We performed a comparison between Cisco FabricPath and Juniper QFabric based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two LAN Switching solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We have found the solution to be stable."
"We can also enhance our service line with disaster recovery."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable soltuion."
"The most valuable features are the security, web control, and traffic control."
"The solution has excellent stability."
"FabricPath's best features are routing, OSPS, ethernet, and performance."
"It is stable and reliable."
"It's a reliable product and you know that it will work in the enterprise environment."
"It's user-friendly."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the fabric backplane having upwards of 160 GB of communication. It is a top-of-the-rack solution where you have your directors sitting in the main area and then you have your nodes expanded out to your multiple cabinets. It has a very good design and could be your server backbone."
"It is known for being agile, flexible, and cost-effective when working with various vendors."
"QFabric supports redundancy and includes all of the enterprise and service provider features that customers would want in data center or service provider network."
"The solution is easy to use and has good performance."
"The 40 gig backbone InterConneX was valuable for our use case. It is even faster now. QFabric has spine-leaf technology or topology, which basically makes every single hop only one hop away in terms of connecting from one device to another. It is a pretty good and robust solution. It works pretty well in terms of scalability, and their technical support is amazing."
"The vendor maintains the product well."
"Juniper QFabric has various advantages including scalability, simplicity, performance, and flexibility."
"I would like to see better interoperability with other IT solutions."
"While Cisco products are excellent, the problem is the cost. Cisco products are product, Cisco products are very expensive. I rate Cisco FabricPath three out of 10 for affordability."
"The documents could improve for Cisco FabricPath. There are times when the relevant information is not present in the different sections of the documents, such as deployment. The documents should be more detailed and enhanced."
"If Cisco can include management for this protocol in Layer 3, that would be ideal."
"The price is a little bit too high."
"Layer 3 does not have higher availability."
"The solution should offer better reporting."
"In terms of the series, I find that the integration with other teleconferencing applications needs to be more seamless. I have suggested to Cisco that the endpoint device should allow joining calls from Microsoft Teams, Zoom, and other teleconferencing applications. Additionally, I appreciate the recent inclusion of breakout sessions in the Cisco Webex application, which enhances its relevance in the networking field."
"Having support for all OpenFlow versions would be beneficial."
"I do not use GUI's very much for switch stacks. I am always in the CLI. However, I do know that Juniper in the past has lacked on their GUI's, but they have been working on it."
"The pricing structure could be more budget-friendly."
"The disruptive upgrade was an issue for us."
"It would be nice if Juniper provided the system integrator with training, similar to that of Cisco."
"They are working on the virtualization of the actual fabric layer. They are moving away from the original spine-leaf design to a different infrastructure. Instead of having three tiers, which was the director of the interconnected nodes, they cut them back, and they still have that kind of structure."
"The stability needs to be improved."
"It works too much on rebooting and there is some memory leakage."
Cisco FabricPath is ranked 8th in LAN Switching with 21 reviews while Juniper QFabric is ranked 10th in LAN Switching with 9 reviews. Cisco FabricPath is rated 8.4, while Juniper QFabric is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Cisco FabricPath writes "On overall effective product with good performance and a simple setup ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Juniper QFabric writes "Performs well, is easy to set up, and the vendor maintains the product well". Cisco FabricPath is most compared with Cisco Nexus and Arista Campus LAN Switches, whereas Juniper QFabric is most compared with Cisco Nexus. See our Cisco FabricPath vs. Juniper QFabric report.
See our list of best LAN Switching vendors.
We monitor all LAN Switching 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.