Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

Cisco Catalyst Switches serve as my main solution for providing reliable and secure connectivity across our offices and network infrastructure at Gigabit Technologies. Day to day, I use them for VLAN configuration, trunking, access port management, and troubleshooting connectivity issues. For example, when onboarding a new user or device, I typically configure the appropriate switch port, assign it to the required VLAN, verify connectivity, and check the switch logs and interface status if there are any issues.

Cisco Catalyst Switches have helped me mainly with reliable LAN connectivity, network segmentation, and troubleshooting. For example, in our office environment, I use Catalyst Switches to connect users, IP phones, printers, and other devices while separating traffic using different VLANs. Day to day, they help me quickly identify and resolve issues such as a new user losing network connectivity, a faulty switch port, or a VLAN trunk configuration problem. I can check interface status, VLAN assignments, MAC addresses, and logs to isolate the issue and restore connectivity.

Apart from day-to-day connectivity and troubleshooting, I also use Cisco Catalyst Switches for network security and stability. I work with features such as VLANs, STP, port security, EtherChannel, and access control configuration. They have been especially useful for maintaining a stable network, isolating different types of traffic, and quickly troubleshooting issues when they occur.

Cisco Catalyst Switches have had a positive impact by providing stable connectivity, better network segmentation, and easier troubleshooting. For example, using VLANs and proper switch configuration, we have been able to separate user, voice, and other network traffic while maintaining a reliable LAN. They have also made troubleshooting more efficient because I can quickly check port status, VLAN assignment, MAC addresses, and logs to identify connectivity problems. Overall, this has helped reduce network downtime and made day-to-day network management more organized and predictable.

I haven't formally measured a specific percentage reduction in downtime, so I would not want to give an inaccurate number. However, Catalyst Switches have made troubleshooting noticeably faster. For example, when a user loses connectivity, I can quickly check the switch port, VLAN assignment, MAC addresses, interface errors, and logs to narrow down the problem. In my routine cases, this allows me to identify the issue within a few minutes instead of spending much longer checking the network manually. The main improvement has been faster issue identification and reduced disruption to users.

One of the main challenges with hybrid and distributed networks is maintaining consistent connectivity, security, and visibility across different locations and environments. Troubleshooting can also be difficult when traffic moves between on-premises networks, branch offices, and cloud services. Cisco helps address this through centralized management, network segmentation, monitoring, automation, and security features. For example, if a branch user has a connectivity issue, I can use centralized monitoring and switch information to identify whether the problem is with the local switch, VLAN, uplink, or a connection to another network. This helps reduce troubleshooting time and keeps configuration more consistent across locations.

I would assess Cisco as operationally efficient in our IT environment, particularly for network reliability and troubleshooting. Cisco Catalyst Switches provide good visibility into interface, VLAN errors, logs, and connectivity, which helps us identify and resolve issues quickly. From an operations perspective, the main benefits are stable performance, consistent configuration, and stronger monitoring capabilities. There is still room for improvement in automation and centralized management, especially when managing a large number of devices, but overall, it supports efficient day-to-day network operations.

Cisco can optimize the experience in a hybrid distributed enterprise by providing centralized visibility, consistent network policies, automation, and monitoring across different locations. For example, in a distributed environment, centralized management can help us maintain consistent configuration across branches, offices, and on-premises networks. Monitoring and analytics also help identify connectivity or performance issues more quickly. Network segmentation and security controls help keep different types of traffic isolated while users and applications access control resources across location and cloud environments. Overall, it helps reduce the complexity of managing multiple sites while improving visibility and operational efficiency.

End-to-end visibility helps us troubleshoot more efficiently because we can identify where a problem is occurring instead of checking every device individually. For example, if a user reports connectivity issues, we can look at switch ports, VLAN, interface errors, uplink status, and relevant logs to narrow down the root cause. It also helps us distinguish between a local network issue and a problem somewhere else in the infrastructure. This reduces troubleshooting time, improves root cause analysis, and helps minimize disruption to users.

In my opinion, the most useful features of Cisco Catalyst Switches are their reliability, strong Layer 2 and Layer 3 capabilities, VLAN and trunking support, STP, EtherChannel, and security features such as port security and 802.1x. I also find the monitoring and troubleshooting capabilities very useful because they make it easier to identify interface connectivity and performance issues. Overall, these features make Catalyst Switches practical for managing secure and stable enterprise networks.

The feature I rely on most in my daily work is VLANs and VLAN management. It is most important because it allows us to logically separate different types of network traffic such as user, voice, servers, and guest devices while using the same physical switching infrastructure. For example, when adding a new user or device, I can assign the switch port to the appropriate VLAN and verify the connectivity. VLAN configuration also makes troubleshooting easier because I can quickly determine whether an issue is related to the device, port, VLAN, or uplink.

One feature I would also mention is the troubleshooting and monitoring capabilities. Being able to check interface status, MAC address table, VLAN assignments, logs, and interface statistics is very useful in day-to-day operations. It helps me quickly identify where a connectivity problem is occurring and resolve it without unnecessary downtime.

My impression is that Cisco provides strong end-to-end visibility, especially for monitoring network health and troubleshooting connectivity issues. I can get useful information about switch interface, VLANs, traffic errors, device status, and logs, which helps me understand where a problem is occurring. For a distributed environment, having visibility across different network components is particularly helpful because it reduces the need to troubleshoot each device independently. I think the main opportunity for improvement would be bringing even more information into a single intuitive dashboard and making the correlation between network events and application or user impact clearer.

One area I would like to see improvement is making configuration and troubleshooting more straightforward, especially for engineers managing a large number of switches. Some tasks can require multiple CLI commands and checking different outputs to identify an issue. Better centralized visibility, more intuitive automation tools, and clearer troubleshooting information would make day-to-day operations more efficient. That said, the CLI gives experienced network engineers a lot of control, so I would see these improvements as making the existing capabilities easier and faster to use rather than replacing them.

