Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

We're using it as basic switches - mainly VLANs and SPB, The main focus is actually for just VLANs and VLAN switching, and that's it.

There are a lot of features on the device. We're not using all the features that we can use, however.

It's all fine. It works quite well. What we have now is good. We don't have many requirements for these switches except just forwarding traffic.

The solution has been very stable.

We find the product to be scalable.

Technical support is very responsive and helpful.

The solution is very reliable.

Pricing mainly is the only issue. For our company, IT is not a major investment, so it would be harder to convince management to invest in Cisco switches. For quality, they are the best, however, in terms of pricing, especially due to the COVID crisis and everything, investment into a network is now a lower priority. Before, when the money flow was better, it was easier to sell. However, now, for this current situation, a major point of pain in the company is price. 

Even though my priority is reliability, in order to avoid downtime, management is harder to convince and they just see the price tag. 

We've been using the solution since about 2018. It's been around four years or so now.

The solution is very stable. Since 2018, since we started with them, we haven't faced any issues with these switches, except for one instance where we switched to a new switch and needed to restart to enable the functionality.

Other than that, the switches are working great. There were only two times we restarted them due to an incident with the power equipment. The switches restarted because of a power issue, and not due to the switch itself having a problem.

The solution is scalable. We're actually using it using iStack. It is stackable and very scalable to add more switches. It's quite easy to expand everything.

We're using these for our core network. It's across all our core network that is going through our IT department. For that reason, many people are on them. It's likely about 50 people 50, plus the user traffic. We're an ISP. We have some servers and portals that use these servers, switches to reach the network. Therefore, many, many users use that. We have a lot of user traffic going through the switches.

The technical support is fine. We've had, several moments in these last four years where we've requested Cisco technical support and they were very quick to respond and provide assistance. It's taken, at a maximum, two days to go from request to support. they are very responsive. We are very satisfied with their level of service.

As I understand, Cisco's prices are very high and other vendors might have a lower price. Therefore, we're considering Aruba or Huawei or maybe other vendors as well for both access switches and managed wireless solutions (as in lightweight access points with controllers and these kinds of networks). 

Due to the wireless network upgrade, I'm considering other measures as well as Cisco. We're considering Aruba and we're considering Huawei. I'm considering switching to other vendors mainly because of the price.

We are a customer and an end-user.

We deal with a lot of Cisco products. We use maybe 20 or so Cisco switches.

We have an old 2960-X and a 2960 Plus. We also have three 9300 switches, which are the newer model.

I would advise other users to plan for a larger network than you currently need. For example, if you need 20 ports on a switch and you're ordering this equipment. order a 48 port one, as you'll find that you quickly consume the 20 ports and you need upgrades of two, three, four, five, six. You'll need upgrades quickly and you'll find yourself ordering another switch to replace this one. The most sensible recommendation is to order one bigger switch, which is better than replacing the switch you have within one year. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. The switches are excellent.

Access layer Switches. VLAN Segmentation, Inter-VLAN and LAN Routing. 802.1X network access device.

This platform has enabled reliable connectivity across the entire campus network. Great performance and stability ensure that the network is available where you need it. The 802.1X port security and other security features work well and help keep the network secure. PoE helped us deploy WLAN APs, security cameras, and IP phones with minimal cabling.

• Very stable and dependable switches.
• The wide range of features will be enough for almost any LAN environment.
• The CLI is pretty much the same across all switching and routing platforms from Cisco, making deployment of new switches, replacement of damaged equipment, or upgrades to newer platforms very easy.

I have found no major drawbacks in the Catalyst platforms. The price is high, but for seemingly the best LAN switching platform available, coupled with Cisco's excellent support, the price doesn't seem to be too much.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

Technical support is the best I have worked with.

Basic switching functionality works out-of-the-box, as with any other switch. Complexity will depend on the task at hand, but if you're familiar with the Cisco CLI you should have no problem finding your way.

Pricing of Cisco equipment is high, but I think these switches are worth the price.

I have been working with Catalyst switches for 10 years. Cisco support is among the best there is. Use it.

I'm using almost six Cisco switches.

We use the solution for the LAN, Local Area Network, for the organization, or for business. 

The solution is very stable.

The scalability is good.

They are managed switches, and we can control and manage almost all of these switches - even individually, one by one, or through a central control center.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

The device age becomes an issue. For example, with the 2960 version, they're not supporting that one anymore. I find that the device or the model age is a little bit short. It is five or eight years. When we have a big organization, we have 100 or 200 switches, and suddenly it's out of support, end of support, or end of life, or whatever, it's difficult as we cannot change switches every five years. At a minimum, they should last ten years. That's better. To upgrade, it's a huge budget. Therefore, the age of the product itself is a little bit short. They really should make it longer.

The technical response could be faster in the future. 

I've been using the solution for maybe ten years or so. It's been a while. 

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

The scalability is pretty good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem.

We have up to 600 or 700 users. It's not measured per user. Rather, it is per device. We have many devices on top of users.

