Meraki MS Switches Reviews

We use Meraki MS Switches for larger companies, as part of our organization, where they are connected to the servers here via VPN. They are used daily.

The stability and workflow of Meraki MS Switches have most improved our network management. I also appreciate the high availability offered by the solution. I use it because the environment is working fine with no major problems and it's easy to manage.

Meraki MS Switches is a complete solution. I don't have specific feedback for improvement. However, there was an issue with the uplink when the port was removed and had to be reinstalled, which caused a temporary dropout.

For three years.

I find Meraki MS Switches to be stable, with no significant issues reported.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

I don't have much experience interacting with Cisco technical support.

Before Meraki switches, we used a mixed solution of Cisco switches. There were no problems with these solutions, but they wanted a more unified approach.

The initial setup was conducted by a third party. I'm not directly involved in the setup process.

A certified third-party team handled the implementation of the solution.

Meraki MS Switches, including their licensing, are somewhat expensive, particularly when compared with competitor solutions like HP.

I recommend Meraki MS Switches for larger companies rather than small businesses. Small businesses might benefit more from other solutions.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use Meraki MS Switches for VLANs, remote configuration, and having a single interface for configuring all our sites. Additionally, we rely on 100% remote configuration.

Meraki MS Switches provide a single global management interface in the cloud, allowing us to access any switch configuration from a single interface.

One of the most valuable features of Meraki MS Switches is its precise traffic analytics capabilities, allowing us to query the system for any place at any time.

There are compatibility issues with certain Power over Ethernet (PoE) devices, which we would like to see resolved.

We have been using the solution for three years.

The solution is stable, but there is always room for improvement. We faced issues following firmware updates, which we now handle by performing updates outside of working hours.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate scalability as eight out of ten.

Cisco's tech support is pretty good, and I would rate it an eight out of ten.

Positive

We did evaluate other options. We chose Meraki switches because it provided the ability to manage remote switches effectively, offering good control over all our equipment remotely.

The setup process was pretty straightforward, and I would rate it an eight out of ten for ease.

It's difficult to calculate return on investment. The primary advantage is the centralized and online access to switch configurations.

The solution is a bit expensive as it is on the high end. The cost depends on the model and the number of years of usage.

We evaluated other options but Meraki was the only solution that offered good remote switch management.

I would recommend using Meraki MS Switches as it is good equipment, sturdy, and works well.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I am primarily focused on the Catalyst wireless port portfolio and the switching portfolio, which includes the 9200, 9300, and 9500 series, among others. I also work with Meraki, including the Meraki MX firewall, MS switches, and Microsoft products, among others.

Almost all of my functions perform very well. I don't require anything else. It is very good in the management console, which is managed through a single dashboard. That's why I mostly recommend Meraki for small setups and remote office locations for clients using MS language.

The prices are a little higher than other vendors. However, within the Cisco customer segment, customers mostly recommend it because they are existing users, and they are satisfied with their current usage.

I have been using this solution for the last three years.

If there are many users and a heavy data load, heavy data traffic, I am not suggesting Meraki. I am focusing on Meraki Catalyst for live usage. It is not scalable enough, and I do not recommend it due to its switching capability.

I receive support directly from a Meraki dashboard. The support is excellent and rated ten out of ten.

Positive

I have mostly been using Cisco for the last 15 years. I do not work with other vendors. For switching portfolios, I focus solely on Cisco.

The initial setup was straightforward, especially with the API setup. I simply go to the dashboard, insert a dashboard license key, and add a device. I can then see their GUI-based dashboard and configure it according to my requirements. For single fleets, the setup usually takes 30 to 60 minutes.

I have a technical team for the installation part. They manage our technical communication well.

I am very satisfied. The investments made are justified by the satisfaction with the Mediatek solution.

Local Meraki support is excellent. They assist on each and every deal, especially regarding the size of BOQs. 

I would rate the overall solution ten out of ten.

I am a system integrator and my company is a partner for Cisco.

