Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

The main use-case for Cisco Catalyst Switches is access layer, core, and distribution.

I appreciate the flexibility of the features most; I can turn features off and on quite easily. They are only 1U, so they are much smaller and have significantly more capabilities than they used to. Cisco Catalyst Switches scale with the growing needs of my organization very well.

Cisco Catalyst Switches could be improved because they are far too deep. The design is excessively deep, so when I put them in racks, they sometimes sag in a cabinet. I do not prefer that. I also do not appreciate the fact that some of them have console ports on the front, some have console ports on the back, and some have RJ45 connections while others use micro SD. They do not seem to have consistency among the people who design them. They are all designing in silos and are not always on the same page. I do not always get that consistency.

I have been using this product for approximately 10 years.

I assess the stability and reliability of Cisco Catalyst Switches as very good.

I evaluate customer service and tech support as very good; we have our own account team, so we are satisfied with that service.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is good; I received good pricing, and the licensing is easy with no problems.

I did not consider any other solutions before selecting Cisco Catalyst Switches because we are a Cisco shop. There are no other solutions; you cannot mix and match very well and be successful. You are either in Cisco switching or you are not.

My impression of the end-to-end visibility offered by Cisco is fair.

Cisco Catalyst Switches does not optimize the experience in a hybrid or distributed enterprise setup for us.

There are no specific challenges I face with hybrid and distributed enterprise networks that Cisco Catalyst Switches addresses; nothing stands out. We are pretty happy with it.

I would give Cisco Catalyst Switches a rating of nine out of ten. I hope you have a lot of money because they are expensive; you get what you pay for. It is comparable to any other purchase where you can choose between different price points and quality levels based on your budget.

I am still using Sophos products, and I have upgraded to an XG 2100 from the XG 210 that I was using previously. I use Cisco Meraki for my Layer 2 infrastructure, including access switches, core switches, Meraki access points, and Meraki switches. For security, I use Sophos exclusively across the board because of the ease of communication between Sophos endpoints and firewalls. I have two firewalls—one on the cloud and one on-premise. The communication between the endpoint and the two firewalls makes it easier for me to stick with Sophos rather than use another vendor to complement it.

I stick to Meraki's layer switches, access points, cameras, and some other thermostat equipment. I do not use Meraki for SD-WAN because Sophos already has that functionality.

From Cisco, I primarily use Meraki. I still have some traditional switches, but I am trying to phase those out. I mostly use Cisco for switches, routers, and voice.

Beyond Meraki, I have Catalyst switches as well, specifically the 9600 models. I am trying to phase out Catalyst switches and completely move the entire infrastructure to Meraki because of the ease of configuration. I am still using some Cisco Catalyst Switches, but only some, not all of them. These products are mostly used for the access layer, while all the core layers have been moved to Meraki completely.

I appreciate the ease of granularity in configuration where I can go in and configure as much as I need. The positive aspect is that cloud solutions have made configuration easier and faster. Rather than spending one or two hours configuring a switch, I can easily do that in one minute on the cloud. That is one reason I appreciate Meraki and also one reason why I am moving away from traditional switches.

With Meraki switches, I can easily configure from anywhere, such as creating additional VLANs or restricting things without getting close to the device itself.

There are scripts that we wrote that we use to automate the product, especially when it comes to configuration management. Regardless, it is still not as appealing to me anymore due to the overhead. When there are new upgrades, some scripts might not work anymore, which means I have to make additional changes to them. With Meraki access points, I do not have to have a wireless controller for them. I can configure the wireless device directly from the switch, making the setup cleaner, and that is a major reason for my preference.

For Catalyst, I am satisfied with the IoT integration. It works well after all configuration is completed. The main issue is having to tweak every time and spending valuable time on the network, which becomes problematic when competitors are moving fast with cloud solutions while I am stuck with lengthy configuration products.

There is a lot of overhead, and I have to have so many technology people to manage so many Catalyst switches. Management is also difficult because I have to console into each of the switches in order to configure and make changes.

In my opinion, Cisco should provide some level of software that I can bring on-premise where I can add all my Catalyst switches for central management. I am not asking them to create it as a cloud; I would prefer software that I can put on-premise, such as a Linux solution, to manage all switches centrally. Configuration management might do some of that, but if it comes directly from Cisco, it will maintain adequate patches. This way, when there are new upgrades for Cisco Catalyst Switches, the software will be updated accordingly, so I do not run into issues or debugging because of unupgraded switches.

