Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

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. 

Cisco offers DNS features over other vendors.

The product could be simpler and cheaper.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for over 5-10 years. We are using the 9000 series of the solution.

The product is stable.

Switches are scalable in terms of logical configurations at VLAN. It is scalable because it depends on whether it is a manageable or non-manageable suite.

The product is expensive. They charge for support. It comes with many options that are not understandable.

Aruba and Dell are offering switches, too.

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

We work on level 2 and level 3 switches to connect many branches.

These switches are stable. They work well and are easy to use.

Cisco switches are expensive.

I have been selling this solution for about 10 years.

They are stable.

I have not contacted their support. Another engineer has contacted them. We have our own two people for support.

We also deal with the HP ProCurve switch, but it is not as good in Libya.

It is not complex now because we have CCNA and CCNP engineers. We have two engineers who are certified with Cisco. Overall, we have three people who work with this solution.

We implemented and finished a big project for a company. The company is still working with the same components that we installed. For deployment, I have two people with me, but in our company, we have a big team of 20 people.

They are expensive.

I would recommend these switches to others. Cisco is a good company.

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

I am using Cisco Catalyst Switches for my network.

The most valuable features of Cisco Catalyst Switches are that they are very common. If you talk to someone most likely they will have a Cisco Catalyst Switch, they will not mention other names, such as Juniper, ProCurve, Dell, or anything else. The most common product in networking in my country is Cisco. Everywhere you go they talk about Cisco.

The overall performance of Cisco Catalyst Switches is very good.

The management of Cisco Catalyst Switches could be improved. 

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

Cisco Catalyst Switches is a stable solution.

This solution is scalable.

Cisco has superior technical support, but it has to be paid for.

I have used other solutions in the past similar to Cisco Catalyst Switches, such as Dell Switches.

Cisco Catalyst uses the standard CLI and you get used to it if you take some courses, such as CCNA, CCNP, and CCIE. They are all the same, but for Dell, they have their own commands. They differ a bit from Cisco.

You have to have someone with extensive knowledge to do the implementation of the Cisco Catalyst Switches. You have to read a lot of manuals and the manuals, are segregated. It's not only one small manual that you need to read and you have all the information you need. 

You need someone with experience to implement this solution.

If you compare Cisco to other products, Cisco is more expensive. If you choose a 7000 series switch it will be a very pricy system. The support from Cisco is an additional service.

Cisco Catalyst Switches uses jargon that is very much different from other vendors. If use a ProCurve solution or others, it seems every vendor has its own dialect of the command. There is no common ground, there are some similarities between each other, but in real management, they differ from each other.

Those wanting to implement Cisco Catalyst Switches should read a lot about them.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a ten out of ten.

Cisco Catalyst Switches is used for large networks with 48 ports for example.

More than just a few switches on a small scale, they can be used on the main switch of a small or medium-sized business. It is determined by the size. It's heavy-duty, you only need to configure it once, and it'll keep running for several years. We have run it for ten years with no problems.

With Cisco Catalyst Switches, everything is working perfectly. We have not had issues with this solution. 

Everything I need is available.

For the time being, Cisco Catalyst Switches are working well, but they are not PoE switches, which is why we would consider replacing them.

If I were to change later, I would go with the PoE version.

We have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches in my company for more than 10 years.

Cisco Catalyst Switches is a stable solution.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are scalable.

With the exception of WiFi, we have 40 users connected. We have small switches in some offices, and some users are connected to these small switches via a single cable that leads to the Catalyst.

Currently, we have no plans to increase our usage.

Technical support is easygoing.

We have experience with Cisco and TP-Link.

It is easy to implement on the network, and easy to work with. It is not complicated.

There is little to no maintenance required.

There are no licensing fees required.

I was looking for the UniFi switch or access point because it was the first time I heard of it, so I was looking for feedback on it in comparison to TP-Link and Cisco.

