We performed a comparison between Cisco CloudCenter and CloudStack based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."You can scale it easily."
"Cisco CloudCenter's scalability is good."
"The solution includes a lot of features and is useful because you can configure all the way down to ports."
"The initial setup is fairly straightforward if you have a basic setup."
"The initial setup process is straightforward."
"Cisco has a lot of published information and documentation that helps users understand the product and its offering very well."
"I can define all components and create a blueprint for consumption across all services."
"Upgrades are very simple as well because they've allowed us to get updates directly in the CloudCenter Suite manager. If you need to do an upgrade to your setup afterward, you just push a button and it rolls out the parts and retires the old ones. It's seamless and very simple compared to what we've done before."
"My company could implement a lot of customizations and integration with load balancers and DNS. When we started using CloudStack, we didn't have that integration, so we developed that. We could fix anything missing in the solution."
"Over the years, we have valued CloudStack for its stability."
"When compared to OpenStack, CloudStack is also an open-source platform that is continuously improving its features and capabilities with each new version release. Having worked with CloudStack 4.7, 4.14, and most recently, 4.17, I have noticed significant enhancements in the platform's features and customer experience, such as the introduction of a new user interface in the latest release. Notably, the latest versions have made major improvements to VM live migrations, making them more efficient and effective."
"Killer features for me were: support for many hypervisors, ability to match business logic, "everything in one box," available APIs."
"It has become easy to deploy new devices with no or minimal hardware changes. Now, a user can be ready to use a firewall within a few minutes, as compared to the traditional physical model which involved purchase, shipping, hardware configuration, cabling, power, etc."
"Multiple types of hypervisor support, multi-zone support, and VPC are great valuable features."
"The initial implementation process was quite good."
"You can manage infrastructure with a few people, since product is monolithic. We had three engineers (storage, virtual, Linux admins) only. Also, CS supports different flavours of hypervisors."
"The tool should improve its security on the XDR part."
"They should provide an entire cloud offering, from architecture to network security features."
"The improvement I would like to see is not one thing particular to CloudCenter. I'd say it's more of a message that the system is still using a lot of the different products and if they would all just fit better together, they all could be faster together."
"The solution needs to be more simple."
"I'm not a big fan of CloudCenter. I don't have anything against it, however, the on-premise version has been so hard to upgrade and maintain."
"They can add some of those features to make the platform more usable for different backgrounds and developer skills."
"You don't get all the solution's benefits if you have older switches."
"Improvements are needed in UI and multi-tenancy for this solution."
"The number of contributors to this solution is relatively small compared to other solutions. However, if more frequent users of CloudStack contribute to the open-source community, it will significantly enhance the overall community experience and make it more useful for everyone involved."
"The area of improvement could be the regionalization aspect. For example, managing multiple regions or HubStack deployments together was not thought out thoroughly in the versions I used. We faced issues around managing the global infrastructure and had to develop around it."
"I think that container technology in CloudStack is an area that needs to be improved."
"This product needs a lot improvement on the development side. Every new version introduces new bugs. It lacks many features needed for NFV like DPDK, SR-IOV support, etc."
"We did encounter issues with stability, and the main issue was secondary storage. When it is not available, XenServers and hypervisors are affected. And CS doesn’t do anything to reboot, or fix. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn’t, considering their approach – CS just orchestrates everything else on the hypervisor and storage level."
"Lack of support for third-party software vendors such as Veeam and Zerto creates limitations on comprehensive offerings which would include backup and disaster recovery."
"The Windows hosts do not get their hostnames from cloud-init."
"A technology upgrade is one item which could be improved upon a lot."
Cisco CloudCenter is ranked 18th in Cloud Management with 9 reviews while CloudStack is ranked 12th in Cloud Management with 29 reviews. Cisco CloudCenter is rated 7.8, while CloudStack is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco CloudCenter writes "Useful features for configuring down to ports but extremely expensive". On the other hand, the top reviewer of CloudStack writes "A solution that strikes a balance between user-friendliness, scalability, and stability". Cisco CloudCenter is most compared with Cisco Intersight, VMware Aria Automation, Cisco UCS Director and Faddom, whereas CloudStack is most compared with OpenNebula, vCloud Director, Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) and Sangfor HCI - Hyper Converged Infrastructure. See our Cisco CloudCenter vs. CloudStack report.
See our list of best Cloud Management vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Management 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.
