Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

We have customers that use Cisco Catalyst Switches for SMB, enterprises, schools, colleges, and universities. We have worked with almost everything except the federal government.

The Cisco software ties all the hardware together better than the competition. Cisco used to license their IOS software to HPE for their own switches, which were decent switches as well. HPE has been through a bunch of different changes over the years and now has Aruba switches. 3Com was part of HP for a while and the ProCurve was the original HP switch that I remember.

Cisco Catalyst Switches do not have an open architecture and you have to buy into the Cisco architecture to be able to use them.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for approximately 20 years.

The solution is extremely stable and reliable, this has been proven from many years of use.

Cisco Catalyst Switches can be used in any sized company. We have customers in small to enterprise companies, with our largest being General Reinsurance. Multi-national companies would benefit the most from the use of Cisco switches. This is why the international community likes this solution because it can be used anywhere in the world.

The paid technical support is very good.

I have used many other switches, such as HPE, Juniper, and Aruba.

The installation is a definite effort to get everything set up and working correctly. They do not work out of the box. However, these days they have improved a lot and the new Cisco solutions today would be much easier to put together than the ones in the past.

The cost of Cisco switches is a little more expensive than the competition. However, as the saying goes, "you get what you pay for." If you want a reliable solution and other benefits, Cisco Catalyst Switches are worth the money. 

There are additional costs for support.

My advice for others looking to implement this solution would be to work with a reseller, such as us, that has a good history of working with Cisco and can give the customer a good short and long-term plan.

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches an eight out of ten.

We are using 29 series. We have three switches that we use for common switches and routing. We also have a number of access switches that we interconnect to the devices in the network, such as telephone, CCTV. We have defined a number of VLANs that are running traffic between the switches, and we have done interconnections within the switches, cable, and fiber. 

It is very reliable.

Its price should be improved. It is very pricey. 

Its installation can be simplified. Its installation is a bit complex.

I have been using this solution for four or five years.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable. You can almost do any new thing that is coming. 

Our users will always be around 80 to 90 because the interconnections occur within the switches.

I've just been working on Cisco switches.

Cisco solutions are a bit complex to install. They are not easy, and they require training and knowledge. When we changed our switch, it took 30 minutes to one hour.

I installed it on my own, but most people prefer to hire a consultant.

It is very pricey. You have to pay for support.

I would recommend this solution. It is good. 

I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a nine out of 10.

I use the solution in my company as a data switch. The product is mostly used in the entertainment systems of luxury yachts and not in some banks.

The most valuable feature of the solution is reliability. I have seen Cisco Catalyst Switches working for more than six years without any kind of outage.

Products from Cisco that deal in areas like VLAN management, internal routing, and inter-VLAN routing don't seem to be compatible with other products. When users put Cisco Catalyst Switches in the same environment or infrastructure where other devices or products exist, like HPE, Aruba, and Ubiquiti, it doesn't work properly. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for more than twenty years.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution. Cisco solutions are always scalable.

My organization has around 200 users of the product.

There is a need to increase the number of devices or switches, or it can be done by implementing a change in relation to the old devices in an environment by moving from a 10 GB switch to 40 GB uplinks. A 10 GB switch is enough for now in my business.

Cisco's support team is friendly if you have a maintenance contract active with the technical support team of the tool. You will end up breaking your head on the wall if you do not have an active maintenance contract with Cisco's technical team since they are not responsive or supportive at all until you subscribe to the service contract Cisco offers.

After dealing with the product for more than twenty years, it has become easy to deploy the solution.

I have been installing the tool inside a luxury yacht to manage some internal data switches and for some of the entertainment systems where streaming services are required. VLAN is mandatory for managing the kind of networks in the aforementioned environment.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The time required to deploy the product depends on the dimension of the project undertaken by someone. If you install the system in a 30-meter yard, deploying it takes around four days. If you install the product on a yacht where around 100 meters need to be covered, the deployment process may take over a month.

The number of people required to deploy and maintain the product depends on the project size. One person is enough to take care of the deployment in a 50-meter yard area. Three people are enough to take care of the deployment in a 100-meter yard area. In an infrastructure with around 200 people, only one person can maintain the warehouse system.

