Cisco Ethernet Switches Reviews

We are a solution provider and Cisco Ethernet Switches are one of the products that we implement for our customers. We also use them internally, and they make up the backbone of our network.

The most valuable features are network monitoring and management.

Depending on the model, the switch might have its own firewall or router.

Integration with third-party products could be improved.

I have been working with Cisco Ethernet Switches for fifteen years, and have been reselling them for about six.

We have had no complaints about the stability of Cisco products. Once you install the switch, it just keeps running with little maintenance. Occasionally, we see a firmware update.

For some of the higher-end switches, starting at the 6500 series, we need assistance from Cisco. For the 4000 series and below, we can manage them ourselves.

The initial setup is very straightforward. We have not had any complications.

They are essentially plug-and-play, where you turn the power on and it will be working in a few seconds. Beyond this, if different configurations are needed to satisfy the user's requirements then it takes a lot of time. That said, the entire deployment will only take a few hours or a day at the most.

We are happy with the pricing from Cisco.

This is a very good product and definitely one that I recommend.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Cisco is our backbone. This includes switches, main office, links - all Cisco. For the one between branches, we have Riverbed to speed it up. For internet analytics, we have Palo Alto, Fortinet Security. For application delivery, Citrix. Database, Microsoft SQL, and Oracle. We also have business tools and developer bots with Oracle. That is a lot of products!

We keep Cisco for normal switches for corrective flows and the data center. But they are not so good with the firewall so we use Palo Alto and FortiGate. 

In terms of the most valuable feature, I would say the user interface. We also have Citrix XenApp for the remote service. And Exchange and other Microsoft solutions.

We have other software for software control, for users and help desk. For security, we have RSA Netwitness and Netwitness Security Analytics,

We are only using Cisco for switches and for the IP telephony call center. 

It needs to be manageable, easy, and fast with Windows and other GUIs. They must improve their interface and stability.

We have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches since 1997.

Yes, it is stable. That's why we've stuck with it. It's very stable.

The IT department is more than 55 people. But the server team has three teams of four people. The security team, four people. Database team, five people. We have one supervisor, the head of the team, and two or three under him for his team. I am the head of the security team and the infrastructure team, for servers, switches, and security. So I can tell you that it takes five to seven people to handle Cisco and the security.

In terms of scalability, it is scalable. With Cisco we have built-in stacks and stackable switches. And it has a stackable fiber from the main office to the Catalyst and the Nexus switch.

The problem with customer support is that they give you beginners. We need the experts after the first, second, or third call. Only after a week do you get the expert after you explain and complain about it.

We are the Qatar government authority. So with Cisco, we are dealing with all types of gateways. Cisco is in Kuwait. Many times when we are building something with Cisco we design the infrastructure, everything. Then we go to the Cisco dealers. Because this is our strategy, we work with Cisco directly. With the firewall, I work with Palo Alto or FortiGate or any other brand. Who will give good support, good installation? The solution for installation will be provided and approved by the center itself. That is our strategy. We are happy with this. Before we develop a solution, we sit down directly with the vendor.

Our IP telephony is all Cisco. I would consider another data component.

Cisco is very good and stable. But the problem is that it is costly. It's a very good service but it would be costly for small companies. They should go for lower-end, cheaper switches. Because we are the government, we are stuck with Cisco. But the small and medium-sized businesses must go lower, such as with Huawei or another brand.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco Ethernet Switches a nine.

The main problem is the support in the Middle East. This is a problem for all products, not just Cisco. When you contact support, they don't give you the expert at first, they give you the beginner. Only after going around in a circle do they give you experts. Why don't they just give the expert from the beginning?

We use these switches in our data center core to handle all of the converged networks. They handle our SAN servers as well as other components.

The outer perimeter is handled by the Cisco 2960s, for distribution of traffic to endpoint clients.

These switches help to build the best network, the way we want it. There is a guarantee that makes us feel better about having a secure network.

The most valuable feature is the performance and ability to handle the flow of traffic.

The redundancy that the switches provide is very good.

