Cisco DNA Center alternatives and competitors

We primarily use the solution for wireless and to do backups on switches and routers. In addition, we're using it for the deployment of our new software versions.

The product has a lot of features and capabilities. It's very flexible. It's a big tool with lots of useful pro features.

The initial setup isn't too complex. We have a good in-house team that can manage it.

The stability has been quite good overall.

The solution has scaled as much as we have needed it to.

The hardware Cisco provides is excellent. It's a well-made product.

We tried here to use it as a bigger monitoring tool. However, the problem is that a lot of new products from Cisco are not supported by Prime anymore.

The solution is not easy to configure. It's not user-friendly for admins. It's quite a complex solution.

The strategy from Cisco doesn't seem to be well defined. We need to figure out how to properly integrate everything together, and right now, that's not exactly clear.

I've been using the solution for about two years at this point. It's been a while.

The stability has been good so far. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. For how we are using it, we haven't had issues.

The scalability fits our needs. For how we are using it, the scalability has been fine.

We have direct technical support from our supplier here in Germany if we need it.

The initial setup is not so complex. It's pretty straightforward. We had a lot of people in-house that were proficient in Cisco. It was not very complicated.

The initial implementation was done here within the company. We did not need to hire any consultants or integration partners. We handled it ourselves.

We're looking at Cisco DNA. Prime, for the things we're using it for, is too big for us. This is why we want to compare it with Cisco's DNA Center. Cisco creates very good hardware solutions. However, we need some time here to integrate products into software solutions from Cisco. 

We are a customer and an end-user. We do not have a professional relationship with Cisco.

We will not keep using this solution. I'm only keeping Prime Infrastructure at the moment for coexistence purposes as we have not yet created some functionalities elsewhere. 

I'd rate the solution at a six out of ten, mostly due to some issues we have surrounding its overall complexity that hinders us a bit.

FortiManager is a virtual appliance, you can have it in a cloud, buy your own license, or pay for the solution as a service. It's very helpful because you can manage many products from other customers, just from the cloud, which is where you administrate domains for all the customers you might have. You only have one point of deployment of the new FortiGates, for example, FortiSwitches, FortiAPs with a single click that you do not need to deploy the configuration on a unit itself. So it means, for example, you can just send the new boxes to new offices and from the cloud FortiManager, you just let some technical guy send it to the internet. It gets the serial number of the FortiManager. It can be paired and the configuration can be directly downloaded. You don't even need to touch the box physically. So that's an amazing feature. 

For the whole security fabric from Fortinet, with a simple click you can see if some workstations or services are affected by an attack. You can really easily quarantine it, check the solution, and fix it. It's very good from a security perspective. 

Fortinet is releasing quite a lot of new versions and I would say that most of the versions are not well tested before they're pushed out. Even the new versions sometimes are a bit buggy before it's all correct.

I have been using FortiManager for six to seven years. 

We don't have any issues with stability. 

Scalability is good. 

Our support was often sent to a foreign country and they didn't speak good English. But the second level of support was all perfect.

Checkpoint has a kind of manager that is similar. I think Palo Alto and Cisco have something similar as well.

The initial setup was straightforward and so simple. You don't need to know the functionality that much and it guides you on how to deploy it correctly. It's quite simple to set up as a solution.

The deployment takes a few days. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

It does not make much sense if you only have one FortiGate. If you have multiple devices and you can share some kind of templates or configuration template for security rules then this is a product you should use.

In the next release, there should be a little bit better of a deployment for applications that should also be relevant for mobile phones.

We sell this solution to customers. In terms of deployment, some customers require an on-premise solution, and some are okay with the cloud solution. It is a mix of both environments. We provide the latest version of this solution.

What our customers like the most is that this device is so rugged. It has very good performance and throughput. 

Its console is very easy to use and has many features, which makes it different from its competitors. Cloud IQ has all the features built into the console, whereas other solutions require you to integrate multiple solutions with their consoles. You don't need to add anything extra with Cloud IQ. With this single solution, you can do almost everything.

Its price could be lower. It is a simplified solution, but it has price challenges. It is costly as compared to other solutions. 

It has almost everything. The only thing is that MAC is not possible on the cloud, and it has to be on-premises.

I have been using this solution for approximately one and a half years.

It is a very stable solution.

It is very much scalable. It supports more than 100K access points in one console.

We got good support from them.

It has a very straightforward setup. There is not much to do. We just have to configure the console. That's it.

The deployment duration depends on the configuration that a customer wants, such as how granularly they want to configure the policies and whether they want to configure it as a WiFi. It is a cloud-based solution, so it generally doesn't take long. If you want to connect the API and make it live, it is a one-day job. Once you configure the controlled access, the API will connect to it, and you have to just push the policy on that API.

It is costly as compared to Meraki, Aruba, Juniper, and Cisco. Cloud IQ is an enterprise solution, whereas Meraki is specifically a single solution.

I would definitely recommend this solution. It is very good and stable. You don't have to go with multiple consoles and their integration. 

I would rate ExtremeCloud IQ a ten out of ten. It is a perfect solution.

This is a product for network security, and network management. 

We don't use it at the production level. I am conducting a PoC.

We are using this in our testing data center and not in our live data center. This infrastructure contains many security devices from other vendors such as Palo Alto.

We are also using vSAN and vCenter.

The most valuable features are stability and low cost.

There are always issues integrating with Cisco.

Switching is always a big problem for us because our switch is not supported.

If the integration was more open, then it would be good.

I have been using VMware NSX for three years.

We are using the latest version, and we already want to upgrade it.

It's a stable solution. We plan to continue using it.

There are three users in our organization who are using this solution.

VMware technical support is good but we find that the Cisco support is better for us.

This product is better for network security than Cisco ASA and Firepower.

The initial setup is straightforward but still takes time.

It takes longer to deploy than Cisco products. It takes between three and seven days to deploy,

We had a team of five for deployment. Two are from our company and three were from the vendor.

We have a license.

It is an expensive product, but cheaper than some competing solutions.

It's a good product.

This is a solution that I recommend.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.