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."One main feature of this solution is the POE switches."
"The solution is highly reliable."
"The solution is easy to use."
"Cisco Ethernet Switches are more stable than other products."
"It is very scalable."
"When it comes to switching routing, we have no doubts about Cisco."
"Its performance and reliability are valuable."
"The brand name and the service support by Cisco are most valuable."
"These switches are very stable, to date I have not experienced any issues."
"The solution's interface is helpful, and you can see the traffic."
"The graphical userface is very good and quite easy to run with."
"I like that these switches are reliable, and the support is good."
"HPE Ethernet Switches are easy to configure."
"The initial setup of this solution is easy."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its stability."
"I value that there is a clear place to find a MAC table with HPE Ethernet Switches."
"Cisco Ethernet Switches could improve if they removed the command line interface and replaced it with a better GUI. It is too difficult at the moment, we always need to figure out the commands."
"The interface and dashboard could look better."
"In terms of features, all features are there. I can't find anything new that needs to be added. Its price, however, is a bit higher than other brands and can be improved."
"Location of customers to connect clients to the servers and transport the data and VoIP in parallel with QoS and NBAR with 802.1X."
"It could be cheaper, especially the DNA license. One DNA license is around $3,000 for a three-year contract."
"Technical support in India needs to be improved."
"We've had hardware problems like SSDs, ports, networking, things like that."
"The price of the solution has room for improvement."
"The solution could improve by having more integration options."
"There is room for improvement in the update process, especially the web UI update process."
"The solution is a bit expensive."
"The solution is very comparable to Huawei, however, it could be more scalable. Huawei is easier to scale."
"A lower price would be an improvement because we always want to reduce our costs."
"Technical support needs improvement, as the response time could be better."
". There is room for improvement in pricing. One box shouldn't require additional installations. We need a package deal with licenses that are usable for different tasks. Right now, we need a license for every additional feature, which adds up."
"It's gone up in price in the last 12 months."
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…