Meraki MS Switches Reviews

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. 

We are a technology consultant and we work with a variety of products, including Meraki MS Switches. We have installed these switches in certain hotels in Egypt.

One of the hotels we work with has standardized on Meraki.

Meraki's support for outdoor switches is something that we're facing problems with. This is an area that needs to be improved.

Meraki should include an application to assist users with the design of access points.

We have been working with Meraki MS Switches for perhaps two years.

This is a good switch for a small installation, such as a hotel, but it's not an enterprise-level solution. In that regard, it is not very scalable.

The hotel network has almost 300 rooms.

We have no problem with technical support from Cisco. They have good support, although it's not cheap. 

We have experience with switches from different vendors including Cisco and HP.

HPE Aruba is very popular in my country, and we have done a lot of these installations. Most people, given the choice between Aruba and Cisco, choose to implement Aruba.

One of the advantages to Aruba is that the switches have a lifetime warranty. They are also cheaper than Cisco.

We have not faced any problems with respect to installation. They just need internet connectivity for the cloud configuration.

Installation is done by the system integrators.

Meraki is not an expensive switch, like Cisco. However, the cost of technical support is expensive.

We have researched different Cisco solutions. One of the things that we have found is that Stealthwatch for Cisco has the sensors built into the switches. We are interested in knowing whether that feature is compatible with other hardware because we don't want to be tied to a single vendor.

Some companies in Egypt are not allowed to use cloud-based services, so the use of this type of product has not been popular.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We primarily used the solution as a switch.

The product offered a lower CapEx cost for the appliance. That's why they tried that infrastructure.

It was easy to set up.

We didn’t like the performance, which is why we ended up stopping usage.

We had issues with the stability, issues with the pricing, and the total cost of ownership.

The feature set is less attractive than other or similar equipment from other companies.

You can’t really scale the solution.

We’d like to have on-premises management in the future versions of the product.

It would be great if there were industrial protocols with more on them for an IT environment.

We’ve used the solution since 2018.

We faced some stability issues when using the product.

It’s not a very scalable product.

It’s used for energy generation, and we only really need 5% of our team managing it, so it doesn’t really require that many users per se.

I recall technical support being good. They were pretty helpful and responsive.

Positive

We used Cisco switches, among other options.

The solution was relatively easy to deploy. It was straightforward and not overly complex.

The deployment itself only took a couple of hours.

You only need one person to handle the deployment tasks.

We used an integrator. They helped us manage the initial setup.

We’ve removed all of the switches. We didn’t really witness an ROI.

In the long term, we likely did not get any ROI as we had to buy the switch. We should have bought it a couple of years ago. At this moment, it was a good return on investment in the sense that we had a switch working. However, it was not doing everything we wanted, yet we had it quickly working for low pricing. In the beginning, it seemed reasonable; however, in the end, it was not, as we have to replace everything.

The solution offered low Cap-Ex pricing.

However, it ended up being expensive. We purchase dit as a package from an integrator. There were some extra fees, for example, for maintenance.

We didn’t really evaluate any other options. A company approached us about the product, and we decided to try it out.

We are currently removing our Meraki switches. I’m not sure which version we were using. The latest was likely MS 120. We replaced the switches with others, and we’re bringing in ways to interconnect with other systems, which was providing us with more stability.

I’d rate the solution a four out of ten and advise potential users to go with a different product.

When Meraki creates a VPN, you don't even have to configure it. You say that you want this to talk, and it automatically creates a connection. That's the greatest part of it. You don't have to deal with passwords and keys.

Meraki's site-to-site VPN function is phenomenal, and the VLAN is simple to use and set up. If you need the VLAN to sort the networks out, that works very well. The performance is also excellent.

I've been using Meraki MS Switches for a couple of years now.

Meraki MS Switches are rock solid. We haven't had any downtime.

It'll scale up as much as I need, and there are many more options higher than what I've got, so their scalability is superb. Right now, we have about 40 users.

Cisco support is excellent. 

I had some Hewlett Packard switches before. We decided to go with Meraki because it offers a holistic integrated solution with management through a single pane of glass.

Setting up a Meraki switch is straightforward. You just plug it in, and it goes. I could do it all myself.

Licensing is the only thing I can complain about. It's expensive, but everything is these days. There are no added costs beyond the hardware. Overall, I rate Meraki MS Switches eight out of 10 for affordability. 

I rate Meraki MS Switches 10 out of 10. If you're considering Meraki, I say do it. You'll never look back.

We are using the Meraki MS120, MS425, and MS355 switches. We currently have a mixed environment with Cisco switches as well as these Meraki switches. We're replacing them one by one to see how well they perform. So far, we have only configured the MS120, which are the eight-port switches. We have some poor equipment, so we are replacing the existing switches. There are fewer network ports that are required, so we've set up these first.  

 We haven't yet finished setting up the MS425. They're supposed to work as the core of our network, replacing the 38 switches that we have on the core. They haven't been configured on the network. We're still trying to just do tests and see if they will work. The MS355 are supposed to be on the distribution, so we haven't configured those, either.

These switches are not expensive and their configuration is very easy. You can provision them on the dashboard, then you just connect them to everything. It picks up from there. Management is easy.