For on-premises deployment, I would like to see easier centralized management and more automation for larger switch environments. Firmware upgrades, configuration changes, and troubleshooting can take significant time when they have to be handled across many physical devices. Better zero-touch provisioning, simplifying firmware management solutions, stronger integration with monitoring and IT management platforms, and more proactive hardware health alerts would make operations easier. I would also like better visibility into hardware capabilities and lifecycle status from a single dashboard so we can identify potential issues before they affect users.

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst Switches for several years, primarily handling configuration, VLAN, trunking, STP, EtherChannels, inter-VLAN routing, and troubleshooting. I have also worked with switch security features and network monitoring as part of day-to-day operations.

Cisco Catalyst Switches have been stable in our environment. We have generally experienced reliable connectivity and consistent performance under normal workload. When issues do occur, they are usually related to configuration, cabling, interfaces, and connected devices rather than the switch platform itself. The available monitoring and troubleshooting tools also make it easier to identify and resolve those issues quickly, which helps maintain overall network stability.

In my experience, Cisco Catalyst Switches scale well as the network grows. We can add more switches, VLANs, users, and network segments without having to redesign the entire environment. For example, when expanding a network or adding a new office area, we can deploy additional Catalyst Switches and integrate them into the existing switches infrastructure using standard configurations such as VLAN, trunk ports, and EtherChannel. Centralized management and automation can also help maintain consistency as the number of devices increases.

Overall, I have found Cisco support to be good, particularly when dealing with more complex network issues. The technical documentation, troubleshooting resources, and support cases are useful when an issue goes beyond normal day-to-day troubleshooting. For critical problems, having access to Cisco technical support and escalation options is valuable. The main thing is that the level of support depends on the support contact and service level the organization has purchased.

I would rate Cisco customer support around 8 out of 10.

The main reason for moving towards Cisco Catalyst Switches was reliability, stronger enterprise networking features, better troubleshooting capabilities, and easier integration with our existing Cisco infrastructure. The biggest difference for us was having more consistent management and better visibility into things such as VLANs, interfaces, logs, and network performance. That made day-to-day troubleshooting and network administration more straightforward.

I have seen a positive operational return mainly through reduced troubleshooting time and fewer network disruptions. I do not have a formal financial ROI figure or a documented reduction in headcount, so I would not want to give an inaccurate number, but a practical example is troubleshooting connectivity issues. With Catalyst Switches, I can quickly check interface status, VLANs, MAC addresses, errors, and logs to identify the root cause. Issues that might previously have required an extensive manual investigation can often be isolated much faster. The main ROI for us is therefore better network reliability, less time spent troubleshooting, and reduced impact on users rather than directly reducing the number of network staff.

My experience is that Cisco Catalyst Switches can involve a relatively significant upfront investment, especially when you consider the hardware, support, and licensing requirements. The total cost depends on switch model, required features, scale of deployment, and licensing package. For setup, the initial configuration and deployment can also require an experienced network engineer, particularly in a large environment. However, once the switches are properly deployed, their reliability, management capabilities, and troubleshooting features can help reduce operational efforts. From a licensing perspective, I think it is important to understand exactly which features and support services are included, so the organization can choose the appropriate licensing level and avoid paying for capabilities it does not need.

We evaluated a few alternatives before choosing Cisco Catalyst Switches, including Aruba and HP and some other enterprise switching options. We compared them mainly on reliability, performance, and security features, management, scalability, support, and total cost of ownership. Cisco Catalyst Switches fit well with our existing network environment and provided the features and management capabilities we needed. The existing Cisco expertise within the team was also a practical consideration because it made deployment and ongoing troubleshooting easier.

I would recommend first understanding your network requirements, such as the number of users and devices, VLANs, security requirements, scalability, and the expected traffic levels. Then choose the Catalyst model and licensing that match those requirements rather than paying for features you will not use. I would also recommend planning the deployment carefully, including configuration standards, monitoring, backups, and firmware management. Finally, make sure the team has the necessary Cisco skills or training because that makes day-to-day management and troubleshooting much easier. I would rate this product 8 out of 10 overall.

In my organization, we primarily use Cisco Systems Catalyst Switches across the access, distribution (aggregation), and core network layers. They play a critical role in delivering stable and scalable connectivity throughout our infrastructure.

At the access layer, we use PoE-enabled Catalyst switches to power and connect devices such as CCTV cameras, IP phones, wireless access points, printers, and end-user desktops. These switches provide reliable internet and LAN connectivity while simplifying deployments through Power over Ethernet.

At the distribution (aggregation) layer, Catalyst switches connect multiple access switches to the core network. We use Link Aggregation (LAG/EtherChannel) with dual 10Gbps uplinks combined into 20Gbps logical interfaces, ensuring higher bandwidth, redundancy, and improved resilience between access, distribution, and core layers.

At the core layer, Catalyst switches serve as the backbone of the network, interconnecting all segments efficiently. They also handle Layer 3 functions such as routing and DHCP services across approximately 20 subnets, delivering strong performance and dependable network operations.

One of the standout qualities of Cisco Catalyst Switches is their reliability and durability. They maintain excellent uptime, rarely experience failures or freezes, and continue operating effectively even in environments with unstable power conditions.

I have also used Catalyst switches in an ISP/WISP environment, where they were deployed to connect uplink radios, power third-party PoE devices, and perform inter-VLAN routing for customer segmentation.

From legacy models such as the 2960 and 3570 to newer platforms like the 9300 series, Cisco Catalyst switches have consistently proven to be dependable, high-performing, and enterprise-ready solutions for on-premises network environments.

Cisco Systems Catalyst Switches have positively impacted our organization in several key ways.

First, they have significantly improved network reliability and uptime. The switches operate consistently with minimal failures, which has reduced downtime and ensured stable connectivity for users, business applications, IP phones, CCTV systems, and wireless networks.

Second, their strong performance and scalability have allowed us to grow the network efficiently. With features such as VLAN segmentation, Layer 3 routing, PoE support, and link aggregation, we have been able to support increasing business demands without major infrastructure challenges.