I rate the overall product a six out of ten from a price perspective since it is an expensive tool.

There is a need to make yearly payments towards the licensing charges of the product.

From a technical perspective, I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

There is a need to use professional devices like the ones offered by Cisco if someone needs a reliable infrastructure that is flexible and scalable.

Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

My primary use case is providing Catalyst switches for the edge and campus networking. You may have lots of IoT switches, like surveillance access points and you need to implement IPE switches that deliver the power and networking through the endpoint sensors. Most of these are considered access switches. We then implement the distribution layer that links all of the access switches and network traffic, then move to the course switches that handle all the packets and connect all the buildings to each other. After, the core is connected to the firewall, from Cisco as well, to get out of building to the internet. So the core portfolio comes from access to the core. I end with the firewall and the routers to the internet.

Cisco's support is called SMARTnet, but we provide support to customers in case of any troubleshooting or if it's on-premises. We act as a mid-layer between the customer and Cisco. Most customers deploy it on-premises, but some prefer to build their own private cloud. 

The most valuable feature is that Cisco comes with built-in software access for network devices. You may use SDN for SD-Access, so you don't need to configure each switch with its own configuration, but can deploy the configuration from a single point of management. You can also monitor the traffic and access for the users. Especially if they are using their own laptops, you can make a VLAN for each switch. Cisco is a very stable portfolio format considering the network features and the heavy duties of traffic.

The prices could be improved. Cisco is dedicated to providing their customers with the latest technology, but it comes with a price. It's very expensive and when compared to competitors' products, like HP or Aruba, this is the most expensive one. 

I can't think of any additional features I would like to see in the next version. The features included are sufficient. 

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst for more than ten years. 

Cisco is famous for its stability and operating system. It's a very stable platform for heavy-duty network traffic. 

Catalyst is easy to scale, especially because of stacking. The stack member can reach out to each member per the tech stack group as well as for Catalyst. As long as you have a sufficient number of ports in the core and distribution, you can scale and connect as much as you need in the access layers. If you exceed the number of ports existing in the distribution, you can add another distribution layer and connect them together to extend the number of endpoints. 

I have been satisfied with technical support. Especially when it comes to hardware attachments, their response is very fast, and almost by the next business day, we're able to go and replace it on-premises for a customer. 

The process was simple and straightforward. Most of us started our first year by taking Cisco courses, so we are talented at implementing and configuring Cisco switches. It depends on the project, but if you are looking at full premises with maybe 20 switches, the setup should take around three or four days. 

We implemented through an in-house team. We are partnered with Cisco and have our own professional service team certification in data center, networking, security, and collaboration systems. 

This is expensive, even when compared to competitors' products. 

The Catalyst doesn't come with licensing, but it comes with models. It comes with nine key series, each with its own purpose: some are for access, some for distribution, and some for the core, so it's not a matter of licensing. The only licensing that you are using with Catalyst is either the Essential or Advantage licensing, which represents Layer 2 or Layer 3 switches. If you are going to use Layer 3 for routing, use the Advantage license. Otherwise, use the Essential license, which is meant for the access switches. 

Dell EMC has a magnificent working portfolio, but customers still may not trust its durability and reliability. Most customers will choose Cisco rather than Dell EMC, even though Dell EMC has a reliable reputation and is very cost-effective. Yet, from my side as a partner and someone who works a lot with technology, I would recommend Dell EMC for customers with a smaller budget that needs a flexible and a cost-effective solution, rather than picking a small solution from Cisco. I would commit to buying a large solution from Dell EMC, then going with a reliable solution provider. 

I would recommend Cisco Catalyst for its abilities, durability, and the support. Cisco is very familiar—all engineers know Cisco very well—and we can handle the troubleshooting and configuration. 

The Advantage license is suitable for large companies. All of the oil and gas sectors use the Advantage license for their switches. Even they are not going to use all the layers or access switches, but they invest a lot and have a huge budget for networking. For a small or medium company, you could use and split the Essential license and the Advantage one based on building needs in order to optimize the cost and make sure your solution is cost-effective.

