No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Cisco DNA Center vs Junos Space Network Director comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 2, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco DNA Center
Ranking in Network Management Applications
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
44
Ranking in other categories
Network Monitoring Software (18th), Network Automation (2nd)
Junos Space Network Director
Ranking in Network Management Applications
19th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Network Management Applications category, the mindshare of Cisco DNA Center is 8.7%, down from 24.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Junos Space Network Director is 2.4%, down from 3.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Management Applications Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cisco DNA Center8.7%
Junos Space Network Director2.4%
Other88.9%
Network Management Applications
 

Featured Reviews

Mahir Öztürk - PeerSpot reviewer
Network Engineer at NGN Bilgi ve İletişim Hizmetleri
Client history has helped resolve past network issues more efficiently
I mostly use the client history feature of Cisco DNA Center. I didn't use the real-time monitoring capability of Cisco DNA Center because I primarily used it for client history regarding issues and problems. I don't use it for real-time monitoring. If there is a problem, I can inspect the situation and see what is happening, which is beneficial.
Ibrahim Reda - PeerSpot reviewer
Network and Security Engineer at CITG - Continental Information and Telecom Group
High scalability network management with centralized control and an intuitive interface that provides efficient monitoring and configuration capabilities
A centralized platform is crucial for efficiently managing all of our switches, which were previously handled individually, leading to significant challenges. This unified dashboard simplifies tasks like simultaneous switch upgrades, streamlining the process. It enables us to create reports that monitor site statuses, including uptime and downtime, which helps us evaluate each site's monthly uptime and assess its revenue potential based on operational time.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The monitoring is very valuable to me, as I can easily monitor all my clients through Cisco DNA Center at this point."
"We can monitor all devices and get the required information using the product."
"The biggest lesson that I have learned from working with this solution is that this technology is much easier now."
"Deployment is easier than it was five or six years ago."
"The solution helps in user microsegmentation."
"It is simple to manage and it is all done from a single dashboard."
"Application Assurance works very well."
"The most valuable features of the solution are all of its security features...It is a highly scalable solution."
"Junos Space creates one pane of glass managing your switching, routing, and security infrastructure as long as you have the modules for it."
"The most valuable feature is the technical support, as it is better than others."
"It allows me to do more of the basic firewall features, like traffic management and others, in a single pane of glass."
"A centralized platform is crucial for efficiently managing all of our switches, which were previously handled individually, leading to significant challenges."
"The most valuable feature is the management from a single pane of glass."
"For edge switching, this product is fantastic."
 

Cons

"There should be an option for automation of template deployment by using the stored data. It is not easy to save configuration information for lots of devices without using other tools. There should be a tighter, better repository of information that can be merged with the templates."
"Requires more focus on the digital side of things."
"The tool's IoT integration should be better."
"Cisco DNA Center was a new technology for us, at the beginning, it was not easy to do, but Cisco did a lot of training with us to a level we could handle everything. The team is managing itself now without the assistance of Cisco."
"It would be helpful if it could be integrated with a variety of solutions, such as Meraki."
"The product has many features that do not work properly."
"The solution's technical support is an area with which my company's clients have a problem. Cisco doesn't provide good technical support unless a user has a big account that Cisco wants to retain."
"In terms of the clustering part, there are some concerns."
"The upgrades are very time-consuming and difficult, and they often have to rebuild the product."
"I would like to see Space created to fully functional, where it's got multiple modules, particularly SD-WAN working on Corporate, or maybe become part of the Orchestrator portion."
"I feel like it's been taking a back burner to other things, and I think that they're trying to go different routes."
"Its interface should be improved and enhanced to offer various functions, with flexible pricing"
"I would like to them include network real-time performance and come up with a dashboard report."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licensing cost for Cisco DNA Center is not more than that of other solutions."
"Licensing for Cisco DNA Center is a little bit expensive, just like any Cisco solution. Its cost could still be improved."
"I do know that Cisco does offer some really good promotions for DNA Center to bring the costs down."
"The tool's licensing may not come across as something that may be friendly for users."
"Cisco DNA Center is expensive."
"It is an expensive solution."
"I rate the product's pricing an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is very cheap, and ten is very expensive."
"The tool is medium-priced."
"We would like the price to be reduced."
"This product is set at a good price point."
"Typically, Juniper is more expensive than Cisco in initial costs, but overall, the long-term licensing fees that you're going to pay for Juniper versus Cisco is going to be less."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Management Applications solutions are best for your needs.
899,258 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
13%
Government
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Computer Software Company
6%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Government
9%
Construction Company
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business12
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise24
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco DNA Center?
After evaluating other solutions, we will provide feedback.
What needs improvement with Cisco DNA Center?
The deployment of Cisco DNA Center was complex due to the fact that on the data center side, we have a Juniper infrastructure, which created some complexity, though not significant. The deployment ...
What is your primary use case for Cisco DNA Center?
In my organization, we currently have some Cisco devices such as access switches, and we also have infrastructure, but that is not part of our responsibility. We do not manage that infrastructure. ...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

DNA Center
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
St. Catherine's University, OneNet, University of New Haven, Frederick County Public Schools (Maryland), America's Test Kitchen
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco DNA Center vs. Junos Space Network Director and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
899,258 professionals have used our research since 2012.