It's one of the best switches, professional and fast. I would recommend these switches to others who are considering using them.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for long connections. It is deployed on-prem.

We're using seven Cisco devices in the head office.

The stability could be improved.

I have been using this solution for about three years.

It's stable, but it could be better.

The solution is scalable.

We haven't needed to contact technical support because we haven't had any issues so far.

Previously, we used Fortinet.

We integrated the solution ourselves.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

I would recommend these switches for those who want to start using them.

We primarily use the solution for switching. Some devices are used for ethernet connections. Some we're using with our data center. For example, it's what's in use in the data center. It's got quite a few different applications.

I work in security with various switches and routers, and I find the product, without getting into too much detail, quite secure.

It's a stable solution.

We find the product to be scalable.

The device itself is quite good and reliable.

The security is very good.

Its implementation is quite simple as there's good documentation you can reference. 

The cost of the product is a little high. They should work to lower it a bit.

There's a ban on my country and therefore I can't get Cisco support if I need it. It's not allowed.

I've been using the solution for more than 15 years at this point. 

In terms of stability, the solution has been reliable. We haven't had issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. the performance is pretty good overall.

For our purposes, the solution has been scalable. You can expand it if you need to.

We have more than 1,000 people using the switches. 

We tend not to have to worry about dealing directly with technical support. If we run into issues, we tend to reference the technical documentation and that always has included any information we've needed to find the answers we need ourselves. 

That's important as Cisco does not offer direct support to my country. We are banned from getting support services delivered to us.

I'm also familiar with Huawei devices.

That said, we only really technically deal with Cisco switches.

The installation of Cisco is easy. They have great official documentation and have a good design overall which makes it easy for everyone who needs to run the installation.

It takes about five to ten minutes to install a switch for our technical personnel.

The team that can deploy and manage the switches include ten to 20. That includes managers and technical support people.

The solution can be a bit pricey. That said, I can't speak to exact pricing as a different department handles licensing details. 

We are using various versions of the solution. We don't just use one kind. We have many different ones.

I'm not sure if I would recommend the solution to others. Cisco is a large and technical company. A switch that is just as good with less trouble is Huawei.

That said, I've had no issues with it and would rate the product at a ten out of ten.

We are supporting many clients. Some of them have Cisco switches, and some of them have HPE. We are supporting their network and solving any requests. We are doing troubleshooting for them. For most of the clients, we do full support of the network, but it also depends on the service that they took from our company. Some of them don't give us access to their core switches, which is very rare. Most of the clients give us full access. If they need, for example, a new route, we edit the VLAN port configuration, port channels, etc.

We are also managing the wireless controller for all clients. We are supporting them by creating the wireless connection and changing the password periodically.

I recently discovered the DHCP feature. There is a feature with which you can make the core act as a DHCP server, and it will distribute the IPs for every device. I discovered this feature recently, and it is very nice.

Its price can be improved. Some devices can be very expensive.

I have been working with this solution for around two years.

It is stable.

If you follow the recommendation of Cisco, it is scalable. Sometimes, when there is anything wrong with it, we open a ticket with Cisco, and they recommend upgrading the IOS. 

We have many clients here. Most of them have Cisco. We have three clients with HPE. 

They are very nice and very quick.

Most of them are easy, especially if you have a stack solution. If it is arranged as a stack, it would be very easy to do an installation, and it also takes a shorter time than the standalone. One of the clients I worked with had a stack solution, and it was very easy. We just had to erase everything, put the new switch in there, and connect the stack cables and power cables. That was it. Sometimes, it can take the configuration from the flash.

The number of people required depends on the topology. If it is a big topology, you need two or three people. If it is a small topology, you need less number of people.

It is overpriced. Some devices can be very expensive.

Most of the clients have a contract with Cisco for two or three years.

There are different categories of switches. There are Layer 2 and Layer 3 switches. In Layer 2 switches, 2650 is nice. It is a good switch. In Layer 3, most of the switches are good.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.