We performed a comparison between Dell PowerConnect Switches and Juniper QFabric based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two LAN Switching solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is its ability to multitask."
"When the price is competitive the customers tend to choose the cheaper brand and then look at the features. So having a competitive price is a plus."
"PowerConnect Switches' stability is satisfactory."
"There is high reliability since we have used them for close to twenty years and only had possibly one failure."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that it is a stable and reliable product covered with good warranties and prices that ensure deep discounts for partners."
"The product is reliable."
"The setup is straightforward. It takes minimum time for deployment."
"The 40 gig backbone InterConneX was valuable for our use case. It is even faster now. QFabric has spine-leaf technology or topology, which basically makes every single hop only one hop away in terms of connecting from one device to another. It is a pretty good and robust solution. It works pretty well in terms of scalability, and their technical support is amazing."
"QFabric supports redundancy and includes all of the enterprise and service provider features that customers would want in data center or service provider network."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the fabric backplane having upwards of 160 GB of communication. It is a top-of-the-rack solution where you have your directors sitting in the main area and then you have your nodes expanded out to your multiple cabinets. It has a very good design and could be your server backbone."
"It is known for being agile, flexible, and cost-effective when working with various vendors."
"The solution is stable."
"The vendor maintains the product well."
"It's user-friendly."
"Juniper QFabric has various advantages including scalability, simplicity, performance, and flexibility."
"I expect it to be a zero-touch or a plug-and-play device. To some extent, it is, but we need to know the architecture, and we need to know what exactly we are doing. It is not so easy to implement. It depends on what exactly we are doing and it is still not a plug-and-play or zero-touch device. In the upcoming version, they can make it zero-touch, where we can just power it on and start using it. They can have some templates for different scenarios, such as when you are using it for the data center or adding it to your existing infrastructure."
"The solution could provide more integration to focus on targeting the network as a whole rather than a unified environment. It is meant for a built environment, so integration with other third-party vendors will likely be necessary."
"The configuration should be improved."
"We've only been using the solution for half a year. We haven't run into any issues, but maybe over time, that may change. It's too soon to tell. Offhand, there aren't any features that are lacking."
"I would like to see better scalability and more features on these switches in the future."
"The one issue you face in the industry there is always some planned obsolescence in these switches."
"A big issue with this product is that when our customer migrated the data center, one cluster blocked the whole network and because we had a new approach, some commands were not compatible with the new version."
"The network features are not good."
"It works too much on rebooting and there is some memory leakage."
"The disruptive upgrade was an issue for us."
"The stability needs to be improved."
"It would be nice if Juniper provided the system integrator with training, similar to that of Cisco."
"Having support for all OpenFlow versions would be beneficial."
"The pricing structure could be more budget-friendly."
"They are working on the virtualization of the actual fabric layer. They are moving away from the original spine-leaf design to a different infrastructure. Instead of having three tiers, which was the director of the interconnected nodes, they cut them back, and they still have that kind of structure."
"I do not use GUI's very much for switch stacks. I am always in the CLI. However, I do know that Juniper in the past has lacked on their GUI's, but they have been working on it."
Dell PowerConnect Switches is ranked 3rd in LAN Switching with 31 reviews while Juniper QFabric is ranked 9th in LAN Switching with 10 reviews. Dell PowerConnect Switches is rated 8.0, while Juniper QFabric is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Dell PowerConnect Switches writes "Excellent support, good pricing, and easy setup". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Juniper QFabric writes "Performs well, is easy to set up, and the vendor maintains the product well". Dell PowerConnect Switches is most compared with Cisco Catalyst Switches, Cisco Nexus, HPE ProCurve, NETGEAR Switches and Arista Networks Platform, whereas Juniper QFabric is most compared with Cisco Nexus and Cisco FabricPath. See our Dell PowerConnect Switches vs. Juniper QFabric report.
See our list of best LAN Switching vendors.
We monitor all LAN Switching 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.
