We performed a comparison between Cisco SD-WAN vs Versa FlexVNF based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Users give both solutions very similar ratings in all categories with the exception of pricing. FlexVNF users are happier in terms of pricing.
"As compared to the other major vendors in the SD-WAN market, such as VeloCloud, Cisco, and others, the tunnel-free and secure vector routing technology is its major USP, which gives plenty of room to discuss with the customer why IPSec from 1998 is a bit outdated."
"The most valuable features are manageability, scalability, and simplicity."
"It's a complete solution with many security features."
"The deployment is quite simple and straightforward."
"It has a very good GUI."
"Cisco SD-WAN's collaborative features are unique and sustainable. I also like the protocols, which use two SD-WAN."
"Cisco SD-WAN is a very good product."
"SD-WAN is very stable - once it's deployed, you can just forget about it, it runs by itself."
"It is very stable with very good firmware."
"The most valuable features are the main steering and the firewall. The security features and SD-WAN features are also quite good."
"It is very easy to deploy. The GUI interface is really good, and the security features are also very good. It is also stable and scalable, and their support is also good."
"There are great security and ops features without the need for having a different box for security."
"The division of Control Plane and Data Plane is most valuable. It can be deployed anywhere, and you can control it and configure it from anywhere. This is one of the good features of this solution."
"The flexibility is a great feature."
"I like all the features. We utilize different LAN, bandwidth transferring, bandwidth balancing, and mappings. We use it as a centralized solution, and use the same product at all our locations."
"The initial setup is simple."
"The product has a dynamic VPN feature for SD-WAN."
"The UI of the SSR conductor is the main part where improvements can be done. Today, for every configuration step, you have to do a series of clicks. What we are missing there are wizards. For example, I have two applications, and I want one application to be prioritized against the other. In such a case, a wizard for assigning policies to a service without configuring each step by hand would be very helpful. There should be an overhaul of the GUI of the conductor. The functionality they have got in the Mist portal should be baked into the conductor itself. It would be really great, but as we all know, that won't happen."
"All of the configurations are based on templates, and we need to spend a lot of time doing the templates. It's good because that means that all of the configurations will be equal in the network. However, we need to spend a lot of time implementing the templates and doing the customizations."
"Cisco SD-WAN could improve on the ease of integration, the configuration should be easier. At the moment the process is more command line based and it would be better if it was able to be done through an interface."
"The process of onboarding the vSmart, vBond, and vManage should be improved to make it easier to manage in general."
"The platform needs to be updated to be more stable and simple."
"Some competitors are much faster in providing out-of-the-box solutions, more innovative solutions. In terms of innovation, in many cases, they're lagging behind."
"The solution could be more secure. Security is always a priority for us."
"Cisco needs to improve the technical support for this solution."
"It's an expensive solution."
"The solution lacks a mobile version where small, manageable platforms can be developed."
"With the pandemic and changing work models, it would be ideal if the product more accessibility options or more diversity within the solution itself."
"The security should be improved."
"I heard about them for the first time just before I started working on Versa. They do have blogs for information, but they could publicize more about the documentation and architecture. It doesn't seem to have that much exposure, and they should work on their customer base more."
"The stability of FlexVNF's controller and devices could be improved."
"The VPN feature is relatively new. It came out two releases ago, and they're still fixing that up."
"There are limitations when you connect from multiple locations. It does not work as expected. If you have more than 400 users, then it will choke. It will not perform as expected."
"The interface could be simpler."
Cisco SD-WAN is ranked 2nd in Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions with 45 reviews while Versa FlexVNF is ranked 4th in Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions with 10 reviews. Cisco SD-WAN is rated 8.0, while Versa FlexVNF is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco SD-WAN writes "Stable, cutting-edge, and robust". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Versa FlexVNF writes "Transparent with fair pricing and good reliability". Cisco SD-WAN is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, VMware SD-WAN, Meraki SD-WAN, Silver Peak Unity EdgeConnect and Peplink SpeedFusion, whereas Versa FlexVNF is most compared with VMware SD-WAN, Fortinet FortiGate, Meraki SD-WAN, Zscaler SASE and Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks. See our Cisco SD-WAN vs. Versa FlexVNF report.
See our list of best Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions vendors and best WAN Edge vendors.
We monitor all Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions 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.