If I am starting from scratch, it is complex. However, if my network already follows a certain configuration, I can duplicate that from one switch to another, which makes it easier. Creating different VLANs within those switches is not as simple because I have to do a lot of terminal configuration to ensure that I can get things working. With Meraki, I could do that in one second versus spending an hour on Catalyst.

I have been using this solution for about ten years.

I would rate the stability of Cisco Catalyst Switches at about eight out of ten. It is actually quite stable.

I would give scalability about seven out of ten because if I have to take a switch off my network and provide a new switch, I might run into issues, especially if the network increases. Configuration is not going to be fast, and I cannot swap configuration or add an additional switch within two to five minutes at most. Unlike Meraki, where I can bring a switch online, join it to the portal, and it becomes operational immediately.

I would give Cisco technical support about an eight out of ten based on my recent experience with a request for a new access point.

Positive

I am not working with Fortinet products anymore.

There are new competitors coming up, but none of them is actually close to Cisco Catalyst Switches. I have a bias for Meraki right now, so I would say that Meraki is actually way better to work with.

My main uses for Cisco Catalyst Switches are end-user ports, mostly.

The features I like the most about Cisco Catalyst Switches are improved management plane, such as Catalyst Center and integrations.

Cisco does optimize the experience in hybrid and distributed enterprise setups.

Regarding the impression of end-to-end visibility offered by Cisco, I would love to have more visibility.

What I want to see in the future regarding Cisco Catalyst Switches is more integrations between different kinds of products, such as data center and campus.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for over 20 years.

Generally, my experience with deploying Cisco Catalyst Switches works well. New features always come with a price, but in general, it is fine. Since we operate medical infrastructure, we try to avoid downtime as much as possible.

Cisco Catalyst Switches scale quite well with the growing needs of my organization.

I evaluate customer service and technical support as getting worse.

Before Cisco, I considered Aruba and Hewlett Packard.

I have not seen any ROI yet.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing was not all good. Licensing is quite a nightmare in the Cisco world, and I wish we had simplified licensing.

There are specific challenges that I face with hybrid and distributed enterprise networks, such as the growing need for security, and Cisco does address that. I give this review a rating of 8.

Our main use case for Cisco Catalyst Switches is for remote clinics, remote offices, and hospitals.

What I like the most about Cisco Catalyst Switches is ISSU.

My impression of the end-to-end visibility offered by Cisco is that they have a Nexus dashboard, and it is good.

Cisco optimizes the experience in a hybrid or distributed enterprise setup by using Cisco Edge.

I would assess the operational efficiency of Cisco in my IT environment as good since we are getting all the information we are looking for.

I believe that Cisco Catalyst Switches could be improved by being given AI capability and advanced licensing, which would be beneficial.

I have been in the industry for around 27 years.

I have experienced some downtime crashes occasionally.

Cisco Catalyst Switches will be supported for the next 10 years as they scale with the growing needs of my organization.

On a scale from one to 10, I would rate the customer service and tech support as eight. My issues with them are that time shifting is an issue and the handover issue is what is happening.

Before adopting Cisco Catalyst Switches, we were using Cisco 4500 and 6500.

My experience with deploying Cisco Catalyst Switches is that it worked well and is good to implement.

Those aspects regarding pricing, setup, cost, and licensing are managed by management, so I am not directly involved.

I considered solutions such as SD-WAN support, edge support, and cloud hybrid support before selecting Cisco Catalyst Switches.

I face no specific challenges with hybrid and distributed enterprise networks, only the downside that RMA is taking time. I would rate this review a 10.

I mostly use Aruba Central, Aruba ClearPass, and the Aruba switching portfolio.

I once provided a review on Aruba ClearPass and I have experience with Aruba.

I don't know products such as Aruba Orchestrator or Aruba VPN, or any others.

I have no idea about Aruba Introspect.

Regarding the features of Cisco Catalyst Switches, I don't have exactly a specific answer to this.

For zero-touch deployment, we have to work around a little bit initially because the switches are not exactly zero-touch provision ZTP.

