We performed a comparison between Brocade Ethernet Switches and HPE Ethernet Switches based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Ethernet Switches solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It has good integration with HPE Primera. They have smart zoning in which the administration is very easy. You don't have to do anything. Zoning and other things are done automatically if you just enable the smart zoning. That's one very good thing in HP."
"There's a zone for each server and services in the storage."
"The technical support is good."
"I have not had any issues with our Brocade switches."
"The reliability of Brocade is the most valuable feature. The solution has been up and running for over ten years without any fail, fixes required, or breakdowns. It is a very strong piece of equipment."
"The most valuable feature of Brocade Ethernet Switches is the good range of access it provides."
"The initial setup was really straightforward and easy."
"The switches last for a very long time."
"The main features of the solution I have found to be the interface and unique features other solutions do not have. Additionally, they have a lifetime warranty on the hardware."
"I like that these switches are reliable, and the support is good."
"It's fairly lightweight, they don't require a lot of maintenance."
"They are affordable and very stable. They also have good performance."
"We were able to onboard HPE Ethernet Switches easily to the cloud. It was fast and took only five minutes to complete."
"The solution is highly stable."
"The solution can scale."
"What I like the most is the management system integrated with the HP system."
"Brocade Ethernet Switches need a better interface and centralized management."
"There are some performance issues."
"It should be simpler. There are still some things that can be simpler in the Brocade switches."
"The solution could be more secure."
"Brocade Ethernet Switches could improve by having better compatibility with web management of older versions."
"No graphical interface."
"These switches are no longer supported."
"The pricing could be lowered."
"The technical support does not match up to the standard of Cisco."
"The solution's throughput should be increased because we often get stuck when it comes to IPTV streaming."
"The quality of the service needs improvement."
"The tool should be more stable."
"The installation can be quite complex. However, that may not be the fault of HP and is rather more related to the way our infrastructure is arranged."
"We haven't had any issues with this switch in the past 10 years. That's the reason we're still keeping them alive."
"The solution is a bit expensive."
Brocade Ethernet Switches is ranked 19th in Ethernet Switches with 10 reviews while HPE Ethernet Switches is ranked 10th in Ethernet Switches with 91 reviews. Brocade Ethernet Switches is rated 8.2, while HPE Ethernet Switches is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Brocade Ethernet Switches writes "This solution has been up and running for over ten years without any fail". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HPE Ethernet Switches writes "They're solid and can last for up to 15 years". Brocade Ethernet Switches is most compared with Cisco Ethernet Switches, Juniper EX Series Ethernet Switches, Aruba Switches, Mellanox Switches and Arista Networks Platform, whereas HPE Ethernet Switches is most compared with Cisco Ethernet Switches, Ubiquiti UniFi Switches, H3C Ethernet Switches, Juniper EX Series Ethernet Switches and NETGEAR Switches. See our Brocade Ethernet Switches vs. HPE Ethernet Switches report.
See our list of best Ethernet Switches vendors.
We monitor all Ethernet Switches reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
Have to agree with Durrell on the Cisco offerings and certifications. I would say Avaya is more on VoIP capability and have not heard about their switch portfolio. For HP networking, they are on par with Cisco. In terms of capability and support, I would say Cisco is there.
Have you used any other vendors in the Ethernet Switch market?
Answer: Yes, I have used Arista Networks as well.
Have to agree with Durrell, while the equipment and support performs better than the competitors in my opinion, the shear volume of training that has been put out by Cisco has made it the leader. Other providers offer training of course, but none are as comprehensive and well known as the Cisco offerings..they have become THE standard for networking.
Hi,
Cisco simply has very well working equipment and it's a huge company which has gold reserves bigger than fort knox :)
I've used enterasys, juniper, noname and 3com switches, everyone has its advantages but cisco was what I liked most. Simply does its work and there is no place for failure. Only thing you need is vacuum machine from time to time.
The emphasis that has been put on certifications is the biggest reason these vendors are not taking up a bigger share of the market. The industry standards for networking certs are the Cisco ones. Since the certs are catered to their equipment, it just makes sense that they have such a huge market share.
For price/performance, I think HP and Juniper offer more than Cisco. HP typically comes in at a much lower cost for comparable features and throughput, and their switches have been very reliable for me. Juniper switches are similarly priced to Cisco gear, but they usually offer a much wider range of functions, along with equal or better performance.
All of the reasons Nuno listed, above, are valid. In addition:
4. High Performance - On balance, for most classes of switch, Cisco gear performs better. I've had great experience with HP Procurve switches, and their price/performance has been very good. But once in a while, they couldn't keep up with demanding traffic, like iSCSI, and we had to go back to Cisco gear.
5. OEM Testing and Validation - If you're introducing new network gear - firewalls, storage, servers, etc. - you will make sure it works with Cisco switches because the installed base is huge. This is a vicious cycle - more Cisco interoperability and validation means fewer issues with Cisco gear.
I have used Netgear and 3com switches.
I have tried a few other vendors on the Ethernet switch market, especially HP, Huawei and SMC switches. Haven’t used Alcatel personally, but have had interesting feedback for them from colleagues.
Regarding Cisco however, I believe there are three main reasons for it:
1) Integration on the “cisco environment”, with a structured offer from basic switches, up to multi-layer equipment, allowing a consistent platform all through the enterprise.
2) Management interface – ranging from graphic management (through local web interface, CiscoWorks modules, etc.), to CLI, with the Cisco IOS, provides great flexibility for remote management, configuration backup, and monitoring.
3) Expertise of in-house personnel – Both the training provided by Cisco itself, and the fact that Cisco has a strong base for the remaining network infrastructure (routers, and other network devices).
There is also the issue that, sometimes, some mixed vendor environment can bring issues with 802.1q trunking (I’ve seen issues with HP Switches while having problems with a VLAN 1 on the HP mixing with a native VLAN on Cisco for instance…), and other proprietary protocols (CDP for instance) that can have implications with the way management or configuration is done…
Also, in some cases, the use of other technologies that cisco has brought along over the years – Network access control, that interfaces with Cisco switches for instance, and the buildup of different interactions with other technologies, ends up creating a technical barrier on top of the barrier for change on things like:
“our other 30 switches are Cisco, and now I’ll place another vendor one?”.
And on that question, price is not likely to be the most important factor, but TCO, existing expertise, and applications running on the network (that need QoS for instance), and integration with existing monitoring, configuration management, and infrastructure, may be the most important factor on the decision…