There is a focus on improving the UI for managing the higher-end switches and routers, but not the traditional ones. Putting in a more complete management infrastructure would help when it comes to handling lower-end switches.

These switches are pretty expensive to put into place, so if they could bring the price point down then it would be really good.

We have been using Cisco Ethernet switches for just over ten years.

This solution very well handles the capability for scaling. It is fairly simple and easy to do.

Sometimes we have issues with certain switches hanging.

I have only indirectly been in contact with technical support through our vendor. Our interactions mostly had to do with registering the product and downloading updates. We have not been in contact concerning a particular issue about a product.

Our initial setup was more than ten years ago, and it is something that has been modified over time. Whatever it was, originally, has been rebuilt. As we continue to add new components, it becomes simpler and easier for us to go forward. 

The deployment for the data center core took four days to get all of the services up and running. This included the interfacing, as well as cutting over to ensure that there was no outage. A lot of this had to do with the waiting time and change control, where the cut-over was done during hours that are less used by the employees.

Our other primary switches were pretty simple to change, as and when required. This was never much of a dealy.

Our vendor assisted us with the original deployment. Our project team consisted of four people and there was an additional person from the vendor.

These switches are expensive, but they are an excellent buy and definitely have value for the investment.

The switches that we have purchased handle our load pretty well. We do not have a high data plan network.

When our switches age beyond the life cycle then each will be replaced with whatever the current model is in the market at the time. In the future, we would like to integrate Cisco Aironet, although Wi-Fi is a bit down the line for us.

Overall, this is a good product but there is always room for improvement. My main complaint about Cisco is the price aspect.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use it for the local area network.

It's for industry products, so it's easy to use. 

I have been using this solution for over ten years. 

The stability is quite good. 

We don't have much of a demand to significantly increase the workload on network switch so we don't experience any scalability issues. 

Their technical support is good. 

The initial setup was not complex. It took a few days. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. I haven't heard from my engineers that they said it's excellent but of course, I didn't hear them say that there are too many problems. That's why I rated it an eight.

We have a few different buildings within our premises, and we typically use the Cisco switches as the core backbone of our LAN. They are connected with fiber. We use them for our network to handle security and connectivity mainly.

Our core business is to sell beverages, so we're not your typical telecom or banking institution that would be a typical Cisco client.

The quality of service is one of the main reasons we use Cisco in our organization. It's quite high and very reliable. The switches also end up working for a long time, so there's less need to replace them as often as others. We have some switches in our company that have been running since 2006, for example. They are quite old, but they still work.

The security and the user interface are both good. Mainly, I end up using the command lines, but it's okay for me and the way I work. It's my preference, although it's not ideal for everyone.

There are quite a few features that Cisco offers, but for our business, it's not really necessary. If you are a telecom or a banking institution, you would probably find them to be quite useful.

The cost is very prohibitive both for us as well as other organizations. It's very expensive to buy Cisco switches. Among our colleagues, we find that we're not alone in thinking it's too high. Everyone's complaining about this. 

We have many switches that we've used sine 2006 and that are on the old OS, but we don't want to switch them out because the cost to do so would be quite high.

The graphical user interface could be a bit better. When we have new employees, we want them to onboard quickly and to be able to understand the switches. Having a better graphical interface would help us do that and help them understand the switches faster. While I prefer command line, many are not good with it or do not prefer that method.

We've been using the solution since 2006. It's been more than ten years, so we're quite well versed in the technology.

The solution is quite stable. Cisco is a brand that's known for its stability. Our switches have worked for well over 10 years in some cases, without fail.

We never really directly deal with Cisco, so I can't speak to how well they are from a customer service perspective.

We moved from a different type of switch originally. We found switching over was quite straightforward and didn't run into any difficulties. However, now our office and our infrastructure are much more complex, so there is a bit of a learning curve. Companies with complex infrastructures will find that there will be complexity in the setup. They'll have to sort through that when they get started.

Originally, when our offices were smaller and more straightforward, deployment didn't take to much time. We handled it over a weekend, from Friday to Sunday or Monday. However, at the time, we weren't yet doing segmentation traffic.

