Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

We use Cisco Catalyst Switches for the office network.

It can be expanded.

The integration is quite easy.

While it is scalable, it could be better.

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst Switches for more than two years.

We are using the latest version.

The stability is good. We have not had any stability issues with Cisco Catalyst Switches.

Cisco Catalyst Switches is a scalable product.

We have 450 people in our organization who use this solution.

We have no plans to increase usage at this time.

We don't have any issues with technical support.

When we report a problem, we receive the assistance we require.

Positive

We also use ATI.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. 

The configuration is easy.

The installation took less than an hour.

You can do the installation yourself.

This solution is being maintained by a team of three people.

The licensing, and maintenance fees are paid on a yearly basis.

You can also choose between a three-year and a five-year licensing fee.

When you select the longest subscription period, you will receive a discount.

No

I would recommend this solution to others.

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

We are using the Catalyst 9200 series as a network switch and the 9500 as a core switch. We sometimes use a 9300 for the distribution switch.

Catalyst switches are highly stable and easy to use. It's a technology well known by most engineers.

We are an enterprise end-user. We also consult for other government entities and recommend using certain technologies to them. I've been working at this business and using Catalyst Switches for a year now. 

Catalyst switches are highly scalable.

I'm satisfied with support from Cisco and the vendor as well as their partners here in Egypt.

It is a straightforward installation. You don't need anyone to install Catalyst Switches for you. You just add it to your network and then do the installation and configuration as well as the pre-setup preparations. It doesn't take a lot of time. You take the switch from the box and put it in the network, then configure it directly. The switch will only take about 30 minutes to configure.

Cisco licenses are yearly. A single 9000 series Catalyst switch is about 75,000 Egyptian pounds. It is kind of expensive. But compared to other switches, it will save you in the long run. You need to hire specialized engineers who know how to operate those devices, and some of them are rarer in Egypt, like FortiSwitch or HPE Switch. Most engineers know how to use Cisco Catalyst. You would need to hire a specialist engineer and train them, and that will cost money. There are other cheaper technologies, but for Cisco, the price is expected. 

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches 10 out of 10. I would recommend it. This is a leading technology, and the price is reasonable, especially the Catalyst switches I mentioned. Other types of Catalyst switches are more expensive, but the ones we use are more affordable. 

I use Catalyst Switches in the lines of our local networks. We also use ASR routers from Cisco in one. We have other branches and about 20 or 30 buildings. It's a very large network.

The most valuable features of Cisco Catalyst are the DHCP features that I use in our routers and the PfR connections. Someone said a long time ago that he who buys Cisco is never fired. They have good solutions. 

At present, we are adopting many cloud solutions. We are connected to several cloud platforms and do a lot of business in the cloud. So I think that in general, we don't need many features at the moment unless we want to create some applications on the cloud. But that's not the case right now. We are thinking of moving all the people from these 20 buildings to one building. So with all of them in the same building, we'll need to design a new architecture. We have the ACI in our data centers, so we must see how all of this works. We don't know if we'll go to SD-LAN too. So I don't know if we'll use Catalyst or another solution—a solution with ACI, SD-WAN, or SD-LAN. At this moment, I can't say because we are starting to think about this new design.

I've been using Catalyst Switches for about 25 years.

Catalyst Switches perform very well, and the network is stable. 

Catalyst Switches are scalable.

If we have a major problem, fixing it takes two or three days and six to eight engineers from Cisco. When they escalate a ticket, it goes through too many levels. Every time the issue is passed along to a new person at Cisco support, they ask the same questions repeatedly. However, if we have a problem that requires a quick fix, Cisco support can handle it in one or two hours. But if we need two or three guys from them, it gets complicated. I don't know if the problem is, but it seems like they spend too much time analyzing the problem and passing it along to other people. Other vendors like Palo Alto and Aruba resolve problems more quickly.

Having worked with Cisco for at least 25 years, I think it's easy, but I don't know if someone with less experience would say the same. It's easy because it's very fast. We have some labs where we implement things, and then it's mostly copy-paste — copy the configuration and paste into a new suite. So it's not difficult. Catalyst Switches don't require much maintenance. Sometimes we have problems in our network, but mostly they're not actually problems with the network itself. The business thinks that the problems are in the network, so we must call Cisco to help us prove that we don't have a problem. We can prove that, but if the data service is from Cisco, it's better. All of them. We have about seven or eight people in my company working directly with the Catalyst Switches.

