Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

I never had downtime with Cisco Catalyst Switches in the last eight years, and I'm pretty impressed with its reliability.

The only drawback I saw with Cisco Catalyst Switches is that it's not cloud-managed. We have to manage them on-premises.

We have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches in one of our hospitals for the last eight years.

Cisco Catalyst Switches is a highly stable solution.

Cisco Catalyst Switches is a pretty scalable solution. Around 2,000 people in the hospital use the solution on a daily basis.

I rate the solution an eight to nine out of ten for scalability.

I rate the solution's technical support around six to seven out of ten because they are not very responsive. You have to log a TAC ticket, and then you have to wait for them to come back.

Neutral

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup and configuration a six to seven out of ten.

We have around 108 Cisco switches, and it took a couple of hours to deploy each switch. The whole installation took around a couple of weeks. We had to connect to the console of each switch and configure it before configuring the next switch. It took some time to deploy the switches because they were on-premises. We could have configured the switches remotely if they were on the cloud.

We implemented the solution through a reseller. We placed the order with Cisco, and they had their partner do it for us.

Cisco Catalyst Switches is an affordable solution.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a six to seven out of ten.

We use access, edge, and core switches from Cisco. Since it's not cloud-controlled, we need a specialist or network engineer to configure the solution. As far as reliability and stability are concerned, I would recommend Cisco Catalyst Switches to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use this solution for everything layer 2 related to our infrastructure, from data centers to local networks. Our business is airports, so we utilize them throughout the entire airport infrastructure.

On a day-to-day basis, we use it for all switching layers, like access, core, or distribution. We also utilize 802.1X.  

This solution has a pretty good rate of not causing unexpected behavior or failing. We're using maybe 900 switches right now. And, rarely, if ever, something fails, it's dependable.

First of all, there are some features that take a long time to get implemented, and other vendors have them for a long time before them. For example, it took a long time to have a way to commit change with the timer, so it gets undone if the user doesn't accept the change after it's done. Like, having to say the changes be done, and everything works fine. In the end, everything works fine, but it didn't exist. That's just an example of stuff that came late to Catalyst. 

The CLI structure is mostly outdated sometimes. It doesn't really make sense how things connect to each other. It's not object-oriented, stuff like that.

Moreover, if you want to stack switches, you can't really do it except that you have stack modules, which I find is outdated. Like Juniper Switches, stacks, even switches that were on different locations over Layer 3, and stuff like that. I'd suggest stacking to take cues from other vendors. 

I have been using it for decades. Currently, I operate as the end user. In my previous role, I acted as an integrator, and we partnered with Cisco.

Sometimes, we have issues with stability. We even have some switches, like, that simply stopped working. Like, something went off, but it is not a usual occurrence. It's quite rare.

The way we design things, we could scale them. We could scale, meaning that we could add more switches to our current design. But we're not at this point because there's no need yet. We pretty much thought about it right in the beginning.

We have about 750 users using this solution in my company.

Sometimes, it's quick and helpful. Sometimes, we did have one case that took, like, months, and, eventually, things got solved after upgrading newer firmware that, by then, had been released. However, tech support did not solve the case.

I have used HPE and Juniper in the past. I've also used Dell Power Connect and Luxul. First of all, they're on the more pricey end. They cost more than most. I'm not sure if that's true today, but when I still had to take into account money when it was my job to take into account money, they were on the pricing. So that's an accounting pro.  HPE and Juniper, which were fine switches, both of them for, like, two-thirds of the price or something like that.

Stability, plus the fact that resources are very easily found. Moreover, everybody knows how to work with Cisco. Also, if anyone gets certified, we'll most probably start getting certified by Cisco because it's an industry-standard certification. So, people who work with Cisco are easier to find. And they pretty much work as advertised. 

Cons: there are features that Cisco lacks interface-wise, like UI stuff that could be a lot better. For example, take a look at Juniper, and it's like night and day.

We're currently transitioning to Catalyst 9200 series. We still have a lot of Catalyst 2960s in various locations, but they're being replaced with new ones.

We don't have any central management for the Switches. So it all gets done with copying, phasing, changing IPs, or whatever is relevant. So, the setup is not complicated as long as you know what you're doing. But that goes for everything, I guess. Like, if you already know how it works, then it's not complicated.

The setup is straightforward for me because I know what I'm doing. However, the CLI and the way iOS is structured could take a lot of improvement. There are some things in there. You have to know that they connect in a certain way, or else you won't ever find how it works. You need your Google open for a lot of stuff if you don't already know it.

I was a part of the deployment team. We had already designed what needed to be deployed. We have multiple locations and multiple airports. Each airport was not in the same condition as the other ones. 

For example, each airport had its own separate preexisting network. So, there were different strategies that we had to use in each airport to deploy the switches without disrupting the airport functions. It was not the same thing everywhere. 

In general, we had a pretty simple design of what we needed, how many switches were sized, and what we expected in terms of customers. It was a pretty standard design to construct a backbone and distribution point within the airports. So, it was pretty much doing three or four templates. And just changing the variables on those templates. That was it.