Third, they have lowered long-term operational costs. Although the initial investment is higher, their durability and long lifespan mean fewer replacements, less maintenance, and better return on investment over time.

Finally, the availability of Cisco documentation, training resources, and a large support community has made deployment, troubleshooting, and management much easier for our IT team.

Overall, Cisco Catalyst Switches have provided a stable, secure, and scalable foundation for our organization’s network infrastructure.

One thing that stands out about Cisco Systems Catalyst Switches is their reliability and durability. They maintain strong uptime and do not easily fail or freeze, even in environments with inconsistent power supply.

Another notable feature is support for LAG interfaces (EtherChannel), which improves bandwidth, redundancy, and overall link performance between access and distribution switches.

They also support a robust DHCP environment, efficiently serving up to 20 subnets, while providing strong PoE capabilities for devices such as IP phones, CCTV cameras, wireless access points, and other powered network devices. This makes them highly suitable for both enterprise and ISP environments.

From a cost-efficiency perspective, the older Catalyst 2960 series switches that were deployed many years ago have remained operational for nearly 20 years and still perform reliably today. That level of longevity represents an excellent return on investment and highlights the long-term value of Cisco Catalyst Switches.

Cisco Systems Catalyst Switches are highly regarded for their performance, reliability, and enterprise-grade capabilities. My main reservation, however, is the pricing.

The cost of Cisco Catalyst Switches—and Cisco products in general—is relatively high, especially in many African markets where organizations often need to balance budget constraints with required functionality.

There are alternative vendors that offer comparable features at a lower price point. While they may not always match Cisco’s ecosystem, stability, or full feature depth, many businesses still choose them because of the significant cost savings.

Another consideration is licensing, which can add to the overall total cost of ownership depending on the deployment model and required features.

Overall, Cisco Catalyst Switches remain premium enterprise solutions, but when compared with other OEMs, their higher acquisition and licensing costs can be a major deciding factor for cost-conscious organizations.

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

I gave it a 10 out of 10 because Cisco Catalyst Switches does not fail. It is very predictable.

What you tell it to do is exactly what it does. There are no disappointments while using Cisco Catalyst Switches.

It is the perfect switch to use. Cisco Catalyst Switches is very stable.

In terms of scalability, Cisco Systems offers modular switch platforms where you can deploy a chassis-based system and expand capacity as network demands grow.

One of the strongest scalability advantages—especially at the core layer—is the ability to procure additional line cards and install them with relative ease. This allows organizations to increase port density, uplink capacity, and feature capabilities without replacing the entire switch.

For core network environments, this modular design provides a practical and cost-effective path for future expansion while maintaining performance and operational continuity.

The first switch we used was Cisco Catalyst Switches.

I can say in terms of money saved because up until now, in the previous places where I have worked and also now, we still use the older model, the 2960 model Cisco Catalyst Switches, which has been in existence for almost 20 years and up until now it still functions very well.

I would say that is a good return on investment on those devices.

For deployment costs, we handled the network infrastructure setup internally, so there was little to no external implementation cost.

One major advantage of Cisco Systems products is the strong availability of documentation, training resources, and technical knowledge. Cisco provides extensive learning materials, configuration guides, and best practices that make deployment and troubleshooting easier.

In many cases, when issues arise, you can quickly find solutions through the large Cisco community, forums, or professionals who have previously handled similar scenarios—often before needing to escalate to official Cisco support.

We evaluated other options. Other options we evaluated were HP Aruba and Juniper.

Especially in the internet service provider environment, you need network devices that are highly durable and capable of delivering reliable services to customers consistently.

You need equipment that can withstand power fluctuations, operate for long periods without requiring power cycles, and remain stable under continuous demand. In service-driven environments, predictability and uptime are critical, and devices must not fail because of minor voltage instability.

That is one of the qualities that stands out most to me about Cisco Systems Catalyst Switches—their durability and long-term reliability.

While other vendors may offer similar features and functionality, Cisco devices consistently stand out in terms of hardware endurance, operational stability, and lifecycle value. Even today, it is common to find Cisco switches that are nearly 20 years old still functioning effectively in modern network environments.

If you are looking for a long-term investment in network infrastructure—something durable, predictable, stable, and scalable—Cisco Catalyst Switches are an excellent choice.

Based on my experience, I would rate this product 10/10.

Cisco Catalyst Switches serve as edge devices in our Software-Defined Access network to connect user devices, with intermediate devices also deployed throughout the SDA infrastructure.

A specific example of how I use Cisco Catalyst Switches to connect user devices involves our health organization, which has many different types of devices. SDA has a profiling VLAN, and I have profiled each device type in the SDA Catalyst Center. Once a device connects, it receives MAC address and IP details and gets assigned the appropriate profiling accordingly.

In SDA, processes are more automated. I have a profile for each device that I allow to connect to my network. Once a device connects, it automatically goes through profiling via ISE (Identity Services Engine), which determines whether the device is allowed to connect to the network, assigns IP details, and enables connectivity with the proper IP.

Cisco Catalyst Switches have positively impacted my organization. As a health organization with many different types of devices connected to my network, it is very helpful for Cisco Catalyst Switches to get devices up and running without issues, unless there is a major hardware problem. So far everything is working fine. As a critical network for the hospital, I need patient care and all systems to remain operational. Cisco Catalyst Switches provide good support by keeping the switch up and running.

I have definitely noticed easier onboarding. With SDA, onboarding a device is now more straightforward. I simply plug the device in, and Catalyst Center handles the necessary tasks by adding it as a new member into the stack and performing all necessary backend configuration, including IOS upgrades. Managing and uptime are now quite straightforward and easy. I have not had any recent issues with Catalyst Center.

The best features Cisco Catalyst Switches offer are easy stacking and troubleshooting. Connectivity, stacking, power stacking, and everything related to these functions are really easy to maintain. If I need to replace a switch, the process is easy; maintenance is simple, and configuration management is very straightforward.