I would rate Cisco a nine out of ten. Not a ten because of the high price. 

We deploy various Cisco solutions, such as Catalyst 3850 to 4500, 9000 Series, and Nexus lineup for data centers.

We've got various clients, ranging from financial services to hotels and higher education facilities. There are many use cases, such as data centers, disaster recovery.

Our clients are able to get analytics on how often people are in rooms or using a certain area of a building. By doing this, in the future, they can often opt for a slightly smaller space and use multi-purpose rooms instead. They have higher efficiency and lower overhead for rent and other things.

The PoE capability of Catalyst Switches is great for using WAPs and other PoE equipment, such as security cameras.

I would like to see better efficiency. They are powering all the PoE ports 100% of the time instead of powering only when there is a draw on them.

It has too many options. Therefore, there is a reasonably high barrier to entry in terms of learning about this stuff. A lot of times, you need to be a CCNA, which is like your ticket into the industry, but it is not the easiest thing to get.

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for five years.

You expect reliability and security when you're using Cisco. If you're getting a switch from some manufacturer on the other side of the world, it may fail after 10,000 hours.

It is pretty good. Our clients are more on the large side. 

With 4500 Series, you can add extra blades pretty easily, which makes things easier. You can also just stack them on top of 3850s or something else, add ports, and connect with fiber or ethernet. You're good to go. It is pretty easy.

I have not used them.

I have always used Cisco.

Depending on the use case, it can be pretty complex, but it is all done by people who are trained on it. The fact that you need somebody trained to do it means that it is pretty complex.

Cisco switches are expensive. Their price range is based not only on what the product does but also the name in the industry. 

They are good at what they do. If you need a better product, there are other lineups available.

Make sure that you buy the right product and it does what you want. Don't get something that won't be what you think it will do.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a nine out of ten.

The security is very nice.

This is a feature-rich product and the newer models have improved features that allow for many new possibilities.

The virtual stacking feature is helpful.

My company would prefer that the price was more cost-effective.

I have been working with Cisco Switches for approximately 25 years.

With respect to stability, Cisco is a vendor that we can rely on.

I work with a variety of Cisco network products, including Cisco Wireless.

Pricing from Cisco is expensive but we pay for the reliability.

I am in the process of changing my core networking infrastructure, and I am moving into the new portfolio that is offered by Cisco. My boss regularly asks whether we can change from Cisco to another vendor to get better pricing, but I always reject this. We rely on Cisco.

When you have a homogenous network, as I do with only Cisco networking products, with no other components, then all of the features from the old platforms are available. I can use the same access procedures, regardless of whether the device is wireless, wired, or remotely accessed.

Overall, I am satisfied with Cisco Catalyst switches. The only complaint that my company has is about the pricing.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I work in a big Colombian bank and we use the solution for the campus connectivity involving, perhaps, 23 buildings.

Cisco boasts very reliable technology.

As there are many who are knowledgeable of this technology, this translates into much support for it. The main feature we like is its easy support. 

The managing of the changes and automatization should be addressed. We don't have control of the changes involving automation. In terms of what is new, network technologies and those on the cloud, the solution is outdated. Personal automatization is a feature that should be addressed. 

As we are experienced with the solution, we found the initial setup to be easy, but an enterprise which is more new to this technology may find the implementation and deployment to be somewhat challenging. 

While the solution was very good for its time, this may not be so, at present, for big, leading enterprises, such as a bank consisting of 10,000 people. 

I have been using Cisco Catalyst Switches for, perhaps, five years.

The technology underpinning the solution is very stable and reliable. 

The scalability is good. 

We do not have plans, at present, to increase the usage, as we wish to change the technology several months down the line, the solution being included in these future plans. 

As there are many who are knowledgeable of this technology, this translates into much support for it. The main feature we like is its easy support.

We use both Cisco Catalyst Switches and HP solutions. 

As we are experienced with the solution, we found the initial setup to be easy, but an enterprise which is more new to this technology may find the implementation and deployment to be somewhat challenging.

We have a team of, perhaps, 20 people who are responsible for the deployment. 

