We performed a comparison between Cisco Catalyst Switches and Dell PowerConnect Switches based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Users feel Cisco Catalyst Switches provide great stability, intuitive reliable analytics, seamless scalability, excellent PoE capabilities, and solid robust security. However, users are happier with the pricing of Dell PowerConnect Switches.
"It's got one feature, and that's handling extreme temperatures."
"The most valuable features of the solution are BGP, VPN, and spine-leaf architecture."
"We decreased budgets on the support corporate network and increased user satisfaction."
"Cisco Switches are more stable in terms of hardware and firmware, rather than Juniper Switches."
"We can have multiple Cisco switches, like seven or eight, on a stack for 300 users. So it is highly scalable and easy to manage."
"It is a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"We find the product very easy to configure."
"It helps keep our network connections in a healthy state."
"The most valuable feature of Dell PowerConnect Switches for me is the throughput. I also like that the product has more compatibility with Dell infrastructure, especially with EMC and new generation Dell servers. Dell PowerConnect Switches can also easily integrate with Dell servers, and this is another pro."
"The solution’s technical support is good."
"It's easy to set up. We can put it in production in a couple of minutes."
"There is high reliability since we have used them for close to twenty years and only had possibly one failure."
"Its throughout and compatibility are the most valuable."
"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."
"Dell PowerConnect Switches have a VTL feature similar to Cisco's VSS. With VTL, using this technology, you can cluster two switches together to increase redundancy in the environment."
"The product is reliable."
"The licensing process could be a bit less complex."
"The price of the product is very expensive."
"Cisco switches are expensive."
"We need to rely on other devices to provide management features."
"To make it a ten they should simplify the licensing, add the cloud-managed feature, and it should be more cost-effective."
"They need to simplify the Web GUI and make it easier to use, and more intuitive for the users."
"An area for improvement would be the documentation and training on configuring this product."
"If we have a major problem, fixing it takes two or three days and six to eight engineers from Cisco. When they escalate a ticket, it goes through too many levels. Every time the issue is passed along to a new person at Cisco support, they ask the same questions repeatedly."
"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."
"An area for improvement would be that it's very hard to configure if you're not familiar with the UI or CLI of the product. The UI itself could also be improved."
"The solution's ROI for generic networking is not extraordinary."
"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."
"A user can take care of the product's installation part, but it may not seem to be an easy process."
"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 configuration should be improved."
"Not a ten because I have to do a lot of testing on it. The correlation is okay."
Cisco Catalyst Switches is ranked 1st in LAN Switching with 171 reviews while Dell PowerConnect Switches is ranked 3rd in LAN Switching with 30 reviews. Cisco Catalyst Switches is rated 8.6, while Dell PowerConnect Switches is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Catalyst Switches writes "Reliable and stable catalyst switch; can be easily installed". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Dell PowerConnect Switches writes "Excellent support, good pricing, and easy setup". Cisco Catalyst Switches is most compared with Arista Networks Platform, Cisco Nexus, HPE ProCurve, ExtremeSwitching and Aruba Instant On Switches, whereas Dell PowerConnect Switches is most compared with Cisco Nexus, HPE ProCurve, NETGEAR Switches, Arista Networks Platform and Dell PowerSwitch N-Series. See our Cisco Catalyst Switches vs. Dell PowerConnect Switches report.
See our list of best LAN Switching vendors and best Data Center Networking 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.
