Cisco DNA Center Reviews

We are using Cisco DNA Center for network management and wireless assurance.

Our business functions better by using Cisco DNA Center because we have better visibility of wireless and configuration deployment.

The most valuable features of Cisco DNA Center are wireless assurance and visibility.

The features of Cisco DNA Center and Cisco Prime could have more parity.

In a future release, there should be more deployment features.

I have been using Cisco DNA Center for approximately two years.

The stability of the solution is good.

I rate the stability of Cisco DNA Center an eight out of ten.

The latency limits our scalability. 

We have approximately 10 network engineers using the solution.

We might increase our daily usage of the solution.

I rate the scalability of Cisco DNA Center a seven out of ten.

I have not used the support.

I previously used Cisco Prime and witched because it was enterprise-grade.

The setup is complex and involves clusters. The network address allocation is complicated just between the Cisco DNA Center hardware.#The first part of the implementation is setting up the hardware and then onboarding all of the hardware. It can take a lot of time.

I rate the initial setup of Cisco DNA Center a five out of ten.

We did the deployment of the solution. We used two or three network engineers.

I rate the return on investment of Cisco DNA Center a four out of five.

The price of the solution is expensive. The hardware is licensed on the device, but the hardware on the server is expensive.

I rate the price of Cisco DNA Center a two out of ten.

I did not evaluate other options before using Cisco DNA Center.

We have one network engineer for the maintenance of the solution.

My advice to others is for them to make sure their building diagram are to scale

I rate Cisco DNA Center a seven out of ten.

It does a lot of things automatically, and that's the big thing with it. They're making the software so that you don't need to be as knowledgeable as me on the switching and routing side to get your work done. If you want, you can have DNA troubleshoot your problem for you and give you solutions or fix it itself, if it was something that's just a configuration issue. That's a plus, but it doesn't help new people learn switching well. If you're depending on all the software to do it, you won't be able to figure it out yourself.

It's a very hard software to learn. It's very deep, and when we first got it, there wasn't a whole lot of documentation on it. There's more now, but you really have to know what you're doing to use it to its full functionality.

It seems to be a little bit more centered toward wireless than wired. You've got more options you can do wirelessly than you can with the wired switches, but it works for what we need it to do. We would like to see a little bit more about the traffic, and we're looking at what's out there to see about that. We are looking at something that might give us a bit more insight into the actual traffic. If they had the full functionality on the wired side, as they do on the wireless side in terms of being able to view traffic and everything, it would be good.

The configuration jobs part could be better. Basically, it's very easy to make mistakes when you're writing the little config file that you need to push in. You've got to do it exactly right. It's not based on CLI commands or whatever. It's got its own little format syntax. It needs to be synced up NTP-wise and time-wise. Otherwise, it doesn't work. I've had other management software where the time could have been off on both of them, and it wouldn't have been a big deal. 

I would like to see them make it like the old CiscoWorks did where when you wanted to run a command, you could just type in the command on your command line on the switch, instead of having to jump through the hoop to get the config pushed out to the new devices. I'd like Cisco to give more control to people who are using it and not keep it for themselves. It's one of those things where you've got to have the right image, and they all have to be on that image, or it doesn't work. NTP has to be synced up. There are a lot of little issues there to get it to work. When we first got it three years ago, there wasn't that much documentation, and we were sometimes just fumbling around in the dark. They've gotten better on the documentation, but they have a tendency to make it a little more complicated because they want you to have them do it, not do it yourself. It looks like that's where they're going with this software over the years. I've been doing this for 22 years, and it looks like they're trying to take the control away from the end-users and take it back for themselves. I've seen the younger generations coming out, and they don't seem to want to learn the switching and routing at the depth they need to in order to become a third-tier engineer. So, personally, I understand why they're doing it, but I'd like to have more control on my end. While I would like to have more control, there are people who work for me who I wouldn't want to have that control.