I am not knowledgeable of the licensing costs, since we have a contract for service with this partner, meaning we don't purchase the license or equipment directly. 

Five years ago, I was involved in a project in which the solution was deployed on-premises. Yet, Colombia or the bank have made recent changes to the switches and routes, since the enterprise wishes to optimize the traffic to the cloud. This is because many of our applications involve AWS. 

I would estimate that we have 10,000 users making use of the solution.

The solution takes advantage of very stable and reliable technology. 

The main features of the solution are its reliability and security. With the current technology, there are many enterprises that can design secure solutions. Other solutions do not provide for the same measure of security. I feel this to be a good feature. 

I rate Cisco Catalyst Switches as a five out of ten. 

We have not deployed on the cloud because the company's core business is on yachts. Yachts are not familiar with the cloud and online solutions.

We have been integrating Cisco Catalyst Switches in yachts that are 100 feet in length to 100 meters in length. With simple infrastructure such as two or three switches connected with copper, and with large infrastructures we use a three-layer level with the backbone of a multimode fiber.

The switches are related to simple switching infrastructures, without the implementation of routing protocols. The routing protocols are referring to routers and layer three switches. They are not required with this kind of infrastructure.

I like the management of streaming both audio and video. On a yacht, the network infrastructure is not related to data usage, it is mainly for audio, video management, and distribution. 

When compared with other brands, they are not as reliable as Cisco Catalyst Switches.

There is always something better. The price could be better.

The service contract for technical support should be included for at least the first year of purchasing the product.

I have been working with Cisco Catalyst Switches for more than ten years.

Cisco Catalyst Switches are reliable. It is very stable and performant. There have only been a few failures. In general, there is a very low level of failure.

If we refer to shipyards, then we have six or seven shipyards in Italy and outside of Italy. When referring to Yachts, I have installed these switches on more than 100 to 200 Yachts.

Technical support is very fast and highly skilled.

The only issue with the support is that without an active service contract, they will not address any of your concerns. Even if you are a Cisco partner, they will not address your concerns without an active technical contract.

For networking and switching, we have used most Cisco solutions.

For Unified Communications, we have used BE6000 and 4000. 

Switching solutions we the new brand 9000. 

We started with the low level 9200 to 9500. We use the Cisco Firewall ASA 2100 and we have Wi-Fi solutions such as the Wireless LAN controllers 2500,3500, and 9800.

At one time, we also integrated Nexus switches.

In the past, my company used to propose low-level Cisco products such as Linksys. They were not reliable and the return on investment was not as high as Catalyst. This strategy was a failure.

The physical installation is not difficult. There are four factors for all devices that are almost the same. The main factor is the configuration.

If you speak with someone who has five to six years of experience in Cisco products, it is really fast. If you have someone with little experience then it takes longer. Cisco Catalyst Switches can be configured using the command-line interface and not the web interface. The web interface would be fine for people who do not have a lot of experience with the product.

Using the command-line interface is a faster way to configure for skilled people who have experience, and not for technicians who are not as experienced.

It requires a complete team from the beginning. This includes the system engineer, the installer technician, the standard technician, and two or three IT engineers to configure and maintain these switches. 

The price for Cisco Catalyst Switches is not cheaper than other solutions.

Licensing fees are something that you pay at the time of purchase. During the year, I have not had any customers request to renew the license. I have only had customer requests to activate our systems contract when there has been an issue with the device. Cisco products have been shown to be very reliable and stable. It's something that rarely has to be activated.

I think that the price should be cheaper and they should include at least one year of basic service for technical support for each product, and not just the 90 days from the time of purchase.

Oftentimes, when my company purchases the Cisco products, they are not installed until three or four months after the date of purchase. The installation is done at least one year after the building and delivery of the Yacht which makes the warranty is not useful.

I would recommend these switches to others. Over the years, I have been working with Cisco, and Aruba HP Enterprise devices. I can say that if you use Cisco, you will have good results and reliability. With comparisons, I would suggest not to use Linksys products if you don't have a stable environment, and you have an environment that is moving all over the world such as a Yacht.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst Switches a nine out of ten.