I can stack up to eight switches in one stack with Cisco Catalyst Switches, which is excellent. If I have a location that requires more capacity, I can take advantage of the stacking capability to add up to eight switches in one stack. Additionally, I have the power stacking option, which provides extra power in case of a power failure on one switch. The power stacking feature allows me to share power across the stack, which is very beneficial. Cisco Catalyst Switches also come in different models with varying PoE levels, including the 9300 UMX, 9300 LM, and 9300H.

Cisco Catalyst Switches appear to be quite up to date hardware-wise.

There should be more integration with other network monitoring tools, and I need more alerts based on criticality levels. If there were a web access option apart from Catalyst Center, that would be beneficial.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a 9 out of 10 because it meets my current needs. I would appreciate improved scalability. The number eight for stacking has been standard for a while. If this could be improved to allow more than eight switches in one stack, it would be valuable. I need more capacity, and having the option to add more than eight switches into one stack rather than maintaining multiple stacks would be very helpful.

I do not have any other changes or upgrades I would recommend for Cisco Catalyst Switches at this time.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for approximately four to five years.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are quite stable. I do not experience many issues unless the hardware is very old. The newer models are definitely quite stable, and I do not need to perform much maintenance work.

The scalability of Cisco Catalyst Switches is good. One stack can have eight switches stacked together, which is excellent. Eight switches provide a considerable number of ports, with 48 ports per switch multiplied by 8, allowing me to connect several hundred devices to one stack.

Customer support for Cisco Catalyst Switches has been good so far. I have had no issues with technical support or pre-sale support, and the quality has been quite good.

I would rate customer support for Cisco Catalyst Switches an 8 on a scale of 1 to 10.

I previously used the same Cisco solution, but I did not have a single centralized management console to push configurations. I had to log into each device individually and perform manual work. Even during installation, I had to manually perform firmware upgrades and stack configuration. With Catalyst Center, everything is now automated, and I simply need to plug the device into the existing stack, then Catalyst Center handles all necessary tasks to get the device up and running.

My team plans and executes the migration from legacy access switches to current Catalyst architectures by planning a parallel upgrade. Parallel means I have the old stack in the same rack, and I place the new switches in the same stack with everything connected and configured. On the actual change migration day, I remove one patch from the old switch and connect it to the new one to minimize downtime. It is a manual and lengthy migration, but it minimizes downtime. The entire stack will not go down; only one device will be affected, and it will be back up within a couple of minutes with the new switch. I can test the new stack before going live since it is configured and set up in the same rack, allowing me to connect a few devices and test connectivity and perform all necessary tests before the actual migration.

I have definitely seen a return on investment with network methods including SDA, Software-Defined Networking, SD-WAN, SDA, and ACI. These solutions provide an easy way to manage maintenance, perform upgrades, and complete daily business-as-usual work. The centralized interface with all necessary features is really beneficial. I do not need too many people to accomplish the required tasks.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Cisco Catalyst Switches is normal, as Cisco is well-known for switching and routing devices. The cost is slightly higher compared to other vendors available in the current market, but considering the long uptime and reliability, the pricing is acceptable.

Before choosing Cisco Catalyst Switches, I did not evaluate other options extensively, but I believe HP Aruba is one alternative available. However, Cisco is well-known for Catalyst Center and switching and routing devices, so choosing Cisco was straightforward given their support framework and sales and marketing presence.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a 9 on a scale of 1 to 10.

Regarding Cisco Catalyst Switches' AI capabilities, I believe the governance and security features are good. However, I am not currently using much AI functionality since I work for a health organization where patient information is the priority. I have restrictions on using AI-related tools outside the organization. I am planning to use voice bots with my contact center platforms, and Cisco provides good governance for that functionality, though some people remain hesitant about implementing AI.

Regarding Cisco Catalyst Switches' AI capabilities more broadly, I believe the offering is good to a certain level. Since I have not gathered much data on this feature, I cannot fully confirm its effectiveness, but I would say it is acceptable.

I am currently not using any Python or Ansible scripts because I use Catalyst Center for deployments, upgrades, and configurations. I use whatever automation options are available out of the box in Catalyst Center.

My operations teams are not using any AI features due to organizational restrictions. I use third-party monitoring tools like SolarWinds for device monitoring.

I definitely require downtime for scheduled maintenance windows for any upgrades or configuration changes. I perform this work during scheduled maintenance windows, which minimizes business impact.

I have not integrated any cloud management platforms; I only use Cisco Catalyst Center, also known as DNAC, for all maintenance, migration, and upgrade work.

If anyone is searching for a reliable, scalable, and easy-to-maintain device, Catalyst Center is the best option for the access layer. Specifically, for someone seeking access layer switches, Cisco Catalyst Switches is one of the best solutions I have encountered, offering reliability, easy maintenance, easy upgrades, and user-friendly operation.

I was working with L3 and L2 switches. Currently, if there is new infrastructure, they will work with L3 switches as a core switch. We are in the middle, and at the perimeter level, a firewall will be positioned. From there, they will configure one single interface as a management interface. From the management interface, it will connect to the core switch. In the core switch itself, we are creating multiple interface VLANs and creating a DHCP lease for that VLAN. Then we need to create a return route on the firewall side. Only then will the VLANs get the internet. For IP route, we are going to give the default gateway as the management IP of the firewall. Then all the VLANs will pass through the firewall end. This was the common configuration for the core switch levels.

At the next level, POE switches will release power plus, which means the traffic. It is only used for the access points and cameras.

Currently, I am working in the implementation team. They assign a ticket to me, and I go to a data center or anywhere to work on that. Other than that, if any troubleshooting calls arise, they assign them in tickets. I receive a mail and through that, I take a remote call or a virtual meeting with customers. I remotely resolve issues because I am currently working in a partner company.

I am currently working with Cisco solutions and multiple solutions as well. In Cisco, I am currently in cybersecurity.

The best feature is that we can manage this in the DNA license. If we have a DNA license, we can manage it in that platform. Other than that, Catalyst switches can be converted to the cloud platform as Meraki. We can convert that with the serial number and use it in the cloud console as a Meraki dashboard. That is another use case.