They don't have a good training plan. We had a guy who walked us through it and other things, but he was searching. We've had it since earlier on, and he was searching for stuff just like I would've been doing. He didn't know that well. So, they need a little bit better training plan or something on the initial buy to get people to realize exactly how everything works, how it's all tied together, and what you can do with it. I've learned a lot of stuff that this guy didn't show us. There are ways to do things, but he never showed those to us. He just showed us how to set it up and not how to monitor a bunch of stuff or push the configs out.

I have been using Cisco DNA for about three years.

It has been pretty stable. We've had a few issues with it, but that's because the software guys didn't keep it updated. We've got them, and they're going to keep it updated now. It is a fairly stable piece of software. It is just very deep, and you've got to know it well to take full advantage of its functionality.

Scalability is based on the number of licenses you buy. That's expensive sometimes. It's just software. So, you just buy more licenses. At some point, if you had a big enough network, you might have an issue, but we haven't had any issues with roughly 350 networking devices and 7,000 end devices. It hasn't reached its own limit yet with us, but I could see where it might, and it's just a matter of buying more licensing to expand it.

I've contacted their support a couple of times. It depends on who you get. You get a good one, and you get one who is not really that good. I've had to ask to speak to somebody else on a few occasions because the person didn't know a whole lot, and you're told to do things that any normal person would do before they call tech support.

I would rate it a seven out of ten because it is functional, and you can do a lot with it, but you really have to know it. So, I'm going to knock them down a few points because they don't have a good training plan.

We are using the solution for network management.

The solution's most valuable features are AI and machine learning.

The solution's integration feature needs improvement. It could be integrated more and more into the traditional environments.

I have been using the solution for two years.

It is a stable solution. I rate its stability eight out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. I rate its scalability eight out of ten.

The solution's technical support team is very responsive.

Positive

I used Cisco Pro previously.

Following the solution's deployment guide makes the setup process more accessible. It needs two or three engineers and takes around four hours to complete. Although, it is time-consuming to download the updates through ethernet.

It is an expensive solution. The licensing cost depends on the environment.

The solution works best in an API environment than in a traditional network. I rate it nine out of ten.

I used Cisco DNA Center for LAN automation for the DnaC.

I like that we can easily configure any new hardware. It's also easy to deploy and easy to troubleshoot.

Technical support could be better. The price could be better, and it could be more stable.

I used Cisco DNA Center for about a year while working with two organizations on a freelance basis.

Cisco DNA Center could be more stable.

The scalability of Cisco DNA Center is okay.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give scalability a seven.

Technical support is also struggling because it's a new product. They are not hundred percent sure about it. For example, it took them one week to fine-tune this appliance with the help of Cisco tech support.

Neutral

The initial setup isn't straightforward. It was a painful deployment. We have a couple of tickets with Cisco tags to be deployed because this is an unstable product. This is because it's tough to integrate with Cisco ISE which was running on the VM appliance, it was excruciating. Another common issue is that the end-use could not detect an IP address or authenticate it after we integrated it, on the branch side we are using Cisco Catalyst 9500/9300/9200 Series Switches.

The challenging part is that it has to be deployed on a standard load and integrated with Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE). I'm not sure why they have used Cisco ISE for authentication. It should be deployed and not integrated.

I implemented this solution.

The price could be better. It's a very expensive tool.

I would tell potential users not to buy Cisco DNA Center as it's a considerable expense that isn't worthwhile.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco DNA Center a seven.

I use DNA Center for network administration. Four people in the IT department use this solution.

There are some software problems from version to version. It takes a long time for DNA Center to recognize the video and control access devices.

I've used Cisco DNA Center for about one year.

DNA Center is scalable. 

At the first level of Cisco support, no one can give you a solution, but the second level can help you.

A third-party integrator installed DNA Center for us.

Cisco's suite is expensive. The full solution, including DNA Center, costs more than a million US dollars for a five-year license.