We do plan to increase usage in the future. 

I have contacted technical support in the past. They are fine, however, they are a little bit slow.

We did not previously use a different solution. We've always used Cisco products.

The solution is easy to install for administrators and network engineers. People who are qualified in networking shouldn't face any issues. It's fine, it's easy.

The amount of time it takes to deploy a switch depends. If it is at layer switch, it will not take more than one hour, maximum, for each switch. However, if it is a core switch, it might take one day.

The size of the team you need for maintenance also depends. If we are going for an upgrade, we need a big team. However, if it is just for troubleshooting, only two engineers are required.

We can handle the implementation ourselves. We do not need any integrators or consultants. 

We can use the switches without licenses. However, with licenses, yearly licenses, it is better, as we will have more troubleshooting options and control options, through a control center device.

We use various versions of the solution. For the access layer switch, we have different models, including 2950 and 2960. Now, we are using the 9K series, 9200. The latest one. This is for the access layer. For core and distribution switches, we have 6500 and 4500 versions.

I'd recommend the solution to others.

I would rate them at a nine out of ten.

We use Catalyst switches to extend our network throughout the facility. It's a big facility, so we need to use switches the ABS to get the signal out to the entire facility.

I like Cisco because you are dealing with something old that the new generation doesn't know about, like telnet or how to configure the switch. I don't like simple GUIs where you can do everything with a click. 

I can't use older Cisco devices with newer versions of the controller or switches. For example, if a switch was manufactured in 2014, I can't use it with a controller made in 2019. I have to change the switch so that I can upgrade my network or my devices. I don't have the option to update the version I have on the image of the AP or the controller.

Also, in the K5 Series of the switches —  Cisco calls them "Core" switches — they have some commands that Catalyst doesn't support, so you have to know the command lines for two different devices to configure them. It's a bit confusing when you are working on both at the same time, and you have some problems, then you notice that you didn't use the correct command for that switch.

I've been using Cisco Catalyst for five years, but I've only been working with the solution in-depth for the past few months.

Catalyst Switches are reliable. We don't have major problems like lost connections, and we only have a minor issue with something every few months. In the last five years, a switch broke down once, and that was due to human error.

Cisco customer service is excellent. We had some issues with devices, and Cisco replaced them for us. We had some significant problems with one of the switches because they changed the image. It took a while, but overall, the support is good.

It's not hard if you have some networking experience. I didn't deploy the switches by myself. We had some help from the vendor, and I supervised them.

With some competitors, yes, it's about, let's say very high price. Half the price you can get Jupiter, or I think also, I forget the brand, TP-Link, you can have something like that, but half the price with it, with maybe also advanced features to deal with it.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst switches seven out of 10.

The price could be improved.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for 25 or 30 years,

We don't have any issues with the stability of Cisco Catalyst Switches.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are scalable.

We have approximately 20,000 people who use this solution.

I have not contacted technical support.

It is easy to install. Most of the engineers already know about it.

The pricing could be cheaper.

There is a one-time license, but we pay for the smart net license every three years for support.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a ten out of ten.

I am a solution architect and design authority. I define what we need and in which direction we are going to look. We then do some detailed investigation, get reports back, and make a decision. We are working on air traffic control systems. We use this solution for data centers and remote clients.

It is a pretty good product. I don't see a problem with this product. Cisco Catalyst Switches fit the best for the type of systems that we deploy. Our customers usually are happy with Cisco equipment. Many partners and third parties have ordered this solution.

Its initial setup can be simpler, and it would be great if we can work with a reference architecture.

Cisco has the capability to provide a very integrated solution. They have DNA Center, Cisco ISE, Cisco Prime, FMC, and AMP. We are looking at all the products, but it is rather complex to pick out the right licenses that you need. The license structure is a bit complex. Sometimes, there is an overlap in products, which does not really make sense. For example, you have DNA Center and Cisco Prime, and it is not really clear what you would use for what exactly.

There is a lot of information on the Cisco website, but it takes a while to go through all this and look at the presentations that are available from Cisco Live. These presentations are appreciated, but sometimes, they are a bit too much like bullet points. You don't exactly know what's behind it, so you have to do a second guess. Overall, there is a lot of information but not always to the point.

I have been working with Cisco switches for 30 years.

It has pretty good stability.

Scalability is pretty good.

We have experience with professional services. If we do a design, usually we can get some support. After we deploy a new network, we can get professional services from Cisco to help us. I think that is fine. I had an experience with Cisco last week, where they wanted to sell professional services to help us in the early design phase, where things are more conceptual. They shouldn't do that. 

Cisco should help based on the reference architecture. They should help the potential customer to get started without asking for money. I think Cisco equipment is expensive enough for that. I have no problem paying for professional services after we deploy it or when we do a detailed design. When it is early in a project's phase, we should get help from them to go in the right direction. It should be part of the normal business to work with an initial customer.