The ease of use and manageability from anywhere, whether it is from your mobile app or anywhere else with an Internet connection, is a unique selling point. It helps reduce network overhead by not requiring engineers to support the system.

The most valuable feature is the cloud management architecture from Meraki. The control plane is in the cloud, and the data plane is local, allowing manageability from anywhere.

Meraki requires more models, especially with respect to PoE Switches, to support Wi-Fi 6 capabilities. Meraki should also consider improvements in stacking features, particularly in the lower-end models like NS130, where stacking isn't supported, unlike with Cisco traditional switching.

The ease of installation and configuration saves time. Most things are automated, allowing for pre-configuration and readiness even before the delivery of equipment.

The network overhead is reduced as they don't have to hire engineers for support. The ease of use has helped reduce overall support costs.

Meraki pricing is a little premium compared to other vendor products. However, considering the features and ease of use, they are seen as pioneers in cloud management.

Meraki needs more stackable features. It would be beneficial if Meraki had stacking security in more models, especially at the lower end.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We have multiple sites across India with over thirty-five test plants in our network. The device management tools and logs are very user-friendly, making it easy to manage our network. 

It has simplified our management process.

With the license, you can manage and track all logs from the dashboard, making monitoring very easy.

We prefer Meeraki to be installed only on a local network rather than in a cloud-managed network. Meraki MS Switches are one of our largest categories, with over thirty-five deployed. 

However, the switches sometimes go offline, preventing us from effectively managing our networks. This issue arises because Meraki switches rely heavily on cloud connectivity. Given our need for reliable local network management, it would be beneficial if Meraki could launch an on-premises software solution. This would make it easier to manage the local network independently of cloud connectivity, especially when the cloud connection is down.

I have been using Meraki MS Switches for three years.

Meraki is very stable, with approximately 95-98% uptime. There are some occasional port fluctuations. Sometimes, simply replugging or transferring the connection to another port resolves the issue. There have been instances where a restart was necessary. 

We are managing over 35 devices. The solution is scalable.

The technical support requires improvement. We have observed network loops at several sites, which we manage remotely. We sought technical support during these incidents, but communication was very challenging. Therefore, from a support standpoint, improvements are necessary. Having local support personnel who can better manage such situations would be beneficial. 

Neutral

When comparing Meraki MS Switches with our current Catalyst switches, we find that using Catalyst switches managed through a controller is highly beneficial. Installing the controller to manage all switches is straightforward and ensures efficient management. The Catalyst switches are known for their stability and longevity, with many features still operational five to six years after installation. Regarding stability, 

Catalyst switches offer 99% reliability, compared to 92-98 percent for Meraki switches. Additionally, Catalyst switches have proven to be more robust against resource and performance fluctuations than Meraki.

The initial setup is easy. It typically takes two to three hours, and we have a single engineer for it.

Meraki MS Switches are highly beneficial. They significantly reduce troubleshooting time and enhance network stability. Features such as automatic loop negotiation and intuitive configuration options have saved our engineers considerable time. 

One engineer can manage over 35 users.

The licensing for Meraki MS Switches is good and reasonably priced. While the cost is slightly higher, approximately 5 to 10 percent more than some competitors due to market conditions, it remains an excellent value given the benefits. This slight premium is justified by the comprehensive features and support plans offered.

The security features of Meraki MS Switches are excellent. They include advanced capabilities such as built-in security measures and the ability to manage all features through the Meraki cloud dashboard, making configuration straightforward. Key features include port blocking and traffic management, allowing detailed control over network traffic. Additionally, Meraki MS Switches offer built-in firewall functionalities within the dashboard, enhancing the overall security level.

I highly recommend the Meraki MS switches to manage multiple local call center locations. Meraki is an excellent solution because of its enabled dashboard and the ability to manage it with a license from anywhere. However, one drawback is that it can only be managed with Ethernet. This limitation is quite specific to these switches. Otherwise, Meraki is a reliable solution for managing other remote setups.

