Meraki MS Switches Reviews

A primary use case involves small to mid-sized offices consisting of under five hundred ports. 

While I do not have metrics to demonstrate how the product has improved the functioning of my organization, I can state that the upgrades to the portal have made it easier to manage the switches and the flexibility of the configurations. As for deployment, as you know, there are obviously multiple configuration styles. If you are going to do layer three at the edge, layer three at the core, the flexibility of the devices is very good. I cannot state to what extent improvements accrue to the investment, although I do know it is getting better.

The most valuable feature of the product is the console. The second most valuable feature is the technical support and the infrastructure behind the console.

Performance is an area in need of improvement. Other systems, such as Juniper switches, perform better for the same or less money. For consistency and ease of use, Cisco is definitely better, but performance is where things fall short. 

Price to performance value when compared with competitors is a feature that should be addressed in the next release. 

I have been working with Meraki MS Switches for four or five years. I try to use the latest models available. I have used the 250 and 450 and will have to check if I used another one. 

The product has good stability. 

The product demonstrates good scalability. 

I want to use the product so that I may plug it in and set it up in fifteen minutes. Then, when I have to troubleshoot something, it's easy. When I have a problem with the network, I call up technical support and they help. They actually help.

With other companies, when asking for something beyond the scope of technical support's outline, I would have the feeling of being deferred and not receiving the necessary help.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

I choose to rate the product a nine out of ten because of the cost. Remember, you and I are not paying for the equipment. Someone is paying for it. Someone has to be willing to pay the premium for this and they have to see the value. I am not a salesman, but if I want to go with Cisco, I need to show the client the better value of buying Cisco Meraki over Ubiquiti.

Another system I evaluated is Juniper switches. 

The use case is small to mid-sized offices, under 500 ports.

The upgrades to the portal made it easier to manage the switches. The flexibility of the configurations is great — there are multiple configuration styles relating to deployment. If you're going to do Layer 3 at the edge, you're going to do Layer 3 at the core. The flexibility of the devices is very good.

The most valuable feature about Meraki is the console. The second most valuable feature, to me, is the technical support and the infrastructure behind the console.

I think their feature set is far better than most

The biggest area that they fall short on is comparing the performance. I don't have the articles in front of me, but the performance of a Cisco Meraki Switch versus some of the other devices that are more expensive or are equally as expensive as Meraki, they're falling short on the performance, because you're paying so much more money and they're not performing better.

That is a big problem when you talk to clients who've researched this. If ease of use and flexibility is important, I usually forego the high-end performance for the money. The performance is not bad, but let's say I bought one of the other Cisco switches or Juniper switches — they perform better for the same amount or even less money. That's a big drawback.

They need to work on the performance. Maybe the chipset that they're using is not as good as Juniper, for example. But their goal is not performance, it's consistency. If you're about consistency and ease of use, Cisco is definitely better. If you're about performance, that's where they fall short.

Keep in mind, that's my opinion; someone may argue differently with me — that Meraki is not better. It's not slower or less performance-optimized, but it's something I come up against when I discuss it and offer it as a solution versus Juniper or some other devices.

I want to use Meraki because I want to be able to plug it in and set it up in 15 minutes. Then when I have to troubleshoot something, it's easy. When I have a problem with the network, I call them up and they help. They actually help. You call up some of these other vendors, they're like, "Huh? Oh, you got to do all this stuff." I'm like, "No, no, no. Let's look at the logs together. Then you tell me what you see. And then I'll fix, or I'll adjust, or we'll replace." I don't want to go through this whole story and song and dance as I did with HP. So it's a problem.

Cisco overcomes that, but performance is where they get hurt. When you talk to any of the other guys that do network architecture, they're like, "Well, we're not going to pick Cisco Meraki. We're going to pick the other Cisco switches, or we're going to pick Juniper, or we're going to pick something else, but we're not going to go with Meraki." I'm like, "Okay." But in a small to medium-sized business, you can't beat them. 

I have been using Meraki MS Switches for four to five years.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Meraki MS Switches a rating of nine. The only drawback is the cost — that's what kills them.

I am not paying for the equipment; someone else is paying for it. Someone has to be willing to pay the premium for that and they have to see the value. I'm not a salesman, but if I want to go with Cisco, I have to show the client that if they buy Cisco Meraki versus Ubiquiti, they're going to do better.

I use it primarily when migrating from old or legacy to Meraki MS Switches supporting Meraki services and supporting the SD-WAN. But I am using them with the SD-WAN provided by FlexWare. I am also using it for connecting access points because it is easier than using the Catalyst with a command line.  Meraki MS Switches has its own user interface on its platform. It is easier for configuring the interfaces and monitoring, getting the box and logs from Exporter. We are using it in some regions, especially in the Americas, North and Latin Americas, Asia Pacific, and some countries in the EMEA.

