benefit we've realized from Cisco SD-WAN's application optimization capabilities is cost savings. Traditionally, businesses had to purchase expensive WAN or wide channels to connect their sites. However, with SD-WAN, they can utilize existing internet lines, eliminating the need for costly WAN.

The solution's integration with other products is good.

The product should improve its prices. 

Cisco SD-WAN is stable. 

The tool is scalable. My company has 20 customers for it. 

The impressions of Cisco SD-WAN's tech support have been positive. Whether from Cisco directly or through our service level management (SLM), the support is quick.

We can only buy three-year licenses, not monthly. The cost seems high for us, especially since we're in Vietnam, which isn't a rich country. But we still like the product because it is good.

I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten. We recommended Cisco products, including the Cisco SD-WAN, to our customers. If a certain product is not stable, we suggest switching to Cisco products.

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 deployed Cisco SD-WAN primarily for our retail customers because they run on the traditional LAN. We migrated them to SD-WAN. They had more than 4000 locations. We didn't have to do anything manually for the failover of the circuit.

I like creating policies. This way, we can better utilize our WAN circuit and get better rates. Its GUI is user-friendly, and the CLI is also great.

It would be better if it provided more visibility. At present, we can't troubleshoot in real time.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for more than three years.

Cisco SD-WAN is very stable. It's a decent product. 

Cisco SD-WAN is a scalable solution.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give scalability a nine.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. 

We deployed it the first time with the help of Cisco engineers. We had two Cisco engineers along with an in-house team of four.

I would tell potential users that if they are worried about the cost factor or want an easy plug-and-play solution, they can go ahead with this solution. It's straightforward, and you don't need highly technical people to use it.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco SD-WAN a nine.

Some of my customers are replacing their legacy solutions with Cisco SD-WAN.

Encryption, which is native to the solution, is a valuable feature. Also, central management, onboarding of devices, QS, and routing applications are all okay.

All of the configurations are based on templates, and we need to spend a lot of time doing the templates. It's good because that means that all of the configurations will be equal in the network. However, we need to spend a lot of time implementing the templates and doing the customizations.

I've worked with this solution for about a year. It's a cloud solution.

It is a stable solution.

It is very scalable.

The technical support was okay.

SD-WAN is very difficult to implement, but nowadays, most solutions are difficult to implement.

On a scale from one to five with one being the most complicated and five being very easy to implement, I'd give Cisco SD-WAN a rating of three.

It is not difficult to maintain.

You should prepare to spend a lot of time with the design and implementation of the solution. The design in the cloud is difficult to do because you need to have all the connectivity in place to reach the cloud. It's very easy to spin up an instance of SD-WAN in the cloud, but the connectivity from on-premises systems to the cloud is sometimes difficult to accomplish because of the security features the customers have in place. It's not easy to establish connectivity from the enterprise network to the cloud.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cisco SD-WAN at seven. From a network perspective, it's a very good solution, but the security features could be better. It's not easy to manage security using Cisco SD-WAN. It's not clear; the solution is not related to security and is more related to planning and networking.

Cisco SD-WAN's collaborative features are unique and sustainable. I also like the protocols, which use two SD-WAN.

Some configurations or procedures could be more user-friendly. Adding a bandwidth management feature would make Cisco SD-WAN more scalable and less resource-intensive. 

I've been using Cisco SD-WAN for more than five years.

The scalability could be better. 

Cisco support is good.

We are also using Fortinet. Fortinet SD-WAN is more user-friendly, but Cisco is better overall. 

Setting up Cisco SD-WAN is easy.

Cisco is in the top pricing tier among SD-WAN solutions. 

I rate Cisco SD-WAN eight out of 10.