Cisco Linksys Ethernet Switches alternatives and competitors

We utilize the solution for asset layers and then also for the core. The ones around the core have been failing, and I've been replacing them as they fail with Cisco replacements.  

The solution easily integrates and operates well with Cisco.

Pricing-wise, Huawei is quite good.

I've found that the Huawei switches around the core fail, or at least the 9300 series do. I've had to move to Cisco. They tend to freeze and cause problems on my network, so I've needed to replace them with a bigger Cisco switch that can handle the network more effectively.

With Cisco, there are a few particular routine protocols that are not supported on Huawei. Cisco has these proprietary routine protocols which they try to maintain. Since we have the two switches integrated together, it would be helpful if Huawei could offer a more open routine protocol that can be standardized, and they should offer the same protocols that are standard on Cisco on their service as well so that the switches can match up a bit more elegantly. It would be great if the two solutions could somehow actively collaborate a bit more together.

The solution needs to provide a lot more availability. There needs to be more information on the internet to help people more easily configure the solution, etc. Right now, if you need to know something or need to find something, you have to go directly to Huawei. 

There needs to be more documentation. If they opened up a bit and shared more information and maybe allowed for YouTube videos about their products and how to work them, it would benefit the users quite a bit. 

I've used the solution for over five years now.

The solution isn't completely stable. There are some glitches, but for the assets there, it doesn't cause me any real issues. 

The solution is scalable, but it really depends on what you buy. The first core switch I bought was very scalable because they have almost eight channels and I could scale everything so easily. You can buy an appropriate switch to accommodate future groups that you can align, to gather to the core switches. Even if you don't make provisions for it you can actually scale, but it's better to plan ahead and know what you need.

We've reached out to technical support and have occasionally come across language barriers. Sometimes the person speaks English, and other times it's Chinese with English as a second language, and it can be difficult to converse and to describe the issues we are having. It would be better if they had more staff on hand that were able to communicate in English a bit better, but the help itself isn't too bad.

I currently also use Cisco switches. In fact, I'm slowly, as Huawei switches fail, subbing in Cisco switches. Currently, our network has both integrating with each other and working together. We're phasing out Huawei and we won't be using them anymore.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward if you are well trained on the solution. However, if you are not trained, then it may be more complex. 

If you are trained, it's as simple. It just has a few different commands. With training, it's no problem.

I didn't directly handle the implementation myself. However, my team did.

We are both an installer and considering becoming a Huawei partner.

About five years ago I began working with Huawei, and I decided then whenever they failed, I'd just replace the old ones with Cisco. However, after five years, many are still working, so we have a hybrid system where we use both Huawei and Cisco switches. However, whenever they do fail, I replace them with Cisco, so there may come a time int eh future where I will no longer be working with them and will have completely switched over to Cisco.

I don't have the exact version number, but I'm dealing with the 9300 core switch.

Although we are currently in the process of phasing out the Huawei switches in favour of Cisco, I'd still recommend the solution.

I'd rate the solution six out of ten.

The 5400 series is a modular chassis-based switch and it allows us to buy parts for different needs, such as 10 gigs, or a one gig ethernet over copper for workstations. It's really our core switch and we actually have a couple of different models.

That's in our headquarters, and then we have some other sites that use Aruba. I think they're the 2600 series or 2700 series, the smaller, modular ones, and stackable ones. Not the chassis-based.

When I first started two years ago, we didn't have these centralized modular switches and we had a bunch of stackable switches and there were many loops in the network.

We had different brands too. HP, Cisco, Linksys, Aruba, we had NETGEAR. There was not a common type of interface. We had network issues almost weekly.

We were able to get it organized and centrally managed, with a spanning tree to detect loops and more.

All of the networking products that we use are Aruba, so we use Aruba Central to manage them. This gives us a single place to look at land switches, wireless switches, and switches in other offices. It makes management a little easier.

It's the same type CLI commands to manage these.

There are many options with the modular switch and you buy cards for it. If you want 48 ports of one gig, you can buy a card for that, but more options would be better.

Right now, there's only eight, an eight-port, 10 gig module and sometimes we need a little denser than eight ports. It would be good if I could get a 24-port, 10 gig module.

We have been using Aruba Switches for two years.

The Aruba Switches are very stable. We keep it up to date.

We update the firmware and software annually, as needed. We haven't had any issues. They are relatively new.

Aruba Switches scale well, because of the modularity of it and to be able to buy different modules and interchange modules. We have a pair of them and they are linked together with 40 gig connections, so all of the cards are interchangeable between the two switches and some of that is just by design.

These are the core switches in our organization and everybody in the office uses them. This includes our remote offices. Everybody passes data through them, albeit this is somewhat less at the moment because of the COVID quarantine.

I have not had to contact technical support.

We had a mix of modular switches at this company. We had some HP, Cisco, NETGEAR, and Linksys. We looked at the switches that can provide us the port density that we needed, in one or two chassis-type units, and was also affordable.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The price point was a big consideration for us and it is reasonable enough that we're able to standardize on Aruba for the networking pieces in our organization. This also includes Wi-Fi and access points.

Generally speaking, the price is good.

Overall, this is a good, solid tool. It doesn't do anything fancy but it does what we need it to do. We don't do any routing through it. We have other routers to do all of that work. Again, the modular flexibility was a big attraction for us.