Currently, I don't see much AI integration with Cisco Catalyst Switches; though they've started, it still needs improvement.

I've been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for almost 10-plus years.

The deployment process has been easy and smooth installation for me.

The time to deploy depends on how big the project is, so we do different projects; small or big, it depends on that.

Deploying a particular switch depends on the day; if you're deploying 95K, that's mostly used as a core switch, then that will take some more time than 92 or 93.

They are mostly used as stable even in network operations.

The scalability of Cisco Catalyst Switches is very much scalable, as it supports the stacking feature and growth; for instance, with 94K modular switches, based on the requirement, we can even increase modules for more bandwidth.

I'd rate the scalability around seven to eight.

Cisco support is very good and responsive.

Positive

We do use Cisco, Palo Alto, and Fortinet.

For a big project, usually three to four persons take part in deployment, while one to two persons will be enough for a small one.

I'm talking about engineers.

From an investment standpoint, deploying Cisco Catalyst Switches offers tangible benefits, including cost reductions; the licensing part is mainly for the SD-WAN feature, but other features are integrated, which gives a pricing advantage.

For pricing satisfaction, I'd say it will be six to seven because Cisco usually is costly compared to other vendors.

Regarding pricing, there is indeed room for improvement.

Customers often compare Cisco with Juniper and HP; those under budget constraints usually opt for Juniper, HP, or Aruba instead of Cisco Catalyst Switches.

Challenges I've encountered mostly involve the RMA part for hardware replacement, which doesn't happen regularly, but sometimes I face challenges due to limited parts in India; they offer different model devices as a stopgap arrangement.

It's quite difficult to specify features I would want to see in future updates because that varies from model to model.

I would definitely recommend Cisco Catalyst Switches to other users.

We do maintenance for Cisco Catalyst Switches.

For maintenance, we usually need three people from different regions working as a single team; our engineers handle both projects and maintenance, so there isn't a specific engineer just for maintenance.

I work with firewalls and next-generation firewalls.

Overall, I would rate the solution as an eight out of ten.

I use Cisco Catalyst Switches for the whole environment across everything including the access layer, core switches, manufacturing facilities, and IT offices.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are reliable. I put them in and they run. They are easy to manage.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are getting better. They scale well because I can simply add more switches without any problem.

There are too many vulnerabilities lately. Too many updates need to be done every week, which is crazy.

I want Cisco Catalyst Switches to be more reliable because in the past, you could install them and they would run for ten years. That is not the case anymore.

Support and vulnerabilities are the biggest issues regarding Cisco Catalyst Switches. All these updates coming out every week create a headache for us, as we have to perform the updates.

Usage went down from ten to probably three.

Juniper

I do not deal with pricing, so I do not have a preference.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are easy to implement. I want Cisco Catalyst Switches to be more reliable because in the past, you could install them and they would run for ten years, but that is not the case anymore. I give this product a rating of 9.

I use one Catalyst Switch as an edge switch and another as a core switch. The setup includes using all the SFP ports, and I intend to fully utilize them in the future. The environment is complex, with various components like virtual servers connected to physical servers that are linked to the switch.

Catalyst Switches are efficient and swift, which is valuable for my organization. I experience optimal speed and effective configuration, making them stand out compared to other switches. The PoE switches offer more ports on SFP, and it is efficient in use. 

Overall, the switches provide me with the value I expect in terms of speed and efficiency.

There could be improvements in the repeat configuration with some file integration that is currently missing. 

Additionally, I must consider the cost and benefits related to the feasibility study of my environment before purchasing the switches.

I have been using the Catalyst Switches for one year and a few months.

Since installation, I have not experienced any performance issues with the Catalyst Switches.

I have not exhausted the system, indicating no scalability issues, and the network growth is supported by the switches. I plan to use all the SFP ports in the future.

I am paying for Cisco support and would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

I previously used Cisco 3750 switches. I received a notification from Cisco about its retirement, prompting me to purchase Catalyst 9300. Before that, I bought 9200, but 9300 is currently in use.

The initial setup was quick, taking about forty-eight hours to transition to Catalyst 9300. The configuration was done by the vendor, ensuring what I had on 3750 matched that of 9300.

The setup and maintenance are handled by the vendor.