I work with Nexus switches and Catalyst switches, both of them.

I work with firewalls, switches, access points, and SASE.

Cisco Catalyst Switches uses a common protocol. We can see the documents and what the things are in every scenario because Cisco is the enterprise switch. Everyone can see the commands and we can get the commands online. We can find the troubleshooting commands we need to set. But in other competitors' switches, we cannot get those commands. That is the best way. Additionally, Cisco switches rarely need RMA support. If I purchase Cisco Catalyst Switches once, they will be used for more than ten years. We will not encounter anything on the RMA side regarding replacement devices.

Pricing needs to improve. Competitors such as Arista, Aruba, and others are giving lifetime support.

In the enterprise network, we are facing issues at the stacking point. We are unable to stack the switches because of compatibility issues. Other than that, port channels exist. In most cases, the VLANs were not passing to the access switches level. What they will do is miss out on allowing the respective VLANs in the port channel. The spine-leaf concept will be there. In the spines, they do not allow the VLANs in the port channel level. That is why the down switches are unable to ping the upstream switches.

There is no other advice. These are the only couple of things: the firmware and customer support.

I have been using this solution for four or five years.

There are no challenges. Cisco Catalyst Switches is very easy to configure.

I have not seen new features introduced recently. When they introduce a new feature, such as AI guardrail, we can integrate Cisco Catalyst Switches to the AI guardrail for any AI security. Other than that, I have not seen any other new features in the switches. Viptela Manager exists from previously and we can manage all the switches with it.

Customer service is okay and fine.

If I raise a ticket, they will not come immediately. The time duration they take to come is very high.

I have five years of operational level experience. Currently, I am working fully in the security side, so there are limited calls only for the networking side. In the last one year, I have been working with firewalls and SASE, NetScope, and Zscaler. I switched to a security company one year ago. Previously, I was working in a networking-based company.

I have four years of experience in hybrid setups. In the previous company, I have full experience with Cisco Catalyst Switches.

Yesterday, I implemented one Catalyst 9500 switch. It is a star switch. I implemented it at one of our sites as a Nutanix star switch.

I am part of the implementation team.

The return on investment is positive.

Cost-effective alternatives exist. Arista offers the same switches and same capabilities as Cisco Catalyst Switches. In the data center side, Arista is very competitive to Cisco and they are doing data center switches. Compared to Cisco, they are providing more cost-effective options.

Aruba and Arista have only one common firmware for all switches. If I download one series with firmware version 7.0.1, I can use that firmware for all model switches.

I do not know much about improvement scales because we directly configure things. Currently, every year they are introducing new technology and new features, but on the switch side, nothing is up to mark. There are no new features that I can identify. Cisco Catalyst Switches is good. My overall review rating for this product is ten out of ten.

My main use case for Cisco Catalyst Switches is packet mirroring, which allows me to generate network packets and SPAN them to another packet analyzer.

I use the packet mirroring or traffic feeds from the switches to investigate issues with the analyzer by checking the logs when an end user raises a ticket and provides feedback about slowness or connection drops. We use the network analyzer to analyze and investigate those incidents.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are deployed in my organization in an on-premises environment for all switches. The same applies to Catalyst Center.

Catalyst Center performs exceptionally well. It centralizes all the switches, allowing me to generate reports. From the Catalyst Center dashboard, I can check the health level or status level of each switch. We are satisfied with that particular feature.

I have observed measurable results including less time spent checking switches and faster incident response. When conducting measurable or log investigations, each engineer would previously need to spend one or two hours checking the log if there was an issue. With the dashboard and Catalyst Center, we have managed to reduce that time by more than 75 percent.

The best features that Cisco Catalyst Switches offer include the firmware upgrade capability. I can check the firmware and receive alerts or notifications from Catalyst Center indicating that a firmware version is becoming outdated or if there is a vulnerability. I can obtain more information from Catalyst Center and upgrade accordingly.

This alerting has changed the way I plan and prioritize switch upgrades, as I can utilize this feature when there is scheduled downtime for my manufacturing plant. This is useful, and I can generate reports showing how many switches require upgrades and the required downtime for those switches to perform the upgrade.

For maintaining continuous forwarding during hardware faults or software upgrades across Cisco Catalyst Switches stacks and distribution pairs, I am currently utilizing Catalyst Center and am fully reliant on that feature.

I am considering Catalyst Center capabilities further. I have approximately 100 access switches from Cisco. Currently, I am required to configure the SPAN configuration on each switch individually, which takes a considerable amount of time. I would appreciate a platform that could centralize the configuration and allow one-click deployment or a few commands that could be pushed directly to those switches after importing or issuing those commands.

Cisco Catalyst Switches could be improved because we also have Nexus in our environment, and I have realized that Catalyst Center is not compatible with the Nexus environment. If it were possible, I would like compatibility support for the Nexus family of products.

Regarding Cisco Catalyst Switches' AI capabilities, the accuracy and reliability of its output are not truly accurate based on what I am asking for. For example, with log generation, if there is an error encountered such as a Spanning Tree issue or MAC address loop detection, when I try to use the AI capability to check the log, the answers I receive are not really accurate.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches since day one when the company started up in Malaysia.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are stable.

Cisco Catalyst Switches' scalability is good as the switches manage to support it. Some switches manage to support the stack feature, allowing me to create one logical switch from two or three physical switches.

The customer support is excellent as I raise tickets with a direct call to the Cisco TAC team, which responds immediately, allowing me to resolve the issue promptly. I would rate the customer support a 10 on a scale of one to 10.

I have yet to integrate Cisco Catalyst Center or Ansible Python templates into my switch provisioning workflows. Currently, I still manually configure the switches and onboard them to Catalyst Center manually.

My team plans and executes the migration from legacy access switches to current Catalyst architectures by checking the configuration of the current legacy switches and comparing the switch configuration to migrate it to the new switches before we do the cutover.