I rate DNA Center seven out of 10, but it's not accessible to all companies who would benefit from the solution.

We use Cisco DNA Center for management. You can configure any device, and if you put the device without configurations, you can start to configure it through Cisco DNA Center. For example: if you get a new Cisco switch, and you have other Cisco switches configured, you can plug in the new switch, copy the configuration, make the changes, and make the template, or you can use an existing template and just upload it to the device.

What I found most valuable in Cisco DNA Center is the ability to manage any device through it, because the infrastructure is for Cisco, and we have Cisco routers and Cisco switches.

In terms of areas for improvement in Cisco DNA Center, we don't use the product on 80% to 100% of its capacity, because our infrastructure is a small one. For us, it's enough. We have report capabilities, and other capabilities that we need are configured on the solution. If there is an expansion for any Cisco solution, we can integrate it with Cisco DNA Center, for example: with ISE, so we're fine.

What could be improved is the licensing cost of Cisco DNA Center. It's a little bit expensive.

I've been using Cisco DNA Center for the last six months.

In terms of the stability of Cisco DNA Center, we had a few bugs, but we managed to overcome them. For example: there were times we needed to reboot the device because it was not connecting.

How scalable Cisco DNA Center is would depend on the license you get. If you need more devices, you can always buy more licenses, or expand your current license.

There was no need for us to contact technical support, because we're not using Cisco DNA Center 100%. Our infrastructure is small, so we're just using the solution to reduce staff.

The initial setup for Cisco DNA Center was straightforward. On a scale between one and five where one is the worst and five is the best, I'm scoring the setup a four. Anyone could do it.

Licensing for Cisco DNA Center is a little bit expensive, just like any Cisco solution. Its cost could still be improved.

Cisco DNA Center is deployed on-premises. There is a link for the cloud because you need to have internet connection, but the data stays on-premises.

The advice I would give to other people who want to use Cisco DNA Center is to go for it, particularly if they have Cisco infrastructure, though these days it's really hard to do that because integration could be an issue. If they have other Cisco products they use in their infrastructure, it'll be a plus, so they should use Cisco DNA Center.

I'm rating Cisco DNA Center eight out of ten.

The solution is mainly used for setting up SPN or intent-based networking for the customers.

In day-to-day operations, especially post-pandemic, the majority of our customers have to work from anywhere. It's not just work from home, it's work from anywhere. Due to this work from anywhere concept, the traditional silos of a network for the data center architecture, and managing everything from anywhere, and having that single integrated dashboard for each and every activity while being able to correlate those activities in line with a business objective, has been very well addressed by Cisco DNA.

The solution's most valuable aspect is its simplicity and the complete automation of the network workflow, which we can use that correlate with the business. It's not only limited to STXs or a data center. It completes everything, which really helps us.

If a user is comfortable with Cisco technology, the initial setup is pretty straightforward. 

Cisco is extremely reliable.

The solution has the capability to scale. 

Technical support is always excellent.

The architecture should not be limited only to the USXC as a platform. Let's say if I'm referring to the Catalyst 1000 Series or an MB Series of an SG or FX. Due to the fact that there are mid-market and commercial customers who are using such kinds of product lines apart from the Catalyst 9000 or Cisco UCS architecture, they should all come under a single pane of glass. Any new product should be added right from Cisco itself.

The network automation should not be limited only to Cisco, as there may be customers who are using Palo Alto firewalls, or they might be using Ruckus for wireless. There has to be some sort of integration with a third party. 

The integration of Cisco DNA with a couple of leading CRMs or ticketing solutions would be ideal. 

The solution can be quite pricey.

We've been dealing with the solution for three to four years or so.

Stability is never an issue with Cisco. It's reliable. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

Scalability isn't really an issue. However, it all depends on the version or the flavor that you are selecting. We don't see a challenge. All options are available to us.

The technical support on offer from Cisco is always excellent. it would rate them at a ten out of ten. they are helpful and responsive.

