Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

Our primary use case of this solution is for routing, switching, and for interconnecting sites.

It has become easier for us to troubleshoot and find issues faster in the management software for the switches. It saves us troubleshooting time because if the network is down it has a big impact on production.

The stability is the most valuable feature. We have some outages but it's 95% stable. 

The newer models are not so stable. Other products like 6800, 3750, were stable but starting from 3850 it got worse. We have a lot of issues and a lot of bugs. It's a new product so it's understandable but it should be improved. 

Scalability is easy. It's easy to increase the size of our network, we use templates. 

We haven't had to use their technical support. 

We wanted a reliable solution so we chose Cisco. We began working with them ten years ago. We have everything on Cisco and it's not worth it to switch everything to another brand. 

The initial setup is a bit complex but we have templates so we just have to deploy our template configuration. The VLAN configuration was complex. We have STP and different protocols which are not on the V-port so we had to enable it.

We implemented it ourselves. 

Ten years ago we used Avaya and HPE. 

I would rate it a seven out of ten. Not a ten because we are highly satisfied with all of their products but with the newer products, some parts have problems that take a while to fix.

I would say to go for Cisco. It is a stable and quality solution. 

We primarily use the solution for the virtualization infrastructure and for bare metal platforms.

We are satisfied with the solution's performance so far.

The stability has been perfect.

The solution can scale.

It is a very easy solution to use.

We have found the installation process to be very simple. 

The pricing is quite good.

The delivery dates need to be more expedient. This could be improved. Right now, when we need to buy a new Cisco Switch, we may have to wait a few months. It could be as much as six months sometimes. It's far too long of a wait.

I've been using the solution for a few years at this point. 

So far, the solution has been very stable. The performance is excellent. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The scalability of the solution is quite good. If a company needs to expand, it can do so.

We have hundreds of users that are leveraging this product.

At the moment, we do not have plans to increase usage.

We've never contacted technical support in the past. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

A very, very long time ago we used HP Brocade Switches. W removed over to Cisco mostly due to the fact that there is a very rich knowledge base over the internet. Also, the implementation is pretty straightforward and the commands are pretty easy to follow. 

When it comes to the initial setup, the solution is very simple and straightforward. It's not overly complex or difficult.

How much time it takes depends on the configuration, specifically the complexity of the configuration for the Cisco Switch. Most of the time, a few days are enough for any configuration.

Two engineers are enough in terms of handling the initial setup.

We were able to set up the solution ourselves, in-house. It's not a complex process, and therefore, we did not need outside help from integrators or consultants.

There is a license that is paid with the Switch when you are buying the Switch.

It's reasonably priced.

I'm not sure if we are using the latest version of the solution, although we are often handling product updates.

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

Our company is in the financial sector and we are customers of Cisco. 

The solution is good for computation and backup. 

We need to rely on other devices to provide management features. Other solutions provide more features and Catalyst Switches is not user-friendly. Even the configuration is difficult for our new engineers. Cisco has some weaknesses. 

I've been using this solution for 13 years. 

The technical support is very good, but anything support-related is based on payment. Without paying you won't see any service from Cisco. The same goes for training which requires payment. Other solutions provide training without payment but not Cisco.

The technical support license is very difficult because you can only get support if you've purchased the hardware. After you own the devices you still have to pay for support and pay for the license. Everything is an added cost. 

There are alternative solutions now penetrating the market and because of difficulties with configuration in this product, there are now more appealing options. 

I rate the solution seven out of 10. 

I've been using Cisco Catalyst for switching.

I find the quality of the solution to be valuable. I also like that many organizations use Cisco.

I think it is a reliable and scalable solution.

The licensing process should be back to how it was before. Now, you have to register online, and it makes staging a bit trickier.

Pricing could be cheaper as well.

I've been using this solution for more than ten years.

I have found it to be reliable and stable.

I think that Cisco Catalyst Switches is a scalable solution.

I have used Dell and HP switches before.

The initial setup was very easy and took only a few minutes.

I implemented it myself.

I think pricing could be cheaper, depending on the range purchased.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this solution at seven.

It is a reliable and scalable solution, but I think pricing could be cheaper. 

I also think that the licensing process could be improved so that staging is not tricky.

We have an Academy, we know how to manage it. We have the knowledge to manage it and it gives us security. We can configure the switch to resolve our internal problems. We can use one switch for five to six years.

It's used for our processor, a small data center, and we have our network with at least 500 users.

The most valuable feature is the interface, it's easy to configure. The command line uses a switch that gives us security.

In the next release, they should lower the price. It's too expensive. 

They should also have a graphic interface for the switches too without the command line. 

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for ten years. 

The stability is good. 

We have 500 users. 

It requires us to have at least 10 technicians. Five technicians and other administrative staff.

In the future, we need to do disaster recovery in the cloud. We are working on-premise and our future is to use it on the cloud for our disaster recovery.

We have a contract with a company that gives us support.

The initial setup was not very complex. 

We used a consultant for the implementation. 

Licensing is on a yearly basis. We usually spend up to $20,000.

I would recommend it because it's a good solution that gives you security and is easy to use.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches an eight out of ten. They respond to all of our needs. 

We don't personally use the switches; we provide services to our clients, including implementing the switches for them.

