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."The hardware is rugged. We use it for the basic configuration."
"I know this solution for many years. I know the GUI and commands, and they are useful for me. I have all the functions that I want."
"Tech support has always been good."
"Good and stable operational experience with nearly no loss of hardware and very few software bugs."
"Cisco Ethernet Switches is a very stable product."
"The initial setup was for Cisco Ethernet Switches was straightforward."
"It is easy to configure and troubleshoot."
"The quality, like all Cisco solutions, is very high. The fact that it's Cisco is one of the reasons we chose to use it."
"It's stable and performing well."
"The solution is easy to set up and easy to use, unlike, for example, Cisco, which is more complex."
"The initial setup is straightforward. The steps are simple, and you can always contact support if needed. Overall, it's easy."
"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."
"HPE Ethernet Switches are scalable, and their software is also quite sturdy."
"The most valuable feature in HPE Ethernet Switches is programmability and analytics."
"These switches are very stable, to date I have not experienced any issues."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the interface and configuration. It's very easy to use."
"The price could be lower. It's quite expensive."
"I don't like that you have to have a license of 10 years to use the switch. I don't understand that policy."
"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."
"Cisco is not user-friendly. It would be best if you had a technical expert. The graphical user interface is more like a command line, and most functionalities are on the command line."
"Very highly priced in comparison to other similar products."
"From a system integrator's perspective, Cisco must train system integrators, partners, and customers about their services."
"There are some GUI configuration improvements that they can implement in the future for the product models."
"If we can have fewer bugs on our switches, that would be great. We had bugs that caused the switch to reboot. There is probably a problem with the software."
"The quality of the service needs improvement."
"I would also like to see a more centralized private management console for the series of devices. Most solutions are adopting centralized cloud-based management, but my client base believes cloud solutions are too insecure. You've got a few dozen switches, so it would be nice to have the ability to manage them on a "single pane of glass.""
"There is some improvement needed for the power supply of the solution."
"This solution needs to support software-defined networking."
"The solution could be more stable."
"HPE Ethernet Switches must ensure that the updates and patching are done regularly. When we have new software updates, we can resolve issues quickly."
"They should release more updates for the solution."
"Technical support needs improvement, as the response time could be better."
Cisco Ethernet Switches is ranked 1st in Ethernet Switches with 123 reviews while HPE Ethernet Switches is ranked 10th in Ethernet Switches with 91 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…