I like that the portal has maps inside it that detect a given location which makes searching on it easier. You can also attach photos to the portal.

The shooting portal side needs to have CLI access for deep investigations.

The most valuable feature is that it is more stable than Catalyst switches. It is easy to configure and claim the switches by their serial number directly from the portal.

In reference to an area of improvement sometimes the switch does not connect to the internet initially. One area that needs to be improved is the issue of the STP incompatible versions It occurs when there is another version of the opposite device. If you have an older version or newer version of the software, sometimes it is an issue that happens with STP incompatible versions for the uplinks. There is a lot of dependency on software compatibility. I would like to see the feature of the Catalyst Switches regarding the LLDB and CDP neighbors to be included.

I have been using Meraki MS Switches for the past three years now.

Meraki MS Switches are a stable solution.

The scalability of Meraki MS Switches depends on the compatibility of the version you are working with. In addition, it also relates to a small office or a warehouse.

We have yet to send cases to the vendor.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward and easy. The deployment is pretty fast and takes usually about an hour to complete. We configure the ports, and LANs, you can select multiple interfaces, and configure them at the same time. This is similar to the interface range command line and the user interface, simply connect the internet and everything will work.

The solution was implemented in-house.

It depends on the cost center and the version of switches and their model no, so it varies from small places to large environments.

Meraki MS Switches are more stable and reliable than Catalyst switches. They are an easy product to configure. You need to know the network essentials and what are the IPs. A professional engineer is not required to install them. I would rate them an eight out of ten.

The solution is user-friendly and offers good visibility of users, service visibility and program management. It is easy to handle the configurations.

The setup is simple. 

We have found the product to be stable. 

It is scalable. 

The product is reasonably priced. 

The existing setup is okay right now.

The troubleshooting could be better. Sometimes we get the wrong information.

Technical support could be better. 

It's not perfectly priced. It could always be a bit lower. 

I've used the solution for two or three years. 

It's a stable solution. The product is reliable. We have not faced any problems so far. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution is scalable. 

We currently have hundreds of switches. 

At this point in time, we do not have plans to increase usage. 

Technical support is not the best. We can't say they are very good. 

Neutral

It's an easy initial setup. It's straightforward. It's not complex or difficult. 

We only need one person to handle the initial setup. 

The price is quite good. I'd rate it four out of five. It's affordable. 

We did look into other solutions.

We have a partnership with Meraki.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. 

I use it in conjunction with Meraki Firewall and Meraki AP as a package. I am using the latest version of this solution.

We mainly replaced a number of Cisco ASA 5505 Firewalls that had PoE on them. The new Cisco ASA 5506 Firewall and Meraki MX Firewall don't have PoE, but we needed ports and PoE. Therefore, we combined the switches with the firewalls. The clients already had Meraki APs, so we just plugged in Meraki switches. 

The improvements are mainly from the help desk perspective. It has been very useful for the help desk. Previously, the whole setup was Cisco. It was Cisco ASA 5505, so there was no real GUI. We only had the command-line interface to go in and look at it. Now we can look at the entire location in one piece on the dashboard.

A lot of our customers are small to medium businesses, doctors, and lawyers. The Meraki dashboard allows our help desk to quickly view a customer's location.

It is easy to deploy, maintain, and update. It has been trouble-free so far.

I am still a Cisco command-line bigot, but the web interface makes it a lot easier for our help desk to interact with a client. When the clients call in and say that they aren't able to connect, it takes the help desk 10 minutes or less to look at everything in the enterprise or location. They can look at the firewall, switches, or access points in the dashboard. That's why I like the dashboard.

It would be good to include the command-line access someday.

I have been using this solution for a year and a half at the most.

It has been stable so far. I haven't had any problems. 

Its scalability is good. It is good for small and medium businesses and locations. They can scale up to good throughput. 

In terms of the number of users, all employees of a client are the users of this solution. All PCs are plugged into Meraki. All wireless devices are coming through them.

I had to call them a number of times. I always got great support from Meraki. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

We mainly used Cisco products, which could be managed only by using the command-line interface. We switched mainly because of the dashboard. 

If I am going to put something in the enterprise, I'll go with a full Cisco switch. If you buy the full Cisco switch, it comes with a lot of features. I won't put a Meraki switch on top of the rack of a whole enterprise or a whole bunch of blade servers kind of setup. Meraki is great for small and medium businesses and locations.

