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."We use Cisco Ethernet Switches to configure VLANs in the VPN network."
"These switches are both stable and scalable."
"I like their after-sales support more than anything because it's very good."
"We have a good technical support provider in Turkey that offers support, and we work closely with Cisco. Everything is sorted."
"What I like the most is the performance and the latency that Cisco provides."
"One valuable feature is that you can string a number of switches together, and the fact that there are various methods to connect them, such as by stacking."
"One main feature of this solution is the POE switches."
"The stability is 100%."
"We were able to onboard HPE Ethernet Switches easily to the cloud. It was fast and took only five minutes to complete."
"The solution is easy to set up and easy to use, unlike, for example, Cisco, which is more complex."
"The technical support for this solution has improved from what it was."
"Stable and scalable."
"I have found the most valuable feature is stability."
"The solution is highly stable."
"The solution is scalable."
"HPE Ethernet Switches have a lifetime warranty. I am using an old version of the solution, but I have heard the new models have incorporated a lot of new features, such as remote setup."
"The solution needs to work on lowering the amount of bugs. We find them quite regularly."
"Cisco can improve its stability for the BGP protocol. It is not stable while recalculating the BGP table. Its price should also be improved. It is very expensive."
"Network setup is quite complicated, particularly if you're implementing in a non-technical environment."
"Cisco Ethernet Switches is a very expensive solution."
"Cisco has a lot of propriety protocols compared to other products, such as Arista Networks."
"Could use additional programmability for the switches."
"We need more management tools for the solution."
"Putting in a more complete management infrastructure would help when it comes to handling lower-end switches."
"There is some improvement needed for the power supply of the solution."
"We haven't had any issues with this switch in the past 10 years. That's the reason we're still keeping them alive."
"The solution is a bit expensive."
"The product could always use better technical support."
"The management of the tool must be improved."
"Configuration can be complex."
"They should continue to work on new features."
"The solution could improve by having more integration options."
Cisco Ethernet Switches is ranked 1st in Ethernet Switches with 29 reviews while HPE Ethernet Switches is ranked 10th in Ethernet Switches with 26 reviews. Cisco Ethernet Switches is rated 8.6, while HPE Ethernet Switches is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco Ethernet Switches writes "Has impressive reliability, I have not experienced a failure ". 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…