We are considering Meraki MS Switches, their capabilities, and how they align with our expansion plans. We may need features like CI integration or related functionalities. Understanding the AI tools available with Meraki and identifying those applicable to our site requirements is crucial. First, we must comprehend the tools' capabilities and where they can be effectively deployed. These are key considerations that require clarity from Cisco.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight-point five out of ten.

We connect all workstations, CCTV, and biometric devices. We're using VLANs in Meraki, which is very easy for us. We can access it from anywhere since we are using Meraki in the cloud.

Meraki MS switches support the network management tasks. It is connected to our Cisco Nexus core switch. The connection goes from the server to the Nexus, then to Meraki, and then to the end-users. 

Changing VLANs is much easier in Meraki compared to other switches using the GUI. The GUI is the best part of Meraki. It's very easy to access.

Meraki does support CLI, but the GUI is purely GUI, which is very easy to access.

The security features, compatibility with other firewalls, and filtering capabilities in the MS switches have been the most beneficial for our network.

Tracking native ports with IP addresses is not currently possible in Meraki. I can track by hostname, but not IP address. I have requested this feature from Cisco, and they are working on it. So, this is an area of improvement. 

I would like to be able to use it on the local network. Currently, if there is no internet, I cannot use Meraki because it only works through the online portal. I would like to access the switches locally, even if the internet is down. Thie needs to be changed. 

I have been using it for two years. I work with the current update. 

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. There are no challenges with the stability.

We can extend the switches to the server room. We currently have four to six switches. If we want to add more switches, we can stack them onto existing ones, effectively combining them into a single switch.

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. Currently, we have 192 endpoints (48 X 4 ports) connected to our four switches, but we have 240 users. We will replicate the four more switches.

We have already planned and procured four more switches, which need to be implemented. We are in the process of increasing usage.

The technical support needs to be improved. When we had some issues, they asked for the tag. Since Meraki is new to them, there aren't many experienced Cisco engineers who handle Meraki.

There is room for improvement here. 

Neutral

I used Aruba. My company decided to switch to Meraki. Otherwise, I didn't had any issue Aruba. It was a corporate decision. 

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being easy to setup.

Deployment time:

Everything was smooth. The deployment model is on the cloud. It is Meraki dashboard. Its own portal.

Deployment process:

It took just half an hour to deploy. We connect to the network and obtain an IP. The switch is added into the portal using the license. Once that's done, we can access the switch in the portal and configure everything there.

It is self-deployed.

No maintenance is requried for Meraki MS switches. 

The pricing is very expensive. I would rate it a ten out of ten, with ten being expensive. The total cost for the switches, including future usage, is around 35 lakhs.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. I would recommend other users who have a good internet connection who are considering implementing Meraki MS Switches. 

We used Meraki Switches primarily for firewalling.

They help us provide reliable solutions to other customers as system integrators.

The reliability and ease of configuration are good. I very seldom receive complaints about the switches.

The GUI can be improved for a better comfort level.

We have been using Meraki Switches for more than seven or eight years.

The product has always catered to the specifications, and we haven't had any complaints about it.

Scalability is not a problem. We have it on-premises, and it is easy to scale.

Sometimes, we don't get support. That depends on the product warranty and support conditions. As a system integrator, I rate it a six out of ten as I can't raise any tickets without procuring equipment in my name.

Positive

We have worked with Sophos.

It is easy to install and usually requires just one technician.

One technician is usually enough for the installation. We manage the implementation ourselves as system integrators.

As a system integrator, we don't have that parameter for our markings. Return on investment is not applicable to us.

Compared to other products in the market, it is always expensive.

I am not sure about other solutions besides Meraki and Sophos.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

I am using MX400, MS320, MX250, and MS250. We also used MX64 before. We have replaced it with MX67.

The solution is efficient and easy to run.

The product has no CLI. The solution must provide a command line interface like the one in the Cisco environment with a proper iOS interrogation ability. It's the biggest thing for me because we don't know what these devices are doing half the time. It takes a long time to know we've committed a configuration change in Meraki. Sometimes, we have to wait for long before anything happens.

I have been using the solution for at least five years.