Catalyst switches solutions are great. For various customers we have deployed for, business operations run smoothly and without any complain. Troubleshooting and insights are clearer. 

Our customers love working with us. 

Catalyst switches support a variety of features from both layer 2 and layer 3. The fetaures supported depend on the model your dealing with. Though there are various common features such VLAN, MLAG, SDM, STP, Resiliency, PoE, Wireless settings, etc....which Stacking feature happens to be the most common deployment. 

Recently I laid hands on Meraki Switches and what I can say to love is its seamless network services to build high-performance networks. 

The user interface needs improvement. It might make them a bit more user friendly.

The one thing that I came across with the Catalyst 2950-X switch was that I wanted to alter the dashboard, so I connected it to the management interface. I gave it an IP address and I used the browser. However, as soon as I accessed it, I realized that the system of the computer from which I was accessing it didn't support that version. I was using Linux and the OS didn't support the switch. I had to get a Windows computer to access the switch. The dashboard was difficult to manage. It would have been nice if they made it obvious that it didn't work on Linux.

I've been dealing with the solution for more than two years now. 

I wouldn't say that the switches are stable. It depends on the situation more than any fault in the technology, however.

If a customer approaches my company, we provide the best option for the client. Sometimes that's Catalyst. We do work to evaluate the client and their needs quite extensively before making recommendations. Most of the time, clients look only at the cost and not at the bigger picture. Many don't want to spend too much money. Sometimes, however, a better solution may cost more.

While a well-implemented product is typically stable, if a client says that they don't want to spend anything higher than X, you have to work within those parameters and explain what X will get them, which may ultimately be instability.

Very scalable. 

We have dealt with Cisco's technical support in the past. They were especially helpful and very polite. They are always there if we need them and their insights are always excellent. I would say that we have been satisfied with the level of support we've gotten so far.

Of course, we use and still use Meraki solutions. We didn't switch. Like I said, it is based on what customers need. 

The Catalyst switches take more time to implement than Meraki. How long it takes varies for each organization. It depends on the size and requirements. We have spent up to a few weeks on previous contracts setting up switches for companies.

Catalyst licensing varies from a thousand of dollars to 20+ thousands dollars , however, that might depend on the model or version you choose. There are some switches where the licenses are features-based and you need to get a specific license for specific items if you want to use them.

We've looked at Meraki, among other solutions.

While we have used Meraki, it's hard to compare them to Catalyst switches. Meraki is quite good and agile. They've simplified a lot of their processes and have some features that make actions easy to do on Meraki. However, Catalyst offers much of the same features, and are possibly more feature-rich.

Meraki is very much more focused on business needs. While it may be good for their own business model, it doesn't encapsulate everything. Catalyst does a better job in that regard. It has many more features on offer. You aren't limited, although you will want to focus on a particular kind of feature list for your deployment or your integration into your environment.

Cisco happened to own Meraki solutions now. 

Last year, we were Cisco partners, but something happened and Cisco made some changes to its partnership requirements. Right now, we are working on re-establishing the partnership with Cisco. We'd like to be partners again.

We are planning to be a distributor. For the moment, however, now that we are waiting on the partnership, we're more of an integrator. 

We have deployed on-premises mostly and also a hybrid version sometimes. It depends on what the customer wants and what fits best for their needs. It also depends on the model that you are talking about. On the Catalyst switches, as far as I know, the models vary from types of deployments and features. Some features are only available on applicable switches.

In terms of advice I would give to other companies, I'd say that I like both Meraki and Cisco. I don't really prefer one over the other. It depends on the situation which one makes the most sense. Both are very large solutions but I could recommend either.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I really do love Catalyst switches. 

We use this solution for networks linking SMB Offices and remote access VPN.

They don't ever fail and they have a long service life.

The price is high and it should be improved.

I have been using this solution for twenty-five years.

The service is good.

Overall, I'm satisfied with this solution.

The main use of Cisco Catalyst Switches is for enterprise networking.

Cisco Catalyst Switches should have better performance and be easier to use. Additionally, they should add artificial intelligence features.

I have used Cisco Catalyst Switches within the last 12 months.

My clients are not happy with the stability of the solution.

The solution is scalable but the configuration to have it scale can be complex.

I have not opened up a ticket for Cisco Catalyst Switches. However, I have used the support from Cisco and they are very good and responsive.

I have used other solutions, such as Juniper, HP, Aruba, and Fortinet switches, and they are better than Cisco Catalyst Switches.

The configuration of the solution is difficult. If you are not using the Cisco Prime or Cisco DNA for management then the solution will be complex.

Three or five engineers are needed for the implementation of large projects.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are very expensive.

We have found that we need to purchase a DNA license to be able to use the Cisco Catalyst Switches but we never used it. There is an annual fee to use the solution. There are additional services that can be added at an extra cost.

They need to remove the DNA license.

I have evaluated other solutions, such as Juniper, HP, Aruba, and Fortinet switches

I would not recommend Cisco for anyone, many of my customers have had bad experiences with them.

For the rest of the business for Catalyst customers, we replacing all of them for our customers. I saw the many cases the customers were replacing Cisco with another vendor. It is more expensive and it didn't meet their expectations. However, we are using another technology from Cisco but the security from Cisco is not good anymore.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a four out of ten.