Catalyst Switches are costly. When I started working with them 25 years ago, prices were a problem too. In my opinion, they are good, of course, and they are the answer to all of our questions. I can say that.

I rate Catalyst Switches nine out of 10. I would recommend them to others. I don't know when they will design a new edition of the bigger switches. Because if you have a branch, for instance, you a small Catalyst. You don't need a large Catalyst. But whether it's a small or big installation, I recommend Catalyst.

We have customers that use Cisco Catalyst Switches for SMB, enterprises, schools, colleges, and universities. We have worked with almost everything except the federal government.

The Cisco software ties all the hardware together better than the competition. Cisco used to license their IOS software to HPE for their own switches, which were decent switches as well. HPE has been through a bunch of different changes over the years and now has Aruba switches. 3Com was part of HP for a while and the ProCurve was the original HP switch that I remember.

Cisco Catalyst Switches do not have an open architecture and you have to buy into the Cisco architecture to be able to use them.

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

The solution is extremely stable and reliable, this has been proven from many years of use.

Cisco Catalyst Switches can be used in any sized company. We have customers in small to enterprise companies, with our largest being General Reinsurance. Multi-national companies would benefit the most from the use of Cisco switches. This is why the international community likes this solution because it can be used anywhere in the world.

The paid technical support is very good.

I have used many other switches, such as HPE, Juniper, and Aruba.

The installation is a definite effort to get everything set up and working correctly. They do not work out of the box. However, these days they have improved a lot and the new Cisco solutions today would be much easier to put together than the ones in the past.

The cost of Cisco switches is a little more expensive than the competition. However, as the saying goes, "you get what you pay for." If you want a reliable solution and other benefits, Cisco Catalyst Switches are worth the money. 

There are additional costs for support.

My advice for others looking to implement this solution would be to work with a reseller, such as us, that has a good history of working with Cisco and can give the customer a good short and long-term plan.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches an eight out of ten.

We use Cisco Catalyst Switches as access switches, for connecting to what we call the last mile within the office. We connect from the patch panel to the wall jack. 

We use layer three switchings to interconnect between branch sites.

It is easy to use. I have only had one course on Cisco Switches.

The pricing needs improvement.

Price stops entries in Africa. We are not at that level where IT is considered a very big business enabler.

When I compare with the competition, MikroTik or NETGEAR I can purchase the switch and use it for whatever I want. I don't have to add the license, or the BGP routing license, and an ERGP writing license. Other switches are the providers that work out of the box without additional hidden fees.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches since 2005.

We have 1,500 end users.

I have only ever contacted Cisco support once in the time that I have been using it, but it was not related to the switches. Rather, I contacted them regarding Cisco ISE.

We started out with Cisco Linksys in 2006, now we are fully using Catalyst.

It was very easy to install. The last switch I implemented took me 15 minutes to install and set up a complete network.

We have 15 admins to manage this solution

We love Cisco, but the price is very prohibitive. We don't require any licensing, we scaled down to 2960.

I would not recommend using this solution in Africa.

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

The most valuable features include the redundancy one and the spanning tree. We also use the power over the ethernet. Moreover, we like the RRP, virtual redundant routing and GLBP, which are primarily on the Cisco Switches.

In the future it would be nice to see a dynamic VLAN database that's not managed by another, say, Cisco product.

I would like for Cisco to come up with an affordable dynamic VLAN solution. This would mainly serve the purpose of network access control. My thinking is along the lines of that of my colleagues, that there are non-Cisco infrastructures available which are more affordable. This would give us the option of using Cisco Catalyst or of moving on to the competition. 

Cisco ACI is a feature I would also like to see. When it comes to automation, it would be good to be able to use Ansible or Puppet to run one's network and enforce compliance. Roadmap is the way to go, especially when it comes to network engineers. I would be very pleased if Cisco were to enable its product to work with these automation tools. This is where the challenge lies in deployment for most network engineers. Automation is key. 

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst Switches for around 13 or 14 years.

The solution is very stable, durable and resilient. We had many issues in regards to other people and products and upgraded these solution so that they would be on par with Cisco.

I have not had to make use of direct technical support. Mainly I have taken advantage of the one which is online and this works very well for me. There are no issues to report. It has provided me with much assistance, especially the forum, and I would rate it as pretty good. 