We have also used Cisco routers. They were plugged into NETGEAR Switches in our branches throughout the country. However, my organization wanted more visibility and the ability for our first-line support to do things rather than needing a higher technical level. So, we switched to Meraki.

The tool is expensive.

I will recommend the tool to an organization depending on its needs. It is a convenient product. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

Meraki MS Switches have revolutionized our network operations. With cloud-based management, deployment is effortless, and monitoring is streamlined.

Meraki MS Switches have been invaluable in our network management. Compared to other switches, Meraki stands out with features like Power over Ethernet. This capability, along with remote manageability, has transformed our network operations, allowing us to implement changes quickly and efficiently while maintaining our organization's standards. It has been a refreshing change, making our tasks easier and more streamlined.

The most valuable features of Meraki MS Switches are their reliability and simplicity. Once they are plugged in, they just work without needing much maintenance. They are dependable in various environments, from office to field settings. With Meraki, you can trust that they will perform reliably, which has been my experience.

One area where Meraki MS switches could improve is offering smaller switch sizes for distribution switches, as not all networks require the standard 24 or 48 ports. Having more compact options with fewer ports would be beneficial, especially for distribution switches with only a few connections needed. This could help optimize space, power usage, and cost efficiency, particularly for networks with many end-user switches and few distribution switches.

I have been using Meraki MS Switches for over a year.

I would rate the stability of the product as a ten out of ten. I have not faced any issues so far.

I would rate the scalability of Meraki MS Switches as a solid ten out of ten. We have approximately 20,000 end users at our company.

The technical support is excellent.

Before Meraki, we used a mix of Cisco and other brands. Then we switched exclusively to Cisco and eventually to Meraki.

I would rate the easiness of the initial setup as an eight out of ten. The deployment of Meraki MS switches typically takes a few days. We prepare parameters and schedule remote sessions with our network administrators. The actual session lasts about an hour, but the whole process involves coordination and preparation, including in-house support from an external company.

I would rate the costliness of Meraki MS Switches at around seven out of ten. They are not cheap, but I find them to be a good value for the money. However, I would prefer if the prices were a bit lower.

The analytics and dashboard functionalities of Meraki have greatly enhanced my network monitoring. While I primarily use it to monitor basic parameters like bandwidth and connectivity, it allows me to quickly spot potential issues and react promptly, despite overseeing a wide area.

In high-density environments, my experience with Meraki MS switches has been positive. They handle multiple wireless networks cohesively, including those for office and public use, without issues.

Overall, I would rate Meraki MS Switches as a nine out of ten.

We can build virtual stacking for the switches. It helps manage multiple switches deployed in different locations with a single console on the cloud. If we make any configuration changes, it can be changed across all the features using it.

It is a cloud-based product and depends on internet connectivity. It is not limited to specific geographical areas as well. So, we cannot provide these switches in the BFSI segment, especially the banking sector, as they have certain limitations due to regulatory guidelines. 

They could add NAS encryption protocol to the switches. Nowadays, many customers enquire about this feature.

We have been using Meraki MS Switches for almost eight years.

Stability-wise, I rate the product as a nine out of ten.

We have seven to eight customers for Meraki MS Switches from the manufacturing sector. I rate its scalability an eight out of ten.

The product's technical support team needs to take ownership of the problems. There is always room for improvement.

Neutral

I am working with many product competitors like Ruckus, HP, Juniper, etc.

We have implemented the product in Cisco cloud infrastructure itself. It is a private cloud based on a public cloud setup like AWS, Azure, or Google. It provides connectivity to the devices through the internet via a terminal. We require two people to manage the entire setup for maintenance.

The product's licensing cost is about 30% to 40% of the hardware cost. We have a yearly subscription. All the features are bundled in the licensing component. There are no additional costs involved.

It is one of the best products. It has a very good dashboard and a straightforward configuration. Although, it is not compliant with the requirements of specific industries that want to set it up within a particular region or country. In such cases, we provide them with on-premise solutions.

I recommend it to others and rate it a seven out of ten.