We don't need a lot of resources or staff members for the deployment part because it depends on the size of the airport again. Like, if there were 300 devices to be deployed, we would need 15+ people. So, it depends on size.

Also, the time depends on the physical properties of the site that you are on. Where are the switches going to be installed? Where, in what condition is this place? Is it still under construction? Is it already constructed? Is it somewhere that's difficult to reach? All these are variables that should indicate how many people you need.

However, maintenance could be a bit more automated. Maybe if Cisco have a central management console or something, then it is more automated. The way we do it, we have to upgrade by ourselves. Like, it's stuck, or it's switched separately by hand. Using FTPs and FTPs and the old way of doing stuff. So, if there's a management, it's a central management tool. When we do maintenance, it's a hassle.

I would recommend using the product. Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We use the solution for switching. We use it from core to campus switching. The product is deployed in different environments. We have campus companies. We serve highly distributed organizations. We have a client that houses elderly people in a multi-building campus. They have a core data center. Typically, they put all the core resources on a much larger core switch. We have fiber distributed out to the endpoints.

The 3000 Series seems to be pretty good. The switches are steady and seem to last forever. The product is reliable. It's an industry standard.

Cisco management is a bit more difficult but has many features. The tool is not user-friendly.

I have been using the solution for 15 years.

I rate the tool’s stability a ten out of ten.

The tool is scalable. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

The support is like any other support organization. It is okay. I rate the support a five or six out of ten. It is Cisco’s product. Cisco’s support team knows it the best. I don’t like that it takes a lot of time to get to the right person who knows anything.

Neutral

The solution is a pain to set up, depending on the configuration. The more features we have, the more difficult it is. Cisco doesn't make it easy. Cisco bought Meraki for its easier configuration. I rate the ease of setup of Cisco five out of ten. One or two people can deploy the tool.

Most network admins can't configure a switch, but they can plug it in and rack it. A more experienced systems engineer must do the deployment. They must understand TCP, IP, and how everything works. They must also know how to run command syntax. It is a lot more complicated.

We must pay a high price for the product. Meraki is more flexible, but Cisco is always expensive. The cost depends on the number of ports and size. It might cost around 10,000 to 15,000. I rate the pricing an eight out of ten.

We like Meraki the best. Cisco is a good product, but we must pay for its name. I am not a fan of Juniper and UniFi. Meraki has the best user interface for ease of management, traffic management, and endpoint visibility. Meraki is the best product I have ever seen in my life. Meraki’s UI is super easy. The capabilities of virtual and ordinary stacking are good. Meraki is a far superior product.

We rarely see a use case for the Blade switches. They're way too expensive. In many cases, we don't need something with a more elaborate configuration. Typically, we just want it for switching. We need it for the backplane memory for raw throughput. We need features like VLAN tagging and Spanning Tree Protocol. I will recommend the solution. I wouldn't recommend it from a price perspective. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

The product is used in the hotels for the network.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are the most stable. The network is secure. I have a lot of options. If a port is not used for a long time, it will be disabled by default. If anyone tries to use it, I will have to enable it for them. The tool helps me secure my network. The product is easy to use. We do not face any challenges.

Cisco is the most expensive product. All hardware tools have become very expensive nowadays.

Cisco is the most stable solution. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

All our reports are based on Cisco Catalyst Switches.

The setup is straightforward. The deployment takes 10 to 15 minutes.

We can deploy the tool in-house.

I prefer one-time payments.

I have worked with all the brands in the market. I will recommend Cisco to others. It is stable. It has good quality. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I use the solution in my company as a data switch. The product is mostly used in the entertainment systems of luxury yachts and not in some banks.

The most valuable feature of the solution is reliability. I have seen Cisco Catalyst Switches working for more than six years without any kind of outage.

Products from Cisco that deal in areas like VLAN management, internal routing, and inter-VLAN routing don't seem to be compatible with other products. When users put Cisco Catalyst Switches in the same environment or infrastructure where other devices or products exist, like HPE, Aruba, and Ubiquiti, it doesn't work properly. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for more than twenty years.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution. Cisco solutions are always scalable.

My organization has around 200 users of the product.

There is a need to increase the number of devices or switches, or it can be done by implementing a change in relation to the old devices in an environment by moving from a 10 GB switch to 40 GB uplinks. A 10 GB switch is enough for now in my business.

Cisco's support team is friendly if you have a maintenance contract active with the technical support team of the tool. You will end up breaking your head on the wall if you do not have an active maintenance contract with Cisco's technical team since they are not responsive or supportive at all until you subscribe to the service contract Cisco offers.

After dealing with the product for more than twenty years, it has become easy to deploy the solution.

I have been installing the tool inside a luxury yacht to manage some internal data switches and for some of the entertainment systems where streaming services are required. VLAN is mandatory for managing the kind of networks in the aforementioned environment.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The time required to deploy the product depends on the dimension of the project undertaken by someone. If you install the system in a 30-meter yard, deploying it takes around four days. If you install the product on a yacht where around 100 meters need to be covered, the deployment process may take over a month.

The number of people required to deploy and maintain the product depends on the project size. One person is enough to take care of the deployment in a 50-meter yard area. Three people are enough to take care of the deployment in a 100-meter yard area. In an infrastructure with around 200 people, only one person can maintain the warehouse system.