I've used Switches forever, so I knew what to expect. There was no installation really needed. We knew how to set up VLAN and set up the interfaces. We're happy with it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I am a solution provider and I deploy this product for my customers. Primarily, it is used for last-mile access. When I deploy it in an enterprise environment, It is normally for bandwidth control.

The most valuable feature is its bandwidth management ability.

The routers that this vendor makes are quite small and I think that they should make their products such that they conform to what the industry is used to. Not that it matters from a technical perspective, but often, customers see the size of the router and they think that it is used for a small environment because of its size. They look at the router and because it doesn't look like the Huawei or Cisco models, they think that it is underpowered because of the size. If they changed the external look and feel of the products to match what the enterprise environment is used to, then it would be good. Again, in no way does it affect the performance. Rather, it's just the perception.

They should improve technical support and make direct access available to the customers.

I have been working with MikroTik Routers and Switches for approximately 15 years.

On a scale of one to five, I would rate stability a four.

This is a scalable solution. Although, if you deviate too much from your original device then you will need to change it. If, for example, the scope changes significantly from the initial setup, then you might have to change your device.

Essentially, if the change in scale is too large then you might need to also scale your device accordingly.

Technical support is not very good, as it is usually done through third-parties. You don't have direct access to MikroTik themselves. Most of the support we get is through forums.

I also work with similar products from Juniper, Cisco, and Huawei.

The initial setup is complex and you need to have a deep understanding in order to deploy it. The time it takes to deploy will depend on what you're configuring, in terms of what technologies. Typically, if it's just for connectivity, in usually 20 to 30 minutes you should be able to get MikroTik up and running. But, if it's compliance and other things then it may take a while longer.

The pricing is very reasonable and is one of the main selling points for MikroTik devices.

My advice for anybody who is implementing MikroTik Routers is to make sure that they have the requisite toolsets onboard to manage the devices so that they don't run into problems. Otherwise, it is a good and inexpensive product to use.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

This solution is suited for the cookie factory just around the corner and up to including multinational organizations with locations spanning around the globe.

The solution is a switch and many of them do the same operations, it connects devices together.

In this solution, you are lacking a feature that Cisco Classic has that allows you to save your configuration with a serial cable.

In some deployments, I would like stacking to act like RAID 1 but not if you are updating the firmware of one switch in a stack. Stacking and switches with Meraki, they need to improve on this. I had a different experience with Extreme Networks which behave completely different.

I have been using the solution for approximately three years.

I have found the solution to be stable.

The solution is plug and play. If you want to upgrade, all you do is plug it in and it works.

In my experience, they sometimes reply with a proper answer and others they reply with, "You can always file the I wish button request" I am confused why an organization would push automatically scheduled release candidate firmware. They tend to be too pushy. After this, I have to look at every customer individually and cancel those updates, which does not make sense to me.

I have used Extreme Networks and Cisco products in the past, some of the features are better than this solution in Extreme Networks and Cisco's licenses will not expire like they do in this solution.

The setup was as easy as a setup can be, we had no issues.

The licensing element is not favourite with Meraki. My opinion is if you buy something, it should be yours, and not if the license expires, the lights go out, or you might not be able to manage it anymore. The licensing is purchased on a one, three, five, and seven year basis.

Switches are switches, they do what they say they do on the box. I do recommend this solution If you are looking for something easy, and do not mind having to renew your license or else you will not be able to manage it anymore. Then this solution could be a good fit. Cisco Classic 2900 Series and the likes, they just keep on going. Unless you really need support, that is extra, but at least functionality will not expire with the license.

I rate Meraki MS Switches an eight out of ten.

We primarily sell the solution to our client base. The customers are typically telecom operators or enterprise-level companies. It's used primarily for data center applications and connectivity solutions.

The initial setup isn't too bad.

The scalability is very good.

The solution is a bit expensive.

The stability needs to be improved upon. It's not as good as it could be.

The solution should offer more automation. It's not good compared to Cisco, or any other brand.

The company needs to offer much better local support. Right now, it's not great in terms of technical support.

We've been dealing with the product for a long time. It's been over a decade. Likely, we've been selling HP for 12 years at this point.

The stability isn't ideal. It could be much better. It's an aspect of the solution they could work on.

Scalability is not an issue. The solution expands well. If a company needs to build it ut and scale it, they should be able to do so pretty easily.

I'm not sure how many people within our company actually use the solution, or how many of our clients have it. I don't know that we have around 20 technical people that work with the solution.

I don't find the technical support aspect of the solution very helpful. I'm not satisfied with the level of support provided.

We're also using Cisco switches. We also an Indian brand known as Edge Appeal.

This solution lacks the automation that Cisco, for example, offers.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward for the most part. It's not too complex.

I didn't personally handle the implementation myself, as I'm not very technical. I couldn't comment on how long the deployment takes as I wasn't directly involved.

You do need to pay quite a bit for the license.

The pricing could be a little bit less, to be honest. As a product that's made in Taiwan, you would assume it would be cheaper than it is.

We're resellers of the solution.

I'm not really on the technical side.

I'd recommend the solution for the most part. It's fine to use.

Overall, the solution is average, which is why I would rate it at a five out of ten.