I have integrated centralized management frameworks such as Cisco Catalyst Center into my existing switch provisioning and maintenance routines by using the command line to point each switch to Cisco Catalyst Center and onboard it accordingly.

Regarding return on investment, I cannot provide comments on money saved, but in terms of time-saving, there is definite improvement. As I mentioned, I am utilizing the platform to do the firmware upgrade. Five years ago, before Catalyst Center, I was doing switch upgrades one by one, which took considerable time. Imagine having 100 switches today and needing to perform the firmware upload to each particular switch and upgrade accordingly 100 times. With the Catalyst Center feature assisting, I save a lot of time.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches overall a 10 on a scale of one to 10.

I give that rating because I am satisfied with all the output results. As I mentioned, regarding the maintenance level, firmware upgrade, report generation, and status viewing, I have managed to generate these outputs, and management was satisfied with the results.

My operations teams do not interact with AI-driven anomaly detection and baseline recommendations in Catalyst monitoring tools when investigating intermittent campus anomalies because I have not yet approved all kinds of AI in my environment. That is why I do not recommend all operations users utilize the AI feature from Cisco.

The advice I would give to others looking into using Cisco Catalyst Switches is that in terms of product quality, sustainability, and reliability, Cisco Catalyst Switches are the choice for the enterprise user.

Cisco Catalyst Switches serve as access, distribution, and core switches in my network design. I follow a Cisco hierarchical design for my network, using Cisco Catalyst Switches to switch traffic between multiple sites and route it to my firewall, which serves as the gateway.

Cisco Catalyst Switches represent the core or roots of my network, and they are exceptionally perfect and stable for all switching needs. For the access layer, I rely on Python and Ansible, using YAML playbooks to configure and automate tasks, which significantly improves my workflow by eliminating the need for box-by-box configuration.

I have not integrated with Cisco Catalyst Center yet; I use them as standalone devices.

Cisco Catalyst Switches have impacted my organization very positively because I can plug and forget them; they are exceptionally stable with no lost connections, outages, or hardware issues, maintaining amazing and stable performance.

I have noticed reduced downtime in a remarkable way. Previously, I faced downtime with other vendors lasting for days, occurring simultaneously across sites. After switching to Cisco Catalyst Switches, they have been up and running for two years without requiring intervention.

Cisco Catalyst Switches offer stability, reliability, and an efficient switching system, guaranteeing that packets and all data traffic are switched while all ports are connected and supporting all protocols and features needed in an enterprise.

Regarding stability, I have a switch that has been up and running for two years without any lag in traffic, disconnections, intermittent issues, or outages, demonstrating both reliability in switching data between sites and efficiency in traffic management.

Cisco Catalyst Switches support most Layer 2 and Layer 3 protocols, including Spanning Tree, MAC addresses, Ethernet, port security, and routing protocols like BGP and OSPF, ensuring comprehensive support of Layer 2 protocols, DHCP, and others.

Cisco Catalyst Switches provide outstanding governance and security. They are very secure due to their encryption and data security measures using hashing protocols and encryption protocols.

In terms of accuracy and reliability of output, Cisco Catalyst Switches are exceptionally accurate, providing reliable results regarding traffic consumption, MAC addresses, and details I need.

My operations teams use AI-driven anomaly detection and baseline recommendations in Cisco Catalyst monitoring tools, which I find very effective, although I personally prefer relying on CLI and self-analysis.

I would like developers to improve the GUI to contain all the features I need, as it currently has a GUI but misses some essential elements.

The GUI is not inclusive of everything I can do with the switches, only basic features. Improvements to both the GUI and the licensing system could greatly enhance Cisco Catalyst Switches' overall functionality.

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

To maintain continuous forwarding during hardware faults or software upgrades across Cisco Catalyst Switches stacks and distribution pairs, I rely on redundancy features like HSRP and virtual switching along with Cisco's nonstop forwarding for high availability.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are 100% stable.

Cisco Catalyst Switches' scalability is amazing; expanding my network is as simple as adding more switches and connecting them using ports and protocols like Spanning Trees.

Customer support for Cisco Catalyst Switches is great, although I usually do not rely on it as I prefer self-study and the Cisco Community for most issues.

I previously relied on cheap switches from Ubiquiti, Chinese vendors, or D-Link, but since switching to Cisco, everything has greatly improved.

To migrate from legacy access switches to current Cisco Catalyst architectures, I first conduct a survey, check port density, label ports, decide on VLANs, and migrate based on port needs, stacking switches and using HSRPs to maintain uptime.

I have seen a return on investment by saving time and avoiding many issues, with stable operations and fewer employees needed compared to before.

While I know the price for Cisco is high, it reflects the stability, reliability, and superior performance that keeps my network maintained.

I did not evaluate other options before choosing Cisco Catalyst Switches because I am a Cisco fan and always choose Cisco as my primary option.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches an eight out of ten. I chose eight out of ten because they are exceptional, considering the GUI and licensing issues.

I advise others looking into using Cisco Catalyst Switches to proceed, as they are great tools that save many outages and downtimes, ensuring stability and reliable data traffic.

My major use case for Cisco Catalyst Switches is networking. I basically have a completely on-premises environment for Cisco Catalyst Switches.

In general, my impression of the operational efficiency of Cisco for an IT environment is good.

An example of this operational efficiency is that I have internally tried my best to keep it over the maximum threshold of the device itself. Since this is fairly within the utilization limit, I do not have any proper calculation or the KPIs for such assessment. However, overall, from a production environment working perspective, I have found those to be well-suited and working as per the intended usage.

As for end-to-end visibility, my impression of that aspect that Cisco offers is positive. It does affect my troubleshooting, but in some cases, especially for the visibility overall, not from a single component perspective, I have special equipment and devices integrated separately with all these components, including Cisco Catalyst Switches. I am satisfied with that angle. I am not sure how much efficient their own standalone visibility devices or whatever facility they have provided for visibility is, but overall, since this is again on top of what they are using, I am satisfied with that.

