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

Exinda vs Steelhead comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 10, 2024

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

Exinda
Ranking in WAN Optimization
5th
Average Rating
8.8
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Steelhead
Ranking in WAN Optimization
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
WAN Edge (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the WAN Optimization category, the mindshare of Exinda is 6.7%, up from 5.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Steelhead is 15.5%, up from 13.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
WAN Optimization Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Steelhead15.5%
Exinda6.7%
Other77.8%
WAN Optimization
 

Featured Reviews

MJ
Senior Engineer, Team Lead, Network Operations at a comms service provider with 1,001-5,000 employees
Allows us to have better control over our network by shaping traffic more gently
There might be room for improvement in the speed and throughput of some of their devices. They're getting a bit slow on some of the bigger devices. It would be helpful if there were some sort of an ISP model. Also, while I don't think it would be possible for them to do, it would be better if they had the Citrix support and the visualization to visualize your network. Besides that, it fits its purpose as a shaper and accelerator. Some people would say things like, "Add a firewall to it," but I disagree. I think a firewall's a firewall, and Exinda's a shaper and accelerator.
Chaudhary Muhammad Moez Manzar - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior manager at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
Reduces operational costs through bandwidth optimization but struggles with high traffic licensing and complex deployments
The logs in Steelhead are fantastic. There is a deep level of logs such as top 10 docker and top 50 docker. I can check from the top 50 docker which type of application is optimizing well and which type of traffic is not optimized. Steelhead provides logs and percentage levels, which is good. I can see any type of log report, report security, different types of report availability, but it is not customizable. Overall, this is a good feature. Steelhead provides real-time optimization with graphs and tables on real-time optimization, informing us packet by packet including port, source IP, destination IP, and destination port number. This reporting and real-time monitoring is fantastic, although I faced a problem in Oracle. Steelhead mainly saves the money that needs to be paid to ISPs. My actual traffic is around 2 GB, but I purchased a link from the ISP for only around 700 to 800 MB. All the prices that need to be paid monthly to the ISP are saved, which is a significant saving for my company after using Riverbed.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"You can use Exinda as a network orchestrator so you can be sure that the throughput is managed well and everything gets what it needs."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to create policies where we can tailor them to the customer. It enables us to prioritize apps and users for bandwidth."
"Customer Service: Top notchTechnical Support: Top notch"
"A customer can either buy 50 Mb with us or 50 Mb with somebody else, but they'll get a 70 Mb feel with us because we can shape it a little bit better."
"One of the great things for us is that the solution works, and it works whether you're looking at it or not."
"Exinda can show you which product uses how much throughput and can help you manage it."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to provide very granular classes of service. That's important because it allows us to prioritize certain traffic types over others, to a very granular level."
"The benefit that we have seen is that if we turn it off, people notice that the applications are running slowly."
"Through this product, we can easily find the bottlenecks and where the traffic occurs or is generated in the network."
"I find the most valuable to be the compression and exchange replication."
"The devices were great, and proved to be a very valuable asset to the company."
"Steelhead has drastically improved user experience."
"It is very easy to install the solution."
"It has improved the stability and throughput of the WAN, especially for remote small branches with low link speed, and reduced the impact on network performance from Windows updates deployment on users PCs."
"Scalable data referencing is a great feature."
"You should buy SteelHead for WAN optimization because it delivers more."
 

Cons

"The stability was terrible in version 7.0 but it's been good since version 7.2."
"More free training on the website for those just getting started."
"The updating of applications that the system knows about could be a little quicker. For example, Zoom had been out for a while, but it took a while for it to show up as an application that Exinda could natively handle. We had to write some things in order to handle Zoom, initially."
"The areas for improvement would be around the support service that GFI provides."
"There might be room for improvement in the speed and throughput of some of their devices. They're getting a bit slow on some of the bigger devices. It would be helpful if there were some sort of an ISP model."
"Creating the custom application is a bit awkward. I kind of have to guess my way through it sometimes."
"One of the concerns that we've had with Exinda is the fact that ever since GFI took over Exinda, they haven't really put in much time into actually developing the product."
"Fundamentally sound with WAN acceleration, but needs to expand the range of accelerated applications."
"I would like to see improvement in the solution’s configuration and protocol aspects. We have got some configurations that are not set. I would also like to simplify the call detection of some protocols."
"Personally, my expertise with this device I feel is too low to determine what areas could be improved."
"There was a significant challenge when moving from an older version to a newer one due to changed quality of service policies."
"The scalability is not the best. If you find that you have outgrown the capacity of your appliance you are forced to repurchase the license and the appliance with very little discount even if your appliance is still under contract."
"There are issues with the tech support and scalability."
"If we load a primary firewall, the secondary firewall usually handles all the active connections, but in Riverbed, this isn't the case. We lose all the active connections at the moment of failure."
"Steelhead is considered an expensive solution in our country. On a scale of one to ten for expense, it would be rated an eight."
"If we lose the primary Steelhead that handles the optimization, the secondary Steelhead cannot handle the same High Availability."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is priced well for the market, for what it needs to do."
"The pricing and licensing are pretty fair and really competitive. There are other SD-WAN solutions that are pretty costly because they build in a service where they'll manage it for you, which is really great. I don't know if Exinda has that option as well. However, we are a small shop and cost-conscious. For things like this, we are accustomed to self-managing and this solution suits us just fine. For a tool that gives you, like the graphs and reporting, it has a fair price point."
"Across our 12 data centers, we spend around $150k annually."
"The solution is expensive and the service contacts are costly too. The cost of the device makes the value proposition borderline acceptable for us. The service contract fees we pay is approximately $30,000 annually."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which WAN Optimization solutions are best for your needs.
914,262 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
16%
Computer Software Company
15%
Construction Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Outsourcing Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Construction Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise4
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise14
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is the best network monitoring software for large enterprises?
We just did an assessment for our 47 datacenters around North America. The top two enterprise-level network monitoring solutions were ExtraHop first, Riverbed SteelCenter second. Their negotiated c...
What is your primary use case for Riverbed Steelhead?
I am currently working with Riverbed for replication between PR to DR for synchronization purposes, and for WAN optimization between replication from one data center to another data center. The mai...
What advice do you have for others considering Riverbed Steelhead?
Application performance may improve with Steelhead, but it varies application to application. Some applications, such as Oracle traffic, are not working well, but other traffic performs fine. The t...
 

Also Known As

No data available
RIverbed Steelhead
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

UMass Dartmouth, MLB Network, R&R Ice Cream, Savills, Manhattan School of Music, Blum Shapiro, Cincinnati Public Schools, City of Richmond, Genting Casinos, The Salvation Army, VoIP Unlimited, Frontier Silicon, Lakeshore Toltest, CTI Foods
ElAraby, SFK Leblanc, Bobst Group, Northwest Pipe Company, Halkbank, Tradebridge, EFG Hermes
Find out what your peers are saying about Exinda vs. Steelhead and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
914,262 professionals have used our research since 2012.