We are using Cisco DNA as well as Ansible as a platform. We don't have that much experience working on other product lines. While Cisco is on the cloud, Ansible is on-premises.

If the engineer is good enough to understand the Cisco terminology, and if they have past experience working with Cisco, I don't see a challenge working with Cisco DNA as a platform.

Deployment may take maybe five to seven working days. However, the real process is all about fine-tuning. It's a continuous improvement process as we need to align DNA with the business objectives. It's not that product where we actually talk to the customer on a technicality. It is more about how best we can ensure the business outcome via the automation tool. There is always lots of engagement that happens at the customer experience level. That's the reason it takes some more time to find units.

The pricing is quite expensive. It'd rate it at a two out of ten in terms of affordability.

We have customers who would like to deploy DN architecture, however, DN architecture requires a DNF appliance. For the mid-market customer who is investing hardly a few thousand dollars, if they have to deploy an appliance, it is very costly. Ideally, to address the need of SMB or mid-market customers, Cisco should offer something on a cloud basis where it could be more affordable. 

My feedback to the Cisco product team is that technology is fantastic. There are no issues. The only thing is that they have to make the technology at an affordable price point, which should be affordable to SMBs and not just enterprises. Enterprises don't mind spending money. However, for mid-market and commercials, working out a pricing model which is more on an OPEX base rather than on a CAPEX base would be ideal.

We are a system integrator and we are providing network automation solutions and services to our customers. 

Overall, I would rate the solution at a six out of ten. It's quite good, however, it's not ideal for smaller organizations as it's cost-prohibitive.

This solution is best for customers who are end-to-end, Cisco customers. For the customers who have a heterogeneous environment where security comes from let's say CrowdStrike or Palo Alto or Ruckus we would suggest that a customer goes with Ansible. Cisco has limitations in terms of integration and automation when working with solutions outside the Cisco family. Some sort of API interface has to be available. 

We deploy the Cisco DNA Center through Cisco Prime Migration, and we use Cisco DNA Center to monitor all the wired connections, endpoints, and switches such as access switches, data center switches, and routers. We also manage the wireless access points through the Cisco DNA Center.

We get reports on availability, health, manageability, logs, and critical errors. We monitor and maintain all the network devices using the solution.

We deploy DNAC for customers who want to manage and monitor all their Cisco Advantage licensed network devices. 

The best feature of Cisco DNA Center is the visibility page, which is unavailable in Cisco Prime. You can see everything on a single plane of glass on the dashboard, and you don't have to be a technical person to view different data and statistics. For example, you can see the issue alarms, errors, topology, and availability. So the tool gives you good visibility into all that's happening within your network infra. It also provides visibility into your computing environment. Application and performance analytics in huge detail is available in the DNA center.

The reporting is fantastic in both Cisco Prime and Cisco DNA Center, so I rate that feature a nine out of ten. My company migrated clients to the Cisco DNA Center, and the reporting is incredible.

Fresh deployments is not easy to set.

During single-node deployment, you must configure the node as if it is in a cluster.

I've been using Cisco DNA Center for two years now.

Cisco DNA Center is a very stable tool.

The solution is very scalable.

We have had a very great TAC support experience on Cisco DNA center.

Positive

We previously used Cisco Prime. DNAC is much more intuitive and better.

The initial setup for Cisco DNA Center is more complicated compared to Cisco Prime.

We had an in-house deployment.

My company uses Cisco DNA Center.

I'd tell anyone planning to use Cisco DNA Center to use it, especially when you have Cisco products or devices, such as wireless, security, and voice. Cisco DNA Center is the best product for  network monitoring and management. You can use Cisco Prime, but I prefer Cisco DNA Center because the visibility available there. You can see almost all information on a single page of the dashboard. If you have a Cisco environment, it's best to go for Cisco DNA Center.

I would give Cisco DNA Center an eight out of ten overall.