Regarding hybrid distributed enterprise networks, I find that Cisco Catalyst Switches helps to address specific challenges in this hybrid and distributed enterprise setup network. Internally, for the hybrid and distributed aspect, I have internal management tools for the network equipment. Those are well integrated with all these components wherever possible. Mostly those are integrated and communicating well with all the components including Cisco Catalyst Switches. Overall, within the ecosystem, it is working well.

As a customer, what I like the most in the product is the peace of mind and quality. I have not faced any major issue at all and I am very much satisfied with the product quality and the intended use. It is fit to purpose.

The functionality that is most beneficial for my use case of Cisco Catalyst Switches is typical switch functionality. The typical switch core functionality of switching is the prime use case for me and that is the purpose of usage also internally.

I think Cisco could optimize the commercial model further to make Cisco Catalyst Switches better. The cost itself should be optimized.

Since I am working with Cisco Catalyst Switches, it is the same scenario as with routers. It has been more than ten years now.

Regarding scalability for Cisco Catalyst Switches, I would agree that it is 99 percent stable and reliable. That is the reason I have opted for Cisco.

As for scalability, it is easy to scale and expand with Cisco Catalyst Switches. I have never faced any issue with the scalability when there is any additional requirement for any additional device implementation or further extension to the existing network. This is fairly plug and play and it is all done.

I can briefly comment on technical support from Cisco; I like it and find it helpful. Technical support is another good aspect. I am very satisfied, have never faced any issue, and all their service level agreements are met when there is any requirement or any additional support request I have submitted through their portal. It is answered and resolved within the defined service level agreements.

If one is very bad and ten is very good, I would give a perfect score of ten out of ten for support.

The other switches I have been dealing with are Juniper. Concerning HP, I have worked with Juniper and HP.

As for the deployment part of Cisco Catalyst Switches, it is a bit complicated as compared to others. However, since I had done it through the experts from the external implementer, I did not find any problem at all.

The most difficult part is from a management point of view, as this is a bit complex in terms of day-to-day management. However, this is a one-time implementation only. This is fairly acceptable.

Although it is pricey, I see value for money with Cisco Catalyst Switches, and any return is apparent. As I highlighted earlier, I have not faced any major issue and it is covered through some other means with the service provider where I have extensive support and arrangements where they simply replace the hardware when there is any problem or issue. Peace of mind and quality of support and, of course, trouble-free and issue-free workings matter, and I am even willing to pay more for that. This is fine from that perspective.

If I had to rate the price of Cisco Catalyst Switches from zero to ten, where ten is very expensive, I would say it is fairly expensive. All these things are in comparison to other products, because for us, we have even more complicated appliances and devices which are far more expensive than what we are using from Cisco. However, from a cost perspective, I believe it is fairly expensive. From that angle, if I rate it, I would say six out of ten.

I have chosen Cisco because it was not only a management decision; Cisco has been a leader in these categories for a very long time, and I usually consider Gartner and other independent research agencies for such selections, along with peer reviews and their market standing within the category. That was the reason.

I have not purchased any products, Cisco included, from AWS Marketplace, but I have in fact partnered with Microsoft. I have some footprint in Microsoft Azure cloud, not in AWS. If I had to give a final rating for Cisco Catalyst Switches where ten points is the best, I would rate it a perfect ten out of ten. My overall review rating for Cisco Catalyst Switches is ten.

My main use case for Cisco Catalyst Switches is that we have a workforce of over 5,000 people in our organization, who are scattered across Australia in all the states, and we use Cisco Catalyst Switches as our edge switches on all our sites.

With a large user base and distributed sites, we have a mix of both. We have a data center in our two facilities, in Melbourne and in Canberra, so we have some data center edge switches as well as mostly all our users connected via Cisco Catalyst Switches edge switches.

I do have some specific environments where we use some industrial switches; however, mostly our use case is for Cisco Catalyst Switches edge switches, and we have some core and distributed switches in our environment as well, but those are different models.

We do have a Catalyst Center that we have integrated into our switch provisioning workflows.

Our operations teams interact with AI-driven anomaly detection and baseline recommendations in our Catalyst monitoring tools when investigating intermittent campus anomalies, and we deployed it last year, so we are not using its full functionality yet. However, we do use Catalyst Center to upgrade the firmware on the switches.

We have an in-house Catalyst Center that was integrated with our existing switch provisioning and maintenance routines.

Cisco Catalyst Switches have positively impacted our organization as we have noticed an improvement in response because these switches can do one gig connection to the end user, and they do have 25 gigs or 50 gigs of uplinks, making a significant difference in setting up that backbone for the infrastructure.

I have seen measurable improvements in network speed since using these switches. The maintenance aspect is give and take because we do rely on a middleman as we cannot purchase directly from Cisco. The efficiency and network speed definitely have improved.

In my experience, the best feature that Cisco Catalyst Switches offer is stacking because it logically combines the whole switch stack and gives you one single logical unit to work with, making management a lot easier.

We just started deploying newer models, Catalyst 9350, 93 series, and 9300 series, and although we are in the early stages of using them, we are quite happy so far with what we have used.

To maintain continuous forwarding during hardware faults or software upgrades across our Cisco Catalyst Switches stacks and distribution pairs, we rely on a monitoring tool and, on top of it, we have Catalyst Center as well, which makes maintenance and operational tasks very easy.

Cisco Catalyst Switches offer a lot more power and capability than we need to use, so no improvements are necessary for our use.

A lower price would help with improvements, but I understand that is not going to happen.

There are no additional improvements needed for Cisco Catalyst Switches that come to mind.

Since I started working in my current role, I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches, and I have been working with them for over 10 to 12 years.

In my experience, Cisco Catalyst Switches are stable, but there are other stable options available at a lower cost, and maybe less than half the price of what Cisco is offering us.

Cisco Catalyst Switches scale quite well in our environment, providing us an option with core, distribution, and access layer. The scalability and flexibility are there.

The customer support for Cisco Catalyst Switches is debatable as we do not purchase this product directly from Cisco, and we always have to rely on middle vendors, making it difficult to deal with maintenance issues.