I wouldn't say I'm in a position to talk about any improvements because I'm still learning. We're still on the learning curve, so we have not implemented a lot of the things that we can do with the other switches. But I'm sure that maybe during the course of the next month or two, we'll be able to replace enough of these switches to see how well they work.

We've only been using Meraki MS Switches for about a month or so.

So far, it's been very stable. They run with no issues.

It is scalable.

The initial setup is very easy. It's not complex at all. It's much easier than the Leader switches we've had to configure that required us to learn some commands and so forth. 

The pricing is good especially if you have a tight budget, and you want to implement these. But I guess some people would have some reservations about the yearly subscription.  Maybe they could offer an option of having a one-off or perpetual license to let people test it and see how it goes. 

And then I'm not sure about the compatibility with other models because I haven't tried them to see if they work with other switching models. But I do know that they work with Cisco. With other brands, I don't know.

I would rate it an 8.5 out of 10. 

We are using it for local LAN switching.

Quality of Service is easy to deploy. The ease of deployment, in general, is valuable. It is easy to do port configuration and VLAN assignments.

On the switches, I don't know a whole lot that I would change. Different levels of switches have different layer 2 and layer 3 functionality. It's always nice to have layer 3 functionality across the board if you can, but that drives up the cost. 

They've got different lines for different amounts of layer 3 functionality. However, on their models that do include full layer 3 access, when you choose to use layer 3 on a switch, it doesn't have the full functioning routing capabilities of an MX firewall. It can be limiting in some of those aspects. I have found myself in a situation where I thought I was going to have the ability to do all the routing from an MX firewall, but even on their fully functional layer 3 switches, you don't have that. There are drawbacks. So, it is not just a, "Oh, I can use a switch instead of a firewall for the routing part of it." The answer is, "That's probably not a good way to think about that."

I have been using this solution for six years.

They are rock solid. I've got hundreds of these deployed, and we rarely had any issues. Meraki support is always great to handle advance replacement regardless of how old it is. It is really good.

Their support is really good.

The setup of all Meraki products is extremely simple.

We don't use standard licensing. Most of the time, we use the advanced security model. 

If there is a drawback to Meraki, it is the cost, but you also have to evaluate it based upon the other factors that you do get. Their support is really good; their hardware is really good. The ease of configuration and deployment is really good, but it is more expensive than most.

If you're looking for a solution that is easy and quick to roll out, you can go for these switches. If you want to deploy them without having somebody on-site, you can hire somebody very inexpensively to plug these up and configure them remotely or do advanced configuration beforehand. For deployments of a changing environment, these are the best switches I've ever used.

I would rate Meraki MS Switches a nine out of 10. There is something that could be better, but I don't have a lot of performance needs that drive that situation.

I use the MS series when I need to add power over ethernet (PoE).

This product has QoS, decent visibility of what's going on, and it's a managed switch.

Mandatory maintenance is an area that needs improvement.

I have been working with Meraki MS Switches for between five and ten years.

These switches are really stable.

I've used their lower-end products, and I haven't really looked at the larger units with additional ports. As such, I can't really say, although I think that there are some level 3s and even some level 4s.

At each location, there are between 15 and 20 users.

The technical support is very good. They are responsible and knowledgeable. On the Meraki side, you get through right away, whereas, on the Cisco side, you put in a call, and then it is difficult to predict when they will return it.

I work with a variety of Meraki Switches including the MS series, MR series, and MX series.

Prior to using Meraki, I was using a lower-end switch from Cisco. It didn't have any support requirements and my boss wanted me to get rid of anything that required maintenance. For this same reason, we will be getting away from using Meraki switches, as well.

The initial setup is easy.

As a one-person operation, I manage 15 or 16 locations.

The yearly maintenance fee is $100 and you can purchase used switches for about $200 each.

My advice is that this product may work well for a smaller shop, where they do not have many devices to pay maintenance fees for. I have 15 or 16 locations and combined, these have many switches and access points. For example, I have more than 45 devices in total, and paying $100 for each, annually, surpasses the amount of my initial investment. This is the reason that I am changing to another product.

In summary, this is a good switch but I just don't like the ongoing cost.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We are using Meraki MS Switches for our LAN users.

Meraki MS Switches are amazing. Whoever built it is a genius. I like that it's a plug-and-play solution.

It could be more advanced and secure. Meraki MS Switches are ideal for a mid-sized enterprise. But you can't work with this appliance if you need more security or want to do complex or advanced things. Technical support could be better.

I have been working with Meraki MS Switches for the past six months.

Meraki MS Switches is a very stable product.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give stability a ten.

Meraki MS Switches is a scalable solution.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give scalability a ten.

Technical support is not good at all. Even those guys struggle, and they work on a US time zone. Whenever we raised a ticket, we had to wait one or two days to get a status and move the case forward to the next level.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward. You just need the Internet, and you're good to go.

We implemented this solution. You only need one person to install and deploy this product.

Cisco Catalyst is far more expensive compared to Meraki. That's the reason we are using more IT systems.

I would tell potential users that it's an ideal solution if they don't have a complex network and don't want to do much IT work.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Meraki MS Switches a ten.