MikroTik Routers and Switches alternatives and competitors

We are the system integrator. Normally we are using it in our projects.

Juniper Routers are used for our MPRS project with our clients. We have used the MPRS router. Apart from this, we have used SRX series of routers where the event requirement is there. And with switching also, we have used a Juniper router in our MPRS Integration Project.

The most important thing with the Juniper router is that feature-wise, lots of routers are similar. If I'm talking about the performance, it's at 99%. Apart from this, the hardware reliability is very good.

It lasts a long time. The end-of-life is approximately eight years. 

Juniper routers are very capable and can be scalable. 

We may also integrate it as an event solution in the Juniper Router SRX3.

The solution is pretty easy to set up after a bit of training.

Juniper is pretty good and pretty known right now for SRX3 where an SD-WAN solution is there. If we are not getting the MPLS connectivity in fiber, then we may use the 4D, and LD modems and get Juniper integration, router, and SRX fiber applications, which we may enable. 

We'd like them to be capable of adding firewall options to the license. 

In the next version, I'd like to see a load balancing and SD-WAN solution altogether in a simple manner.

I've been using the solution for three years. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

It's possible to scale if you plan ahead. The products are very much defined to the load, in terms of MBPS. If I'm talking about a hundred MBPS products, we have to initial levels, we have to think, what will be our maximum load? If we will plan that product well at the time of deployment, then we don't have any problems. That's the main thing. To scale, we have to know in advance what may be our load in the future, maybe after one year or maybe after two years. If you do this, then everything will be fine on Juniper. You don't have to change the router. 

We have ten to 15 users on it right now.

We also use MicroTik. We're also familiar with Cisco, Aruba, HP, and Ruckus.

Juniper is, definitely, in competition with Cisco. They are, I think, 30% to 40% cheaper. In comparison to HP routers, there is a 10% to 15% variable. If you are talking about Ruckus and Aruba, they're in the Wi-Fi segment. In the Wi-Fi segment, Ruckus and Aruba are the leaders. In the wiring router segment, Cisco and Juniper are the leaders. There is no competition apart from Cisco for Juniper in regard to enterprise routers.

In terms of the initial setup, you have to learn a little bit of Juniper voice command. If you have learned Juniper voice command, then everything will be in a similar pattern. That makes it quite easy. That said, for the first one or two days, you need hands-on training. Afterward, it is very easy.

I'd rate it four out of five in terms of ease of setup. It only takes a half-hour for configuration.

We integrate this solution for our clients. 

For 10 to 15 users, if you have to go for the SRX3, a startup central router, in terms of dollars, it is maybe $300 annually. This is just the hardware cost. $300 to $400 is the hardware cost and for licensing cost, it may be around, for support and all, $100 per year. This is for an enterprise user.

We are a partner and integrators.

If you have a small setup related to the enterprise office then you should go for Juniper, otherwise, for home, you don't have to use Juniper as there are lots of products out there. For $200, lots of products are there. Juniper is 100% recommended for Telco ISPs. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We use these routers to connect our customers.

We use them for client access, and we use them in the network core. We also use them on the edge, for security. We have some of their security products sitting at the edge of our network, and we use Huawei laptops to connect our customers from their premises. Sometimes, they use their own on-premises equipment.

We have the big NE40-X8 and NE5000E routers everywhere in our infrastructure. In addition to the network core, this includes the client edge, client access edge, and we had them at the internet edge.

We also use their Huawei equipment for our long distance DWDM fiber, so we have the Huawei devices to cover different aspects.

We do not rely solely on Huawei routers. Rather, they make up part of our networking infrastructure.

The configuration syntax makes it easy for us to configure the device and perform troubleshooting when needed.

Huawei needs to be a bit more open with their licensing model. What I find is that when you buy equipment, you expect that you have a particular feature. By the time you want to use that feature, you realize that you need to acquire a license for it. That is the one thing that I think they need to improve on. 

Essentially, they need to open their licensing model such that when a customer buys a device, they have a full view of all of the available licenses for it. It's not at the time of use that the customer will now be informed that they need to purchase an additional license.

I have been working with Huawei Enterprise Routers for more than 10 years.

These routers are stable.

The topic of scalability is tricky because it depends on what the customer is requesting. If you put a device on the network edge, it's practically sized for almost everything that the customer wants to do. This is true except in the case where there is a major change in scope, which may require a corresponding change in device.

Usually, they are scalable, but it means that if you're going to have very big projects then you need to make changes to the equipment that you are using.

Rating the technical support on a scale of one to five, I would score them a three to four. It's not perfect, but it's available. You have to contact them initially, and then they get back to you.

I also have experience with MikroTik, Juniper, and Cisco.

The configuration is not as reduced as it is with Cisco, which makes them quicker to configure.

Personally, I will use MikroTik products because they are the most economical in terms of pricing. They are also the most open in terms of licensing and functionality. However, there are not a lot of people who have the skill set required to maintain the MikroTik environment. This means that when I'm dealing with customers who are not technical, I suggest using a Huawei or a Cisco device. In my own deployment, where I am personally in charge of deployment, I'll use a MikroTik device.

Based on my experience, the initial setup is straightforward. There's no challenge with deployment. The length of time required depends on which particular model you are working with because they don't all take the same amount of time.

For example, if you're implementing and configuring the network core, it is not the same scope as configuring a client.

These routers are not too expensive.

I like to use this product and most of our deployments are now products from Huawei. We don't have any problems with these routers.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

My team is in charge of auditing the security infrastructure of these routers. I perform penetration testing and blue teaming in pursuit of this effort.

Our customers for this product are typically government departments.

In the current project, we are designing smart cities, in which these routers are part of the infrastructure.

The most valuable feature is the artificial intelligence assessment models. This is something that this product has over MikroTik.

Over the past couple of years, I've noticed that the Cisco CLIs and web-based interfaces have changed. As such, there is a bit of a learning curve for people. It is understandable that newer technology is different, but it would be helpful if the interface had more in common with the older, legacy systems. There should be a system in place to help existing users make an easier transition to the newer interfaces.

I have been working with Cisco routers for at least four or five years.

Cisco is a market leader in its field and this is a very stable product.

There is no doubt that this Cisco solution is scalable. I do expect to scale more in the future.

I do not set up or administer the networks, so I do not need to speak with technical support.

In addition to Cisco, I have experience with routers from MikroTik and Juniper. These are all very good routers, switches, and infrastructure in general.

I prefer Cisco because I have more people in my team who are Cisco Certified Network Associates (CCNAs), Cisco Certified Security Professions(CCSPs), and Cisco Security Officers (CSOs). 

We work with large distributed systems and the routing systems are quite complicated. We also have multiple vendors that make up our infrastructure, so the setup for us is complex because of our architecture.

In summary, this is a good product and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.