Meraki MS Switches Reviews

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 most valuable features are ease of use and configuration. It has a cloud-based configuration that makes it easy.

They've added some improvements to firmware update scheduling where you can stagger the updates, which is the biggest advantage. Prior to that, you could not stagger updates when you have data center switches or stacks, which was difficult. They've now added some improvements for more update processes to stagger devices, which has greatly improved my happiness. It is in beta right now.

They tend to have some weird issues with fiber uplinks.

I have been using these switches for six years. We have the latest version.

They are stable. The only issues I've encountered are with fiber uplinks.

I don't have any scalability issues, but there are certain things for which I probably wouldn't use it, such as storage area, networking, etc. For local LAN, it shouldn't have any scalability issues.

It's usually pretty good. It tends to lack when we run into some bug issues. They take time.

It was straightforward. For maintenance, one to two people are enough for about 200 users.

It depends on what type of equipment you have and other things. We're about $17,000 a year.

I would rate these switches an eight out of ten.

I find administration management and the cloud to be valuable features.

The scalability and integrative abilities with on-premises systems could stand improvement. 

I am talking about the monitoring features and those directly concerning the internal management systems. The stock switches should be more reliable. 

The solution is a bit on the pricey side. 

The solution is stable. 

The scalability could be better. 

The technical support is fine. 

The initial setup and deployment are easy. 

The price could be lower. 

We are satisfied with the solution when it comes to that concerning a small environment. 

I use the solution in my company. 

I rate Meraki MS Switches as a seven out of ten. 

We use it for network connectivity in our organization. We use it across all of our locations.

It is cloud-based. So, the software is updated to the latest firmware on a regular basis by Cisco. We have a private cloud.

I like the support, and basically, that's why I'm using Meraki by Cisco.

I've had some hardware failure issues on the POE side on several switches across the years. There seems to be a problem with the POE ports of their unit system.

I have been using this solution for probably seven or eight years.

They're pretty good. I would give them a 10 out of 10.

If you're looking for cloud switches, I would definitely recommend including them in your evaluation because they're really good. 

I would rate Meraki MS Switches a nine out of 10.

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. 

We provide Meraki Switches to schools, universities, and hospitals.

We find value in its ability to enable cloud management and visibility. They are also easy to deploy. It's very convenient because you can see who is accessing, what type of UI system they're using, what applications they're using, the bandwidth, and more. Management is also easy as you can access and manage the switches from anywhere. As it's managed on the cloud, we can support customers remotely if there's a problem.

Their subscription model could be better. Some of our customers prefer a one-time payment to a monthly or yearly subscription model, so they don't buy the product. Technical support could also be better.

We have been dealing with Meraki MS Switches for about four years.

It's a stable product.

Meraki MS Switches are scalable. 

Technical support could be better. Some support agents aren't adequately qualified to support us. Their technical skill needs to improve.

Meraki Switches have some advantages compared to others. For example, visibility, management, and auto device detection. 

The initial setup is simple. 

We provide installation and implementation services. Most of our customers use the warranty for maintenance.

It would be better if they had a one-time purchase option instead of a subscription model.

It's more suitable for medium-sized companies.

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

We are using the MS425 series. We like the ease of use, ease of administration, and central dashboard. Meraki also has fantastic documentation and community.

With its central dashboard, we can deploy a generic configuration across hundreds of switches, rather than doing it in the old school way where an individual or a group of engineers would log onto each device via CLI, which takes a long time. So, everything is connected.

It can have better security. It needs more security enhancements, and in particular, a zero-trust element. If we could have external and internal users vetted in the same way as a zero-trust network, that will be handy.

I have been using this solution for the last nine months.

It is probably not as scalable as Cisco Catalyst 9000 Series, which includes the 9200s, 9300s, and 9500s. Its security requirements aren't as strong as the Cisco DNA portfolio. 

Globally, we have about 3,000 users. We're on a five-year subscription. As and when the business requires more, we will increase its usage. We will no doubt adopt the same solution because that's our LAN standard now. It is the global standard.

We didn't need their support, but I do know that for any questions, they're normally very helpful. There are lots of configuration guidelines and best practice documentation. Meraki has fantastic documentation and community.

I'm currently trying out Cisco 9000 Series Catalyst Switches because this particular customer was stung by a ransomware attack. So, they're looking to lock down every single portion of the network, and they want everything to fall under the banner of a zero-trust network with lots of security tools, agents, and hosts.

It is very easy to install. You probably could get away with zero-touch provisioning or plug-and-play. All the profiles are pre-configured on the central dashboard, and then a non-technical person could be on-site and plug everything in based on how you've drawn things out in a topology drawing. After that, you just take the reins and just check, and that's it.

A lot of customers deploy it during LAN refresh. When Meraki came out, they were the best cloud-based access point. Everything was centrally managed through the central dashboard. It was a cloud-based wireless LAN controller. Then they started to infiltrate into the LAN switching arena. So basically, everyone wants a single pane to administer their network, and that's what you can get with Meraki. It is a single pane incorporating everything from switches to access points to even routers, which are MX SD-WAN.

I would recommend this solution if security is not paramount. If you're a secure industry or a technology company where you want a bit more security, it is probably not suitable for you. It is suitable if you're in retail or manufacturing where security isn't paramount.

I would rate Meraki MS Switches an eight out of ten because they're really easy to configure.

We primarily use the solution for switches for our clients.

The cloud management on the solution is very good.

The Wi-Fi 6 for access points is excellent.

The performance is pretty good.

We've found the initial setup very simple.

The stability of the solution is quite good.

The scalability potential of the solution is great.

Clients are very confused by technical support. They seem to have trouble reaching Meraki to get the assistance they need.

I'd prefer if they'd go for Layer 3 features. We do not have access to these yet. Aruba, for example, offers full Layer 3 features.

I've been using the solution for about a year at this point. It hasn't been too long just yet.

The solution is very stable. The performance is reliable. It doesn't have any bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash and freeze.

The scalability of the solution is rather good. If a company needs to scale, it can do so with ease.

We typically work with small and medium enterprises.

There isn't a convenient first-hand way to communicate with technical support right now. The tech support is mainly through Cisco - which is very quick typically. However, with Meraki, which is separate from Cisco, customers can only directly contact support through dashboard licenses and they can't open a case with Meraki effectively. They don't know how to reach the right people, and so they come to us, the distributors, to get answers. We need to advise them to go directly to Meraki technical support as we are not in a position to help them, and they tell us they can't, that Meraki is not available. 

Meraki needs to make their technical support policies and processes very clear and to communicate this to their clients so that their clients know how to reach out when there are issues. It shouldn't fall to us.

We did not previously work with other solutions, although we are looking at a few options now. We're considering something in two months or so.

The initial setup is not complex. It's very simple and easy to set up. It's straightforward.

The deployment and management are very easy.

The solution's pricing can be high on Cisco. There are options, such as Avaya, that can be a bit lower. The pricing of this solution isn't too bad.

We are a Cisco partner.

We primarily use the solution in our client companies. We don't use the solution ourselves.

I'd recommend this solution to smaller companies and enterprises. For larger-scale organizations, such as campuses, Cisco Catalyst may be better.

Overall, I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.