The initial setup is easy. I can send Meraki Firewall, Meraki AP, and Meraki Switch to a client and have them plug these in. They'll pop up in the dashboard as long as you've done a few things correctly. I can customize a switch in England from Upstate New York. This is what is great. You cannot do this with a full-blown Cisco switch. You have to configure it, put it in a box, put the tray, and roll with Meraki.

Its price is definitely competitive.

I would recommend this solution. It is easy to deploy. You can put it in a box or have it shipped to a client's remote location. Even if they don't know anything, you can talk to them and set it up easily.

I would rate Meraki MS Switches a nine out of ten. I am very happy with all Meraki products that I use. 

These switches are best used in mid-size businesses for access and collapsed distribution/core switching. They offer both layer 2 and layer 3 models and have a well-rounded switch feature set for a switch line. Overall, we have found them to meet just about every need we want in a switch. We have them as 10-GB solutions for high-speed SAN connectivity all the way down to 8-port solutions in some high-end homes. They offer ACLs, LACP, port security, access policies, and DHCP security, to name a few options. The methods that Meraki has chosen to implement some of these features via the cloud is amazingly simple to manage compared to locally managed solutions.

For MSPs, a cloud-managed solution is so much more efficient than a locally managed solution, and having a single pane of glass with Meraki's dashboard is an easy-to-use solution. It is simple to switch between managing wireless, security appliances, and switches on the dashboard if all three Meraki solutions are implemented. This simplifies the management process and allows the granular control of the devices or in some cases global control of all ports. Change management is built-in (who did what) and sorely missing in locally managed solutions. Additionally, you can manage switch ports across multiple devices all at the same time. Adding a new VLAN to all trunk ports in the organization is simple with tags selecting all trunk ports and adding the new VLAN by number.

Setting up a switch can be performed prior to having your hands on the device. Once you purchase a Meraki switch you will get an email from Meraki with a code to add to your dashboard and then you can start setting up your switch so when it arrives it will download its configuration and be all set up. It is practically a zero-touch deployment. Firmware upgrades on devices are pushed from the cloud and typically only bring the device down for a minute or two while applied. The built-in packet capture on them allows easier troubleshooting even when you are not onsite. They even allow you to create staged upgrade plans so you can schedule which switches upgrade in order to minimize downtime.

Meraki MS switches are great for pretty much all SMB networks and most enterprise networks. However, there are some higher-end functions that larger enterprise networks with full access, distribution, and core switch stack may find limiting.

One of the most challenging things to get used to is the delay in the time it takes for changes to be implemented. With a locally managed switch, you make a change and it is pretty much immediate. With the nature of cloud management, you make a change and it may take one to three minutes before that change makes its way to the device and takes effect. It's not a problem once you get used to it but when we first started working with Meraki, I found myself making a change and immediately assuming it didn't work so I would change it again. A little patience is your friend when making changes. They have a field on the dashboard that lets you know when the config is up to date so that makes it easy to know when you can start testing your change(s). I'm not sure if this delay could be reduced or not by prioritizing communication but it is by no means a show-stopper. They warn you when you are about to make changes to the uplink path of a device so you can double-check to make certain your change will not break the Internet access for the device.

I have been using Meraki MS Switches for seven years.

MS switches have proven very reliable.

The solution is not as scalable as Cisco Nexus but not as expensive either. I think Meraki has hit the sweet spot on scaling.

Technical support is about an eight on a scale of ten. Meraki techs have additional capabilities beyond what the dashboard admin has so they can make some adjustments that you can't. Which is probably a good thing overall but can be frustrating. They use packet tracing rather effectively to troubleshoot which is available to the end user also.

Cisco switches were used previously. The main reason I switched was the cloud management. Ironically, after I switched, Cisco purchased Meraki. I was concerned Cisco would mismanage Meraki when that happened but they seem to have stayed out of the Meraki business model for the most part. Cisco and Meraki are starting to share some backend functions (Umbrella for example). Cisco is starting to offer Cisco switches that can be managed using the Meraki dashboard or local management. 

The dashboard is easy to setup and manage.

We implemented the solution in-house.

We have seen a two to three year ROI.

The licensing model is hard for some to wrap their heads around and I understand their concerns. Meraki, like numerous other vendors, is too expensive for a lot of small businesses. However, if uptime is critical to your organization, the cloud management, great stability, and performance of the MS line is a powerful combination. 

There are other cheaper solutions out there and some of them are quite good. I really like Meraki overall. Their license requirement means you always have support and next day replacement on all your Meraki equipment. Be careful if purchasing Meraki hardware secondhand. The warranty only applies to the original owner. So you should have a warranty from the secondhand provider if that is important to you.

They co-terminate the licenses so each license you purchase has a prorated impact on the co-termination date. You can choose to not use the co-termination date if you wish. The nice feature about the co-termination date is you don't have to micromanage each device's license. This is across all Meraki devices (security appliances, switches, APs, etc.). 