We had a consultant in Belgium who came in over the weekend to help us with the process when we originally set up the switches. Normally we work within our own team and have our own in-house workers that handle the configuration.

I don't handle the licensing aspect of the solution, so I can't speak to the exact pricing. However, I am aware it's one of the more expensive options on the market. The last time I bought a 24-port switch, which was a while ago, I paid about five or six thousand Euros. In this part of the world, that's quite expensive for us.

I did compare Cisco to Ubiquiti. I was doing this research for a friend who was trying to open a resort but had limited funding. He didn't want to deal with Cisco as he knew the pricing would be out of his budget, so he asked me to look into another option. He asked that I look at Ubiquiti. For him, Ubiquiti ended up being a good option and was quite affordable. I believe you can also use Ubiquiti at an enterprise level as well. 

We mainly work with Cisco ethernet switches at our organization.

Aside from the cost, the Cisco switches are quite stable and easy to use. 

If you have the money as an organization, I would highly recommend Cisco.

We are just a customer of Cisco. We don't have a special relationship with the company in any way shape or form.

I would rate the solution 8.5 out of ten. I would rate it higher, but the price is too high, in my opinion. It's quite good for me in terms of the usage I get out of it, but I find that I don't use other features that Cisco offers now.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are being used as part of our new data centers.

This solution helps us simplify operations through minimal maintenance and ease of patching.

The most valuable feature is the performance.

The Cisco Feature Navigator is a web-based application that enables you to quickly match Cisco IOS, IOS XE, IOS XR, NX-OS, and CatOS software releases to features. This is available to all Cisco.com users, both registered and non-registered guests.

Cisco needs to include new features to attract new customers.

I have been using Cisco Ethernet solutions for the last 20 years.

This solution is stable enough that it will not create problems in everyday usage.

This system can accommodate expansion without hampering the existing workflow and ensure an increase in output or efficiency.

Customer service is good. They are responsive within the time frame and resolve our issues.

I haven't used a different solution. We did the upgrade as part of the lifecycle when the previous equipment became end-of-life. It was time for the investment. At the same time, we were building out new data centers.

The setup was straightforward and it is easy to deploy.

We have implemented with the help of a vendor and we have an in-house team that is taking care of maintenance.

ROI is doubled with the solution.

I did not evaluate other options before choosing Cisco.

I will advise others to buy without any hesitation, as the product quality and deliverables are far more than others without comparing cost. This solution is the best.

We use this solution for our university campus network.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the stability.

The solution is simple to configure.

The layer-2 switching is very fast.

We would like to have the option of two power supplies on these switches. It is important for us because these switches are installed in our data center and critical departments. These units have to be available all of the time.

I would like to see this solution automatically store multiple versions of the configuration file. For example, Juniper switches will save forty versions of the configuration, while Cisco will only store one. If you want to keep more than one then you need to make it manually. If you need to restore it then you will have to use the saved file to do that manually, as well. In the large switches, they do keep one primary image and the backup image, which is good, but it is not like Juniper. I can roll back to any version within the last forty that have been committed. It's a very, very nice feature that I would like to see in Cisco equipment.

This is a very stable solution. You install it and then you don't have to touch it for many years.

At this level, the edge, we are not concerned with scalability. We will be able to update the edge using the new uplink port module if we need to.

The core switches are scalable. You can add another slot of forty-eight ports with 10-gigabit each. 

On the university campus, we have approximately thirty thousand users. These are not concurrent connections. We have more than twenty thousand students, about six thousand employees, and there are guests. I can say that more than twenty thousand connections may be active at one time.

We have about one thousand switches, and we have four people in charge of maintenance. They do the installation, repairs, and all of the other tasks in the data center. Three are technicians and one is a manager.

We work with our vendor, who in turns works with the Cisco support. There are times, however, when we need to get support directly from Cisco as well.

We are satisfied with both the local vendor support and support from Cisco. When we have problems, they put the effort into it until the problem is solved.

We had a problem with the structure of the switches in the core. We weren't sure what the problem was, but we were helped at every step of the process. Cisco was in contact with us every day until the problem was solved. We are very satisfied with the support.

