We performed a comparison between Cisco Ethernet Switches and HPE 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."What we love about the Cisco switches is that they are very reliable. You can deploy them and go to sleep, and you can be sure that nothing is going to go wrong. Our initial equipment was installed by a Chinese manufacturer named Fiberhome a couple of years ago. Their switches were called S engines. They worked, but some days, you just wake up, and the switch has popped up. It was a lot of crisis. Therefore, we are in the process of trying to take out all their switches and replace them with Cisco switches. We are getting good results in terms of reliability and even technical support."
"The queue functionality is the solution's most valuable feature, specifically because we are delivering a lot of Layer 2 services. Layer 2 protocol tunnels work well on Cisco switches."
"What I like the most is the performance and the latency that Cisco provides."
"The security of the switches is pretty impressive. There are many security features available on the product."
"The layer-2 switching is very fast."
"The performance of Cisco Ethernet Switches is better."
"The tool is stable."
"Being able to deal with multiple VLANs to segment the network logically is the biggest feature for us. The management of these switches is okay for us. These switches work very well, and they meet our needs."
"It's straightforward to set up."
"I like that these switches are reliable, and the support is good."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its stability."
"The most valuable product is the unmanaged HP switch."
"The solution is easy to set up and easy to use, unlike, for example, Cisco, which is more complex."
"The best feature of this solution is the lifetime warranty."
"You can scale the product as needed."
"The solution performs well for its price."
"This may be something that they are already working on, but it would be an improvement if they could add a layer of security to layer two and layer three to protect the server and to protect the data."
"The solution needs to work on lowering the amount of bugs. We find them quite regularly."
"Cisco's pricing can be a concern, particularly with support fees."
"Location of customers to connect clients to the servers and transport the data and VoIP in parallel with QoS and NBAR with 802.1X."
"Cisco needs to include new features to attract new customers."
"The price of the solution could be reduced."
"Cisco switches are good as they are, but it would be a major feature if they have built-in routers. Some of the Microchip switches have routers built in the same device. They have a router switch. For some of the sites, we deploy such switches because the client does not want a separate router and a separate switch. So, we go for a router switch with maybe 24 ports. Some of them are fiber, and some of them are ethernet. It would be a major improvement to what Cisco is already doing. Behind the scenes, a lot of scripting and stuff like this is happening. A lot of workload can be lifted if Cisco had a good GUI. If you look at Microchip switches, they have a good GUI in addition to the CLI."
"The price could be lower. It's quite expensive."
"The solution's throughput should be increased because we often get stuck when it comes to IPTV streaming."
"The solution is a bit expensive."
"HPE Ethernet Switches must ensure that the updates and patching are done regularly. When we have new software updates, we can resolve issues quickly."
"We'd like better support for situations where we need troubleshooting."
"We have some problems with the performance of our HPE Ethernet Switches because they are old."
"They should release more updates for the solution."
"A lower price would be an improvement because we always want to reduce our costs."
"The quality of the service needs improvement."
Cisco Ethernet Switches is ranked 1st in Ethernet Switches with 128 reviews while HPE Ethernet Switches is ranked 10th in Ethernet Switches with 94 reviews. Cisco Ethernet Switches is rated 8.6, while HPE Ethernet Switches is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco Ethernet Switches writes "It's a solidly stable product from a leader in the field". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HPE Ethernet Switches writes "They're solid and can last for up to 15 years". Cisco Ethernet Switches is most compared with Aruba Switches, Fortinet FortiSwitch - Secure Access, D-Link Ethernet Switches and Ubiquiti UniFi Switches, whereas HPE Ethernet Switches is most compared with Ubiquiti UniFi Switches, H3C Ethernet Switches, Juniper EX Series Ethernet Switches, Meraki MS Switches and D-Link Ethernet Switches. See our Cisco Ethernet Switches vs. HPE 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…