Purchase your switch with a one, three, five, seven, or ten-year license depending on your planned use and you might never need to think about a license again as you will be likely replacing the device with something newer at the end of that period. Purchasing the longer license protects from future price increases and also saves money versus adding on to the term later. Meraki is an ecosystem that works best if you are "all in" across your device lineup.

I find that Meraki licensing is a polarizing solution as you are either happy with it or have an allergic reaction to it.

NETGEAR, Ubiquiti, Aruba, Cisco Catalyst were all previously evaluated.

Meraki offers some free equipment if you participate in their webinars. You can get a free security appliance, switch, and AP after watching three webinars and trying them out for yourself. The free equipment comes with a three-year license. Obviously, it will be their lowest-end equipment, but it still gives you the Meraki dashboard experience.

We use Meraki MS Switches to provide network security. We have around 900 users.

I've been using Meraki MS Switches for five years.

Meraki switches are stable. 

Meraki switches are easy to scale. 

We haven't had any major issues, but we've gotten general support from them.

Setting up a Meraki switch is fairly simple. It can be done by one manager and a senior engineer developer. 

We did it in-house.

The licensing cost isn't too expensive. 

I rate Meraki MS switches nine out of 10. I would absolutely recommend it to other people.

The solution is used for different office locations. The client wanted to have central control from their headquarters on wireless across a number of users, traffic, NMS. It was more of a network and switching type of deployment. They have some applications which they want to track, including how much traffic is going to the user and uptime of devices. For that, they wanted more central management.

We like that it can work on a cloud basis. It gives the customer a choice to be operated from a central location and it can be controlled from there. Our customers mostly opted for having a centralized approach.

It's a proactive approach to networking for IT infrastructure. It will bring better uptime and availability to the network.

The initial setup is easy.

They need more variety in terms of models to satisfy different customer requirements. There are very limited models right now. The range of models could expand.  

They need to work on prioritizing different types of data on the network, whether it's voice, data, video, et cetera. Video needs to be prioritized in a much better way, for example.

If there are certain search protocols added to these switches that make for better network trafficking, that would be ideal.

The lack of availability of hardware is causing issues and bottlenecks. 

We'd like interoperability to continue to be improved. 

We've been dealing with the solution for two years.

The stability is okay. 

I understand Cisco has far more stable products. For example, Cisco Catalyst. That is more stable as compared to Cisco Meraki.

I'd rate the stability four out of five overall. 

The scalability is fine. It's not an issue for us. Cisco is always working on scalability.

I'd rate it four out of five in terms of scalability. This is a new product that is still being refined. However, as they are working on the cloud, it's only going to get better. 

We have around 250 to 300 users based on the switches we've deployed. It's in an international organization with many departments and many levels of people working on it. 

Technical support is good. It is good only for certain areas. Their support needs to be improved to level it out for everyone. Even a premier customer may not get answers within the next business day.

We use Cisco Meraki Switches and Cisco Meraki Wireless.

Cisco has a big problem right now. Their availability of hardware is delayed due to high demand. A lot of system integrators and companies are opting for different hardware providers as they understand that deploying Cisco will take a long time. Cisco needs to work on faster deployment. The manufacturing side needs to speed up deploying hardware to meet demand or they will lose market share.

That said, once you have the hardware, the initial setup is not hard at all. 

We have two to three engineers that can help set up the solution. It depends on the kind of project. For example, if there are four or five switches, so it doesn't take more than two days to settle that. IN that case, maybe we need to have two different engineers: one physically installing the hardware switching and doing the basic configuration and then maybe an L2 engineer who configures things on the cloud and brings different switches alive. We have certified Cisco people. We don't get any problems in terms of deployment. We can also easily handle maintenance tasks. 

I'd rate ROI a three out of five as it is costly. The ROI is not very fast. No doubt they are getting ROI with the cloud-based approach. That said, not everything is on the cloud as of now. The transition is happening very slowly. Some departments and customers are partly on the cloud, not fully. If they're deploying anything like Meraki, they're not getting fast ROI as they're not fully on the cloud. They're not fully utilizing the benefits.

The cost is on the higher side if we are comparing it with Catalyst. It's approximately double the cost. Cisco needs to work on licensing if they want the system to be deployed more. They can have the same set of licensing: standard, premium. Premium customers who don't have any budget issues can buy premium license-based hardware. However, if there are customers who want to deploy good hardware like Cisco yet have budget constraints, they should offer a more affordable tier. 

I'd rate it a three out of five in terms of affordability.

We're resellers. We've been dealing with the 300 and 390 series. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.