Data Center Consulting Engineer at Techrun Stock Exchange
MSP
Top 20
2023-08-14T14:40:00Z
Aug 14, 2023
It is not very cheap, but it is still a cost-effective solution, especially when considering the broader context of data center expenses, including servers, storage, and firewalls. The pricing, including both hardware and licenses, is reasonable.
Technical Marketing Engineer - Hybrid Cloud Infrastructures at NetApp
Integrator
Top 10
2023-04-26T07:48:26Z
Apr 26, 2023
There are no additional costs. We only have to pay for a support contract apart from the license. On a scale from one to ten, I would give pricing a seven.
Network Architect at a government with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
2023-02-21T13:50:00Z
Feb 21, 2023
The pricing and licensing are both high, particularly if you want a high level of functionality. It would be great if the price and licensing costs could be decreased.
The good thing about Cisco is that you can trade in your old products to replace them with ACI. On a scale of one to ten, where one is inexpensive and ten is expensive, I would rate them a two.
The licensing cost for ACI is expensive - I would rate its price 2.5 out of five. It's available on a perpetual license, with a yearly renewal for support.
This is an expensive solution, but it's high quality. I have experience with Huawei devices and Nokia. Huawei had many issues with bugs and I had hardware issues with Nokia. Cisco is the highest quality.
Manager Network & Communication Engineer at a transportation company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
2022-01-04T21:20:16Z
Jan 4, 2022
We have an on-premises, resistant license which we invested in. Out of nowhere, Cisco changed the licensing module to that of smart licensing, a perpetual license state, without offering any compensation to the the customers. This made the license worthless and forced us to subscribe for smart licensing. This is the only way to continue receiving active support and upgrades from Cisco, not that anyone would say anything were I to stop. The licensing issue contributes to my decision to rate the solution as an eight out of ten. Cisco is much more expensive than other vendors, especially when it comes to the licensing. For half the cost, I can obtain the same service with another product. We are talking about the cost of the renewal.
We have the smart licensing, but that was supported when we bought ACI. Smart licensing was not there previously. Recently, we migrated to the new code. We had to convert to smart licensing. Licensing is for the overall number of nodes. We have a license for all 1,000 nodes right now.
We don't license the products ourselves. The clients that we implement for also license it with Cisco. As it stands right now, the licensing structure hasn't been fully fleshed out for ACI. So, if Cisco hasn't fully fleshed it out, I'm not sure what the cost is going to be yet.
If you compare the licensing and total cost of ACI, it's cheaper than NSX because of the licensing fees. If you are going for full NSX features it will be too expensive, especially the next-generation firewalling feature.
I'm not involved in the pricing part, but Cisco has come up with Smart Licensing, which is a bit higher. But now they're giving the customers very good discount rates to bring customers in.
IT Evolution Manager at a aerospace/defense firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
2019-01-29T17:16:00Z
Jan 29, 2019
We bought a package for hardware, software, and support. At that time, Cisco was simply selling that package to distributors, then we opted for it directly.
Cisco Application-Centric Infrastructure (ACI) reduces TCO, automates IT tasks, and accelerates data center application deployments. It accomplishes this using a business-relevant Software Defined Networking (SDN) policy model across networks, servers, storage, security, and services.
On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten.
It is not very cheap, but it is still a cost-effective solution, especially when considering the broader context of data center expenses, including servers, storage, and firewalls. The pricing, including both hardware and licenses, is reasonable.
There are no additional costs. We only have to pay for a support contract apart from the license. On a scale from one to ten, I would give pricing a seven.
The pricing and licensing are both high, particularly if you want a high level of functionality. It would be great if the price and licensing costs could be decreased.
The good thing about Cisco is that you can trade in your old products to replace them with ACI. On a scale of one to ten, where one is inexpensive and ten is expensive, I would rate them a two.
The licensing cost for ACI is expensive - I would rate its price 2.5 out of five. It's available on a perpetual license, with a yearly renewal for support.
Cisco ACI is more expensive than Juniper, however, ACI is not the most expensive option.
Cisco's pricing is very expensive.
We pay for a yearly license. I think we buy it for three or five years.
This is an expensive solution, but it's high quality. I have experience with Huawei devices and Nokia. Huawei had many issues with bugs and I had hardware issues with Nokia. Cisco is the highest quality.
The cost is fine.
We have an on-premises, resistant license which we invested in. Out of nowhere, Cisco changed the licensing module to that of smart licensing, a perpetual license state, without offering any compensation to the the customers. This made the license worthless and forced us to subscribe for smart licensing. This is the only way to continue receiving active support and upgrades from Cisco, not that anyone would say anything were I to stop. The licensing issue contributes to my decision to rate the solution as an eight out of ten. Cisco is much more expensive than other vendors, especially when it comes to the licensing. For half the cost, I can obtain the same service with another product. We are talking about the cost of the renewal.
It is quite expensive. It is not at all on the cheap or medium side.
The pricing could be a bit cheaper.
I don't believe there is any licensing required.
This is an expensive solution.
We have the smart licensing, but that was supported when we bought ACI. Smart licensing was not there previously. Recently, we migrated to the new code. We had to convert to smart licensing. Licensing is for the overall number of nodes. We have a license for all 1,000 nodes right now.
We don't license the products ourselves. The clients that we implement for also license it with Cisco. As it stands right now, the licensing structure hasn't been fully fleshed out for ACI. So, if Cisco hasn't fully fleshed it out, I'm not sure what the cost is going to be yet.
If you compare the licensing and total cost of ACI, it's cheaper than NSX because of the licensing fees. If you are going for full NSX features it will be too expensive, especially the next-generation firewalling feature.
I'm not involved in the pricing part, but Cisco has come up with Smart Licensing, which is a bit higher. But now they're giving the customers very good discount rates to bring customers in.
The thing that I like the most from Cisco is the support and all the documentation that they have. We do have to pay for it though.
We don't use all of the features but it's still worth the money.
Once you sign for the start kit implementation, you have to go all the way through to the implementation, even if you are experiences issues.
Price is always an issue.
It's expensive but the product is very good. I have never found another partner like Cisco with a solution like this and with great support.
The pricing is pretty good for new technology.
The price could be improved. It is expensive, but then again, it is Cisco. The price is worth what you pay for.
We bought a package for hardware, software, and support. At that time, Cisco was simply selling that package to distributors, then we opted for it directly.
A big company can automate it themselves or spend a lot of money and buy it.