We performed a comparison between Brocade Ethernet Switches and Cisco Ethernet Switches based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Ethernet Switches solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The switches last for a very long time."
"The technical support is good."
"The initial setup was really straightforward and easy."
"I have not had any issues with our Brocade switches."
"The most valuable feature of Brocade Ethernet Switches is the good range of access it provides."
"It has good integration with HPE Primera. They have smart zoning in which the administration is very easy. You don't have to do anything. Zoning and other things are done automatically if you just enable the smart zoning. That's one very good thing in HP."
"There's a zone for each server and services in the storage."
"The reliability of Brocade is the most valuable feature. The solution has been up and running for over ten years without any fail, fixes required, or breakdowns. It is a very strong piece of equipment."
"The most valuable feature of Cisco Ethernet Switches is its hardware."
"Good and stable operational experience with nearly no loss of hardware and very few software bugs."
"The tool is stable."
"The solution offers great bandwidth and speed."
"The technical support is good and they respond quickly. I haven't had any problems."
"The solution's valuable features are the speed of network transfer, it can transfer four to six gigabits per second."
"Cisco Ethernet Switches are pretty reliable, and I have rarely seen one of them break."
"The solution is basically issue-free."
"Brocade Ethernet Switches need a better interface and centralized management."
"Brocade Ethernet Switches could improve by having better compatibility with web management of older versions."
"No graphical interface."
"It should be simpler. There are still some things that can be simpler in the Brocade switches."
"These switches are no longer supported."
"There are some performance issues."
"The solution could be more secure."
"The platform's management features need improvement."
"There are some GUI configuration improvements that they can implement in the future for the product models."
"I haven't heard from my engineers that they said it's excellent."
"The technical support should be improved."
"There could be an improvement in the licensing by reducing the price of the different types, such as essential, advantage, and premium."
"Switches should be made stackable, even if they are not of the same model."
"Technical support in India needs to be improved."
"Cisco has a lot of propriety protocols compared to other products, such as Arista Networks."
Brocade Ethernet Switches is ranked 20th in Ethernet Switches with 10 reviews while Cisco Ethernet Switches is ranked 1st in Ethernet Switches with 128 reviews. Brocade Ethernet Switches is rated 8.2, while Cisco Ethernet Switches is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Brocade Ethernet Switches writes "This solution has been up and running for over ten years without any fail". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Ethernet Switches writes "It's a solidly stable product from a leader in the field". Brocade Ethernet Switches is most compared with Juniper EX Series Ethernet Switches, Aruba Switches, Mellanox Switches, Arista Networks Platform and HPE Ethernet Switches, whereas Cisco Ethernet Switches is most compared with Aruba Switches, Fortinet FortiSwitch - Secure Access, D-Link Ethernet Switches, Ubiquiti UniFi Switches and 3Com H3C Switches. See our Brocade Ethernet Switches vs. Cisco Ethernet Switches report.
See our list of best Ethernet Switches vendors.
We monitor all Ethernet Switches 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.
Have to agree with Durrell on the Cisco offerings and certifications. I would say Avaya is more on VoIP capability and have not heard about their switch portfolio. For HP networking, they are on par with Cisco. In terms of capability and support, I would say Cisco is there.
Have you used any other vendors in the Ethernet Switch market?
Answer: Yes, I have used Arista Networks as well.
Have to agree with Durrell, while the equipment and support performs better than the competitors in my opinion, the shear volume of training that has been put out by Cisco has made it the leader. Other providers offer training of course, but none are as comprehensive and well known as the Cisco offerings..they have become THE standard for networking.
Hi,
Cisco simply has very well working equipment and it's a huge company which has gold reserves bigger than fort knox :)
I've used enterasys, juniper, noname and 3com switches, everyone has its advantages but cisco was what I liked most. Simply does its work and there is no place for failure. Only thing you need is vacuum machine from time to time.
The emphasis that has been put on certifications is the biggest reason these vendors are not taking up a bigger share of the market. The industry standards for networking certs are the Cisco ones. Since the certs are catered to their equipment, it just makes sense that they have such a huge market share.
For price/performance, I think HP and Juniper offer more than Cisco. HP typically comes in at a much lower cost for comparable features and throughput, and their switches have been very reliable for me. Juniper switches are similarly priced to Cisco gear, but they usually offer a much wider range of functions, along with equal or better performance.
All of the reasons Nuno listed, above, are valid. In addition:
4. High Performance - On balance, for most classes of switch, Cisco gear performs better. I've had great experience with HP Procurve switches, and their price/performance has been very good. But once in a while, they couldn't keep up with demanding traffic, like iSCSI, and we had to go back to Cisco gear.
5. OEM Testing and Validation - If you're introducing new network gear - firewalls, storage, servers, etc. - you will make sure it works with Cisco switches because the installed base is huge. This is a vicious cycle - more Cisco interoperability and validation means fewer issues with Cisco gear.
I have used Netgear and 3com switches.
I have tried a few other vendors on the Ethernet switch market, especially HP, Huawei and SMC switches. Haven’t used Alcatel personally, but have had interesting feedback for them from colleagues.
Regarding Cisco however, I believe there are three main reasons for it:
1) Integration on the “cisco environment”, with a structured offer from basic switches, up to multi-layer equipment, allowing a consistent platform all through the enterprise.
2) Management interface – ranging from graphic management (through local web interface, CiscoWorks modules, etc.), to CLI, with the Cisco IOS, provides great flexibility for remote management, configuration backup, and monitoring.
3) Expertise of in-house personnel – Both the training provided by Cisco itself, and the fact that Cisco has a strong base for the remaining network infrastructure (routers, and other network devices).
There is also the issue that, sometimes, some mixed vendor environment can bring issues with 802.1q trunking (I’ve seen issues with HP Switches while having problems with a VLAN 1 on the HP mixing with a native VLAN on Cisco for instance…), and other proprietary protocols (CDP for instance) that can have implications with the way management or configuration is done…
Also, in some cases, the use of other technologies that cisco has brought along over the years – Network access control, that interfaces with Cisco switches for instance, and the buildup of different interactions with other technologies, ends up creating a technical barrier on top of the barrier for change on things like:
“our other 30 switches are Cisco, and now I’ll place another vendor one?”.
And on that question, price is not likely to be the most important factor, but TCO, existing expertise, and applications running on the network (that need QoS for instance), and integration with existing monitoring, configuration management, and infrastructure, may be the most important factor on the decision…