We performed a comparison between Cisco FabricPath 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 setup is straightforward."
"We can also enhance our service line with disaster recovery."
"The most valuable features are the lead time and the high quality of the product."
"It is stable and reliable."
"Cisco is the market leader in this space and it is a product that I recommend."
"We have found the solution to be stable."
"As I mentioned earlier, the durability, flexibility, and security of Cisco devices are notable. Particularly with switches, the capability to implement multiple VLANs and easily aggregate the network has been advantageous. The ability to have different VLANs and aggregate the network without complications is a key feature of Cisco FabricPath."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable soltuion."
"The solution is stable."
"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."
"Juniper QFabric has various advantages including scalability, simplicity, performance, and flexibility."
"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 feature of QFabric for network performance is its stability."
"It is known for being agile, flexible, and cost-effective when working with various vendors."
"The vendor maintains the product well."
"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."
"The documents could improve for Cisco FabricPath. There are times when the relevant information is not present in the different sections of the documents, such as deployment. The documents should be more detailed and enhanced."
"I would like to see better interoperability with other IT solutions."
"The solution is complex to set up."
"Cisco FabricPath's pricing is expensive."
"Layer 3 does not have higher availability."
"The solution is costly."
"In terms of the series, I find that the integration with other teleconferencing applications needs to be more seamless. I have suggested to Cisco that the endpoint device should allow joining calls from Microsoft Teams, Zoom, and other teleconferencing applications. Additionally, I appreciate the recent inclusion of breakout sessions in the Cisco Webex application, which enhances its relevance in the networking field."
"The initial setup is a little complex."
"It would be nice if Juniper provided the system integrator with training, similar to that of Cisco."
"The disruptive upgrade was an issue for us."
"The stability needs to be improved."
"Having support for all OpenFlow versions would be beneficial."
"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."
"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."
"The pricing structure could be more budget-friendly."
"Improvements could be made to QFabric's life cycle management, particularly in maintaining stable versions and extending product support."
Cisco FabricPath is ranked 8th in LAN Switching with 22 reviews while Juniper QFabric is ranked 9th in LAN Switching with 10 reviews. Cisco FabricPath is rated 8.2, while Juniper QFabric is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco FabricPath writes "Makes multi-layer networking easy and increases network efficiency". 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". Cisco FabricPath is most compared with Cisco Nexus and Arista Campus LAN Switches, whereas Juniper QFabric is most compared with Cisco Nexus. See our Cisco FabricPath 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.