I rate the overall product a six out of ten from a price perspective since it is an expensive tool.

There is a need to make yearly payments towards the licensing charges of the product.

From a technical perspective, I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

There is a need to use professional devices like the ones offered by Cisco if someone needs a reliable infrastructure that is flexible and scalable.

Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

The solution connects our hosts to the network. It's our core aggregation and access layer. It's used throughout the network.

I like the product’s performance. The solution is reliable. It provides support.

The support is not the quickest.

I have been using the solution for 20 years.

I rate the tool’s stability a ten out of ten.

The tool is scalable. We have more than 1000 users in our organization.

We contact the support through a third-party vendor. They are not the quickest.

The setup is quite simple. It is not complicated. We do not overcomplicate things. Otherwise, support-wise, it gets difficult. We follow the design given to us to deploy the tool. We use Cisco’s recommended best practices for installing switches. We try to follow it as much as we can. Deployment can take up to a year.

The implementation is done in-house. There might be contract resources that get involved in the deployment, but we don't go outside to another company to get people to do it for us.

Without the tool, we wouldn’t have service, without which we would not have revenue. Then, we wouldn’t be a viable business.

We do not use the solution much currently, but it is still in the network. We have replaced it with Nexus. The solution fits the purpose. I will recommend the product to others. Overall, I rate the product a ten out of ten.

Our clients use it to build a network based on level two and level three Cisco switches, and that's all.

Sometimes, people choose Cisco because it's Cisco. And that's all.

We are a vendor for the healthcare sector, especially hospitals, and normally, we use a full Cisco solution for stability, especially for the stability of the Access Points and the security of switches.

This gives the client more comfort when choosing, for example, Huawei or other brands. They feel more comfortable with Cisco.

The biggest barrier to buying Cisco or using Cisco is the price and also the competition with competitors and with Cisco partners.  

We don't find any problems with Cisco switches except the competition pricing with other Cisco partners, especially because we are a seller and implementer. Sometimes, we find ourselves in front of partners who have better prices than us.

The biggest challenge in using the Cisco solution is the relationship with partners or Cisco partners.

Even sometimes we have clients who need to work with us. And even the needs and the bill of materials are established by us, but unfortunately, at the end, they don't buy from us because of pricing from other partners.

Competitors' prices are cheaper. 

I have been familiar with this product for more than ten years. 

Cisco Catalyst Switches are reliable. I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

It is a very stable product. 

The scalability is good. Sometimes, it has about 500 network points. 

Our clients are hospitals, for example, ranging from 50 to 200 beds.

Not big hospitals, but medium-sized hospitals. The most recent one was between 300 to 500 users.

The support is good. Even if we don't need a lot of support, what we got is stable enough. But when we need support, the support team is there.

Positive

It was a little bit difficult the first time, but now, because we have the model, it's very simple for us.

Because we work especially for one sector of the industry, which is hospitals, we have a fixed model to set up the network. So, it's very easy for us to set up a Cisco network in those hospitals.

A few years ago, we established a model for installation in those hospitals, and now it's okay. Our technicians know how to do it. So they can set up the entire network within one week.

The deployment takes one-week maximum. 

I would rate the pricing a ten out of ten, with ten being expensive. 

I would recommend using it because of its stability and high quality.

Overall, the whole solution is good. I would rate it a seven out of ten. The pricing and competition from partners are the main two issues. It's not fair competition.

I accept competition with another seller or integrator like me. But if I find someone in the market who is an integrator, reseller, and distributor all at the same time, it's not fair competition.

Our primary use case for Cisco Catalyst Switches for campus-wide local area networks. We have configured it to power and support LAN nodes and facilitate separate VPNs, terminating routers for secure remote communication.

The platform significantly improved our organization by addressing latency issues in our network. Previously, banking operations were impacted by switch-related disruptions.

The platform is reliable and easy to use.

The product’s pricing needs improvement.

We have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches since 2007.

The platform is stable. We never encounter any issues and receive regular updates. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

We have over 400 Cisco Catalyst Switches users in our organization.

When we needed access to resources or encountered issues with the software solution, we utilized the help desk provided by Cisco.

Positive

We have worked with HP before. Later, we switched to Cisco to create a wide network area.

The initial setup was straightforward as there was ample availability of resources within our country trained in Cisco equipment.

Our deployment model primarily involved an on-premises setup for the Cisco Catalyst Switches. At the headquarters, we deployed the core and distribution switches to create a robust network infrastructure. The core switches served as the backbone, while smaller switches, likely the Cisco Catalyst 900 series, were deployed in branches for more streamlined connectivity. The network was interconnected through routers, facilitating efficient communication across the organization. Additionally, we implemented an MPS deployment to enhance network performance and management.

The product is worth the investment considering consistency in efficient operations without compromise. We experienced minimal downtime, attributed not to Cisco equipment but external factors like power issues in the grid. It is a robust solution.

We had to pay for the product’s licenses.

It is easy to access the console and troubleshoot the issues. It has effective protocols implemented within Cisco devices.