I have experience with Juniper LAN switches, but that was with a previous company.

The university campus had bought Juniper switches about six years ago, but they are moving completely to Cisco equipment. Cisco is more expensive than Juniper by perhaps double. The price is higher because they are more stable.

We still have about one hundred Juniper switches out of our one thousand in total.

The initial setup of this solution is very simple.

You can copy the image to the switch using FTP and run a command to install it. The process is very simple and we always upgrade our switches without any problems.

This is an expensive solution, but you are paying for stability.

We evaluated Meraki switches but they were not suitable for the university campus.

We are looking forward to the 10-gigabit uplink port, which is an improvement that we have waited for. We expect to have this new module in one or two months.

Cisco has a family of Small Business Switches called SG. For example, the SG300 model. This is a cheaper model, and although they are missing some protocols, they are very good. Out of our one thousand switches, we have about one hundred SG models. The price of these is lower than Juniper switches.

I surely recommend this product, and the new Cisco line seems to be even stronger. There are improvements in terms of new modules and power supplies, and the price is not increasing.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The hardware is rugged. We use it for the basic configuration.

Cisco has a layer three rugged switch. I don't know if they have it. The one I use is layer 2 only. Cisco should provide field switches, outdoor switches that have the capability for layer 3.

We've had hardware problems like SSDS, ports, networking, things like that.

They should maximize the number of ports. For me, that's important because we have some sites that the industrial switches lack ports so we have to install two industrial switches.

Stability is okay. 

We have around 500 switches deployed in one network. 

We haven't needed to contact their technical support. 

It's easy to deploy, just copy and paste. Installing the switches and configuring it, it takes only less than an hour. Installing the fibers takes time.

My advice to someone considering this solution would be to have a  good plan and a good design. It will go smoothly if you have a good design and a good plan. It's important.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. Not a ten because Mellanox is better compared to Ethernet switches.

We primarily use the solution for infrastructure.

The solution itself is great for our organization's infrastructure. You can connect a WiFi product and an ethernet product at the same time.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is its routing features.

The solution is compatible with many brands, such as VMware.

It offers very good durability if your configuration is good.

The interface needs improvement. The solution could use more features and more functionality.

The price could be lower. It's quite expensive.

The stability of the solution is perfect, although sometimes we have firmware problems. If we have a bug or something similar, sometimes it's hard to get a quick response to the problem.

The scalability of the solution, from what I understand, is good. We haven't actually tested the solution for scalability ourselves, however.

Technical support is good. However, we need to pay if we want to have them analyze incidents. It's not in the standard package. 

The initial setup is complex. You always need to change the configuration to adapt it to your needs. On top of that, actually adapting it is quite difficult. Deployment can take anywhere from a few hours to a few days, depending on the functionality your organization requires.

We had the assistance of a distributor for implementing the solution.

The solution is very expensive.

We did evaluate other options. We evaluated for readability, stability, price, and end of life. Cisco ultimately won out.

We use various deployment models, including on-premises and cloud.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use this solution to connect our computers.

The most valuable features of this solution are guidance, cover sheets, and access control.

The command-line interface is easy to use.

The licensing needs to be improved. You have to know upfront what kind of license you require. If you want to check quality assurance then you need to use an IP-based license. You can get that done, but sometimes it's a nuisance. For example, if you want to run certain commands then they are not all available because it depends on your license.

On the new switches, it is a bit hard to do the SPANning. The SPAN ports on the 9K series should be improved.

The stability of this solution is good.

The scalability of this solution is fine.

We have just changed partners for technical support so we are not able to rate them yet.

We did not use another solution prior to this one. We have always used Cisco.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

We do part of it manually and part of it automatically. The biggest part is the installation and the connecting and cabling. The actual deployment of the CD itself can be a couple of hours.

We use a partner for technical support.

The price of this solution is good.

In general, Cisco is ok. It's convenient and well-documented. If you have a big landscape then Cisco is a good way forward. It is well supported and a lot of engineering people know the Cisco switches. It's like the default environment, and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.