We performed a comparison between Cisco SD-WAN and Citrix SD-WAN based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."So far, the feature that I like best is the policy configuration manager."
"Encryption, which is native to the solution, is a valuable feature. Also, central management, onboarding of devices, QS, and routing applications are all okay."
"The user experience is pretty good."
"The solution is good to use and easy to handle and manage from the centralized location or from the cloud."
"The most valuable features of Cisco SD-WAN are reliability and scalability."
"It is very stable."
"You get security, all of the service you need, and it's easy to deploy."
"Installation is easy."
"The VPN and the load balancing are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable feature is its reliability."
"The SD-WAN solution as it is already is quite feature-rich and the upgrade process is very simple."
"They have a zero downtime failover mechanism, where, when there's a link failure or a link weakness, or bad link conditions, they provide the ability to fail back seamlessly."
"The most valuable feature is security, as it gives me the port bindings that cannot be accomplished using other solutions."
"The most valuable feature of Citrix SD-WAN is customization. You are able to customize the solution to your needs."
"The zero-touch deployment is most valuable for us."
"The best feature is the backup capability, where all of the users' computers are tied into a central data repository."
"The client portal needs to be improved in order to make the solution much better."
"Its license model needs to be improved. They always make the license model too complex. There are too many license models and too many options. They should have a flexible license model. They can improve a lot of things in terms of scalability, templates, and automation, mainly automation for onboarding a number of sites. If you want some new features, it can take quite a long time. If you want a feature and it is not yet developed, you need to have the support of the business units to have the feature developed. If the feature is not on their roadmap, it can take quite some time before you get the feature."
"The integration of Cisco SD-WAN with cloud solutions could improve. For example, if any of the applications are hosted in the Amazon AWS cloud we can use a virtual transit gateway for integrating Cisco SD-WAN."
"When you buy the equipment, they should already put it into your cloud account. It should already be set up so that we can manage with vBond. We came across an issue where it wasn't resolved in the DNS. We are using Umbrella, so we need to create a VPN IPSec tunnel to Umbrella to enable the users to browse. I would really like to see an internal built-in firewall so that we don't have to go to Umbrella. This functionality might already be there. We are quite new to this solution, and we are still learning about it."
"Cisco SD-WAN doesn't have automation capabilities, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and isn't IOT-based."
"The deployment is complex."
"This solution could be improved with a simpler implementation process and licensing model."
"It should also be much more affordable for a larger number of customers."
"I would like to see more customization to adjust for the WAN lock-out due to our unexpected power outages."
"I would like to see support for additional reporting."
"I am happy with this product. If anything, its price can be reduced. It is a bit expensive."
"The communication around the life cycle would have been really helpful. The main issue we have had is related to the life cycle because some of the things that we are using were discontinued. They were discontinued within a year after we had purchased it, which is a bit painful. If we had known that, we would've made some other decisions."
"The firewall reporting could be easier to use and filter. (It works well enough, but if I need to give an area for improvement, I think this would be it.). The built-in reporting on the product in this regard is not great."
"Even though the monitoring is pretty good, there is some room for improvement there."
"The initial setup could be a bit easier."
"Citrix should continue to offer a perpetual licensing model because it is very important to us."
Cisco SD-WAN is ranked 1st in Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions with 86 reviews while Citrix SD-WAN is ranked 9th in Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions with 21 reviews. Cisco SD-WAN is rated 8.0, while Citrix SD-WAN is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco SD-WAN writes "A solution for integrating services to enhance up-time, performance and lower costs". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Citrix SD-WAN writes " A scalable solution for MCN controller but lacks technical supports, upgrades". Cisco SD-WAN is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Meraki SD-WAN, VMware SD-WAN, Juniper Session Smart Router and Nuage Networks, whereas Citrix SD-WAN is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Steelhead, Meraki SD-WAN, Aruba EdgeConnect SD-WAN Platform and Cato SASE Cloud Platform. See our Cisco SD-WAN vs. Citrix SD-WAN report.
See our list of best Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions vendors and best WAN Edge vendors.
We monitor all Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.