The initial setup works well if you can build on earlier projects, but if you really have to make a completely new design, you will struggle a bit. We are working on a project now, and we have our experienced network engineers on this project, and they are struggling. The initial setup could be simpler.

It would be great if we can work with reference architectures. I have also seen something like this with other suppliers, and I really liked it. I have seen some of the ideas in the Cisco Live presentations, but I'm not sure if it is really complete and clear enough. It should be worked out a bit further so that we can work with reference architectures, and then let's say base it on multiple products that you would apply in the reference architecture. 

Cisco products are not that cheap.

I would definitely recommend this solution. I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches an eight out of ten.

My primary use case of this solution is for connecting up drivers and desktops. I'm a system administrator and we're a customer of Cisco. 

I like the expandability of the solution. I have a pair of 6509 catalyst switches and they use the add on boards. I also like the dual power supplies. 

We are not working off the latest version so the switches on the product are very old and that could be improved. The one gig boards are strictly one gig and not backward compatible. This switch also does not have power over ethernet, so that's old.  

I'd like to see a better web interface. I can't tell you what the existing generations have so I'm sure there have been improvements. These are so old and I'm sure modern switches now have much better tools to interface with them.

I've been using this solution for over 10 years. 

It's clearly very stable, otherwise we wouldn't be using it anymore. The fact that we still use it shows how stable it is. 

That switch was very scalable because itwas one of the ones that had nine slots in it. So it could have additional boards within.

The initial setup was fairly straightforward but we're not doing anything fancy with it.

We're not paying maintenance - these switches were end of life years ago. Maintenance is separate from licensing. Now there is no additional monthly recurring cost on the Cisco switches that we are running.

This solution has been good to us, it's very solid.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

I design, implement, and troubleshoot networks that use Cisco switches. I am involved in every part of the design, including wireless.

The biggest advantage of having this solution is that it is easy to find engineers, and they are cheaper than hiring HP engineers. HP engineers are difficult to find and you have to train them, which brings up the price of an HP solution.

Cisco switches are really expensive compared to other solutions, which is something that should be improved. They are almost double in price.

As of late, Cisco has been moving from one technology to the next and they don't support each other. If you want new features then you have to buy a new product and forget about the old one. This is from a licensing perspective. For example, the Cisco DNA license versus then Cisco One license are things that I don't know about.

I would like to see better compatibility between Cisco and other vendors. There are a lot of features that are for Cisco devices only, and when you bring in a second or third vendor there are a lot of problems. Fixing this incompatibility would be an improvement. I have not tried a lot of other brands, but I have connected both Huawei and Aruba Wireless with Cisco. Connecting Huawei with Aruba Wireless works well with no hangs. However, connecting Cisco and Huawei is terrible. Sometimes you have to restart one, whereas other times you have to restart the other. I do not recommend mixing equipment between these two companies.

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst switches for close to 11 years.

If the switch is set up properly in the first place then you don't need to come back to do anything with it. This is especially true with the Catalyst 3750. It is the most stable thing in the world. I have found that some of the newer switches will hang or lose their configuration, but this never happened with the 3750.

For example, I have faced a lot of problems with the 3850, especially if there are Aruba access points. Sometimes, it will just reject the access point, although when I bring a new one, it will allow it. Sometimes the VLAN, itself, hangs. Then you can put in another VLAN and it will work. There are a lot of mysterious things that I could not find an explanation for.

I have not faced any problem with scalability.

In my opinion, the Catalyst switches are for enterprise-level organizations with 5,000 or more employees. If there are 1,000 or fewer employees then any switch will manage.

Some of the places I have worked in had networks with 20,000 to 70,000 users. 

I have not contacted technical support from Cisco. I have friends and colleagues who have received support but I just keep reading, then trial and error until I get it. I wouldn't want to pay for support if I don't use it. The only time I would require support is a hardware failure.

I have worked on two projects in the past where support licenses were purchased for a year. What I found was that I could purchase four additional switches and in total, they would cost less than the support. Those switches then go into storage and if one of the others fails then a replacement is available. Ultimately, it is much, much cheaper.

I have always used Cisco networking solutions, although we are opening a new branch and I think that this time, we will use HP. They do not want to pay one to two million dollars for IT infrastructure. With HP, if they have to pay half a million then they will approve it.

I have experience with a hybrid environment where it was a Cisco LAN and an HP Aruba wireless LAN, and I didn't like it. I was losing some great options. Based on that experience, I think that all of the hardware should be from a single vendor. Either Cisco all the way, or HP Aruba all the way.

It is very easy and very straightforward to set up and deploy. It takes maybe 15 to 30 minutes to get it working.

The price of Cisco equipment is very expensive and you have to pay extra for support.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to design the system well before deploying it. You have to consider all of the aspects and all of the options. Always beware. If there is a 1% chance of failure then consider it to be a 90% failure rate because when it fails, you will have options. Always have a plan A, B, C, and D. In my experience, sometimes all of the plans will fail, and sometimes the first one succeeds.

I can't give them a perfect market but they undeniably are of good quality.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.