Other switches are considered for smaller expansions like MiniFX yet not for the core infrastructure. I have been using Cisco Switches for over six or seven years.

Before choosing Cisco Switches, it is important to consider the cost and benefits. Proper feasibility studies of the environment should be conducted to avoid underutilization. 

I would rate Catalyst Switches nine out of ten. 

They are recommended for environments where security is crucial and efficient performance is required.

I use Cisco Catalyst Switches to provide network services at the service provider level. They are used for network distribution and to maintain diversity in my network design, including OEM diversity.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are valuable for their reliability and performance. They offer MACsec and IPsec encryption. These switches are modular, allowing for functionality to be configured as required. They are also essential in maintaining network diversity to prevent large-scale outages.

The configuration options on the Cisco Commerce website could be more efficient. The process is not straightforward and takes a long time.

I have used Cisco Catalyst Switches for around five years.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are reliable, with good performance and added security features.

I transitioned from using another vendor to Cisco. My previous experience includes working with Juniper.

Although Juniper is cheaper, Cisco provides unique features that justify their pricing.

I have experience with Juniper Mist and Juniper QFX Switches.

Switching to IBM was part of my career transition, and I recommend considering Cisco for its reliability and unique features. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

The main use cases we have include network phone and wireless access points.

The features that I like the most with Cisco Catalyst Switches probably would be the access to the console.

I am very impressed with the end-to-end visibility offered by Cisco.

The operational efficiency of Cisco in my IT environment is well assessed.

Cisco Catalyst Switches can be improved in many areas.

We have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches in this company for approximately seven or eight years.

I do not face any specific challenges with hybrid and distributed enterprise networks.

Cisco Catalyst Switches scale well with the growing needs of my organization, and the expansion process was smooth.

I evaluate customer service and tech support for Cisco as excellent.

Depending on the use that we had for it prior to Cisco Catalyst Switches, the company was phasing out one of the products we had and switching over to Cisco.

I believe the product that we were phasing out was Shortel.

I am 50/50 regarding whether Cisco optimizes the experience in a hybrid or distributed enterprise setup. I would rate this review an 8.5.

We are using Cisco Catalyst Switches for quite a long time, maybe around 15 to 20 years. We primarily use Cisco products for switches in our campus.

We use Cisco Catalyst Switches for firewall purposes.

The benefit Cisco Catalyst Switches brought to my company is that service requirements are minimal. It is easily adaptable to our system. We can easily adapt that switch in our system, in our existing system.

It easily integrates with other software.

The effectiveness of Cisco's software-defined access in our network configuration is very impressive.

The cost of Cisco Catalyst Switches could be improved. For maintaining the brand, Cisco has its own cost structure, which I understand. However, if it has to be much more familiarized in India, because Indian people usually consider cost in their decision-making. If Cisco is able to provide a budget-friendly product, then it will be much more useful. Since it has a higher price, some people are not buying. If it were available at budget-friendly prices, then more people would try the brand products.

We are using Cisco Catalyst Switches for quite a long time, maybe around 15 to 20 years.

There were no challenges with the installation of Cisco Catalyst Switches. It was very easy to deploy. The deployment may require approximately an hour or two hours.

The stability of Cisco Catalyst Switches is commendable. It is a sustainable product.

On a scale from one to 10, I would rate the technical support of Cisco at 10 out of 10. We consistently receive excellent support from Cisco.

Positive

While I'm not from a computer background, as a member of the purchase committee, I choose Cisco products because the name itself is a brand. They maintain their reputation, and there is excellent service available. If any service is needed, we can easily obtain it.

I have not yet used Cisco Catalyst Switches' automation features.

I cannot assess Cisco TrustSec for enhancing security as I am not familiar with it.

I have heard about the PoE capabilities of Cisco for deployment. I believe we have it in our college, though I'm not entirely certain. Another aspect I appreciate about Cisco is that they value women more than other companies, which influences my recommendations.

The stability of Cisco Catalyst Switches is commendable and sustainable. All parameters are quite good. As a purchase committee member in my college, I negotiate and buy good brands. When it comes to Cisco, I don't compare that product with any other. If management accepts, I recommend Cisco products.

The overall rating for Cisco Catalyst Switches is 10 out of 10.