We have worked with switches from other vendors, specifically SP and Ubiquiti. Then we worked with Cisco, as well. However, multiple infrastructure mainly applies to Cisco and this is in accordance with our enterprise standards. This means that we deploy Cisco for all sites that we take over.

When it comes to the access points side, we found Cisco to be a bit pricey and have utilized a different product that we combined with the Cisco switches. 

The pricing is on the high end. Recently, at the beginning of this year, we actually did a  comparison of Cisco and HP products. As far as I see it, given the same specifications and features, Cisco is comparatively expensive.

Cisco delivers when it comes to business value. So, I would advise others to go for it. But, they should be aware of budgetary considerations vis-a-vis the pricing. This is key. 

The product is one which delivers, especially as concerns large enterprise networks that put an emphasis on visibility and the time it takes for deployment and reaction to situations. Keeping this in mind, I would say that Cisco Analyst is the best for me. 

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches as an 8.5 out of ten. 

We use this solution in our server room for end-user network conductivity.

One of the main features of this solution is it is easy to manage.

The security of the solution could be improved, it is really important to us.

I have been using this solution for two years.

The stability of the solution is good but could always improve.

The solution is scalable and we have approximately 1,000 computers using it.

The support is good.

I have previously used HP and other Cisco switches.

The installation could be easier.

We have five technicians for the deployment and maintenance.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for the switching capabilities.

The initial setup of the product is pretty simple and straightforward.

The solution is adding more automation capabilities.

The quality of a Cisco switch is very high. They are extremely stable.

Cisco should work to lower its costs. It's quite expensive right now. They force the customer to buy the DNA license and that shouldn't be the case.

Instead of making automation cheaper, they are making it more expensive and clients don't like it.

They really need to simplify their licensing and simplify moving to a controller base. 

The scalability is limited.

Cisco also owns Meraki, however, they keep these switches as separate products, and customers are confused by that. Meraki has a lot of features and a customer questions why those features are there and not here. Meraki also allows for more integrations with solutions such as HP, and it's harder to integrate Cisco. 

The same is true of Nexus switches, which basically do the same thing and yet everything is siloed. It's confusing for the clients. 

I've been using the solution for about 20 years. It's been two decades. I've had a lot of time to get to know the product.

Cisco switches are of very high quality, which makes them very stable. It's a very strong selling point for the product. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's very reliable.

The scalability is limited. There are other solutions that can do it better. Cisco is not number one in this respect - especially as more companies head toward the cloud. Luxul, for example, offers better scalability - if that is what a company is looking for.

We tend to use the solution quite extensively.

I've used Cisco for 20 years or so and therefore have had encounters with technical support. I would note that the first 15 or so years had been very great and I would describe them as very helpful and responsive. However, as of the last five years, I find they are going south. They aren't as good as they used to be. It's still okay. It's just not as good as it was.

Whereas in the past I've given them five out of five stars, now I would rate them at a four.

We didn't previously use a different solution. We're mostly a Cisco shop.

The initial setup is not overly complex. To set up a switch is not a big issue. I see Cisco is trying to go into the DNA to do some automation.  

Every site is different in terms of deployment and the number of switches/users. On every site, we have two engineers and we're also doing web support. The setup is a one-time thing and the switches are pretty stable, and therefore it doesn't take us much time to do an implementation so long as there are no hardware failures.

I handled the implementation myself. I did not need the assistance of a consultant or implementor. I have enough experience to handle it at this point.

I've used a few different switches and I wouldn't say that you necessarily get a better ROI just because you use Cisco.

The cost of the solution is quite high. There are other cheaper options. On Cisco, you're paying probably double or triple times the cost. 

Many people don't like the complexity. It should be simpler and offer a low cost. The reason people are looking for automation is that they are looking to lower costs, however, if you go to Cisco solutions, the automation solution is very expensive. This is the opposite of the customer expectations.

I do not do the purchasing directly and therefore I can't estimate an exact cost for the product.

I've used Juniper and HPE switches, and, if you were to compare them, I'd say there isn't too much of a difference. The functionality is pretty much the same.

You can also compare the solution to Luxul, which has better scalability.

We are a customer.

Cisco tries to move clients over to their own ecosystem so that they are only using Cisco from end-to-end.

The solution is very good for enterprises, however, it might be a bit much for a small company that may only need one switch.

If the costs are not a concern for an organization, I would recommend the product.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been very happy with the stability on offer, however, the pricing isn't the greatest and the licensing is confusing.