We have not used a different solution before Cisco Catalyst Switches; we have always been using Cisco switches. If the cost keeps going up, I think we might switch to some other provider simply because of the cost.

Our team plans and executes the migration from legacy access switches to current Catalyst architectures using a change management system set up so that most of our upgrade work happens after hours, which greatly helps for the physical replacement of the legacy switches with these new Cisco Catalyst Switches.

Regarding the return on investment, Cisco Catalyst Switches is a great product. If we could get a 20-25% discounted price, that would really help.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing is that pricing is always debatable because we get a budget every year and the pricing of Cisco products and licensing goes up every year.

We have managed the legacy use of Cisco products for the last 20 years. Considering the rising costs of operational and maintaining these assets and hardware, we might need to think about other solutions or options available in the market.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a nine on a scale of 1 to 10. I gave it a nine because the pricing factor keeps it from being a perfect 10 for me.

Regarding Cisco Catalyst Switches' AI capabilities, security is as secure as you are until the next break-in, so it is just a cat and mouse game between defensive and offensive security measures.

In terms of Cisco Catalyst Switches' AI capabilities, they have quite good, reliable output, and they are quite reliable as well.

My advice to others looking into using Cisco Catalyst Switches is that if you can get it for a good price, they are great products. If not, there are other options available in the market.

My use case is for networking purposes. I am using it for network connectivity, specifically for overall WAN network connectivity.

Cisco Catalyst Switches offers user-friendly configuration, making it easy to configure and install. The operational efficiency of Cisco in an IT environment is good.

I cannot identify specific disadvantages with the product. However, the areas that have potential to be better are the timeline for the system and switch delivery. The delivery timelines for the product need to be improved.

I started using it from 2022.

I would rate the stability at 80% rather than 99%. I account for this lower rating because sometimes issues happen related to configuration or misconfiguration, and the expertise is not always present in the product.

The technical support from Cisco is helpful, but the timeline needs to be improved for P1 and P2 cases. Customers are facing issues reaching the technical support team. I would rate the support as a nine out of ten.

Currently, I see no value for money or return on investment. Sometimes Cisco Catalyst does save some time or some money for me. I cannot quantify the savings in time and money, but the product is good.

The price is very high. Compared to others, I find the price a bit high when compared to Juniper and Allied Telesis.

I see the technical differences between Cisco, Juniper, and other vendors. The technical solution is good compared to others and I believe it is better and more advanced technically.

I am working with Cisco products, including Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN, though I usually work with a different product. I am not using SD-WAN currently; I use Cisco Catalyst 9300 and 9500. I work with Catalyst switches or Catalyst Center, where the advancements are in switching and routing. Cisco Catalyst Switches is more advanced because the configuration is easier to understand compared to Juniper, where the configuration is at a different level.

Visibility affects my troubleshooting and end-to-end visibility. Visibility is adequate, and if there is an issue, I can raise a TAC call and the team or partners will support me.

I would rate this review a nine out of ten overall.

My main use case for Cisco Catalyst Switches is to manage the entire network.

A specific example of what parts of the network the switches support day-to-day is that the entire hospital, including all the floors, is supported, and we're running stacks on each floor, with about five stacks per floor.

The floor level stacks help my team manage the network day-to-day by reducing IP usage.

Stacking helps me pinpoint issues or manage the network by minimizing the location based on floor or area of the hospital based on which stack the issue is coming from, and it also helps with failover of hardware redundancy.

We use AI when investigating intermittent network issues with prompts, and it comes back with some solutions, and then we decide which solution to use.

Cisco Catalyst Switches have positively impacted my organization by having a uniform network of the same equipment, which means it's easier to swap parts out, and it allows us to manage all of it from one portal, with configuration that can be templated across the entire building.

We have seen fewer network issues.

The best features Cisco Catalyst Switches offer include the routing protocols, Spanning Tree, and speed.

The routing protocols, Spanning Tree, and speed have helped compared with my legacy access switches by making them easier to manage and providing faster speed.

Regarding Cisco Catalyst Switches' AI capabilities, I think its governance and security are secure and have good cyber security.

The accuracy and reliability of its output seem reliable, and we haven't had to push it too far or I haven't given it full automation yet.

We use both Cisco Catalyst Center and Ansible Python templates for provisioning our switches, and this has had a significant impact on configuration drift, as Ansible is great for using and pushing out port changes if we need to change a VLAN across multiple ports, and we can do near zero-touch deployment using Catalyst Center, which has also been a massive time-saver.

We are integrating centralized management frameworks, such as Cisco Catalyst Center, into our switch provisioning and maintenance routines, as Cisco Catalyst Center allows us to micromanage the entire network rather than having to log into each switch, and it's given us the option to probably get rid of stacking moving forwards since we don't need to CLI into each device.

I think the cost of Cisco Catalyst Switches could be lower.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for 10 years.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are stable.

The scalability of Cisco Catalyst Switches has been really good.

We maintain continuous network forwarding during hardware faults or software upgrades across our Catalyst Switches by using TAC.

The customer support has been really good with TAC.

I would rate the customer support a nine on a scale of 1 to 10.

I did not previously use a different solution. I started there, so there was no previous solution.

I have seen a return on investment, as we can work on more important projects and improvements rather than the day-to-day break-fix, so definitely time-saving.

I estimate my team saves about 30 to 40 hours in a typical week or month.

I wasn't actually across all pricing, setup cost, and licensing, but my experience of setup was good and it was comparative to other devices we were looking at that competed, and licensing seems to have come down, which is good, but there are products that don't use licenses at all, so maybe that'll be something Cisco gets rid of.

We have used other switch vendors before, such as Aruba, Dell, and a few others.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches an eight out of 10. I rated Cisco Catalyst Switches an 8 out of 10 because it's not a seven or a nine.

The advice I would give to others looking into using Cisco Catalyst Switches is to ensure they have their network properly designed out and planned to really get the benefit of making it as cost-reduced as possible.