I've also used Palo Alto and Fortinet. I used Brocade switches six to ten years ago. It is now Extreme Networks, and I am interested in trying Extreme. I have two Extreme switches right now. 

Fortinet is really user-friendly and easy for even non-technical people to understand. However, the information from Fortinet is really specific. With Cisco, you just have to press the questions mark, and you have a description of every menu. Extreme is like Juniper. You have to create the VLAN, which can be difficult to read if you have a lot of VLAN, although the scalability is great. 

View full review »

I also work with Mikrotik devices, but Cisco is something else altogether as a product.

Mikrotik is okay for small businesses since its prices are much lower than Cisco's prices.

Mikrotik has no advantage other than the pricing aspect over Cisco.

View full review »

Although we also use HPE switches in other departments, I lean towards Cisco due to its reliability and performance.

View full review »

I previously used Alcatel and Aruba HPE.

View full review »

I have also used the Meraki MX switches, but they are more like routers and used to support the wireless systems for Meraki.

View full review »

I didn't use previous solution and then swith, but evaluate others vendors sometimes because their was in use in a company we bought, sometimes because their were shipped as a bundle with some hardware vendors solution for private cloud or storage solutions etc. Thought ome of them have some good features, Cisco got a better average rate when you take the whole thing.

View full review »

We also use Aruba switches. I've used HP in the past as well.

View full review »

I have experience with Juniper LAN switches, but that was with a previous company.

The university campus had bought Juniper switches about six years ago, but they are moving completely to Cisco equipment. Cisco is more expensive than Juniper by perhaps double. The price is higher because they are more stable.

We still have about one hundred Juniper switches out of our one thousand in total.

View full review »

As an implementor, I've worked with a variety of solutions, including Aruba, Mellanox, Juniper, Ruckus, and more. I've worked with most of the vendors in the industry.

View full review »

We also have experience with solutions such as Juniper, Aruba, and Ruckus. 

If the people want to save some money, they'll go with a Ruckus switch or something else as it's less expensive. With Cisco, it has you covered, however, it's a little bit more expensive, and if you don't like the fact that it's got the closed infrastructure, it's a closed architecture, you're not going to mix and match it with switches from other companies.

View full review »

We were previously using Aruba switches and we migrated to Cisco because of the groups' direction, it was not a fault of Aruba switches. Aruba switches are great. We were working with Aruba for 10 years without any problem, and they gave us a lifetime warranty for the switches. If we had a faulty switch they would give us new ones.

The service from Aruba was very good, but I think that Cisco solutions are more professional for something VLANs. I didn't try Aruba with VLANs, however, we make all of our VLANs with Cisco.

I prefer Aruba solutions because they are easier to use.

View full review »

We didn't use any other solution previously on this site. It was our go-to solution from the start because of its security and market sentiment. At different locations for different clients, we use different products, but this is what we have been using on our site.

View full review »

We also use Aruba switches and Dell PowerConnect.

View full review »

We primarily use Cisco in our company.

View full review »

I have worked with products from Juniper, HP, and many other vendors that have switching products. Cisco is the best, not necessarily the team, but the after-sale support.

In some places I have been, they were using other brands. Based on their experience after I introduced them to Cisco, they stuck with it because of the support.

View full review »

We did not use a different solution prior to this, although we are going to be buying a few Meraki switches that we will add to our environment. We are going to test them to see how well they work with Cisco.

View full review »

I have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches my entire career. I really like them but they are not always cost-effective.

View full review »

Currently, I am also using a Juniper product. The split between Cisco and Juniper devices is approximately 50/50.

We are switching to Juniper because they are more cost-effective.

One of the reasons that we still have Cisco devices is that they have offerings that are not available from Juniper. Juniper is good, but they only have routing and switching products, whereas Cisco has products such as Cisco ASA that we use. In that regard, Cisco can provide more value-added.

View full review »

I initially started with Cisco, only afterward, I started using a different solution.

View full review »

Yes, because of cost. Then the replacements were not reliable enough. View full review »

I've worked with other networking equipment such as Aruba, Ruckus, Huawei, and even MikroTik.

View full review »

Everything is driven by business requirements, which in turn different from one project to another. Major points are: availability of support/expertise beyond internal resources, territorial coverage, performance and support of multiple options from enterprise to industrial environment

View full review »

As I moved around between three or four companies to get better jobs and positions, all of them were using Cisco. In some places, we were using HP ProCurve switches. Having that experience previously is the reason why we went with Cisco for the network at this company. It costs more, yet we get a stable product with the most features. Cisco is more reliable, especially in a critical environment.

View full review »

Previous configuration was based on a basic router and switch configuration for each separate network, interconnecting at router level. The needs included reducing equipments, add management to the network to allow central monitoring and configuration, and adding new functionalities to the network, as well as having a buildup of different networks to separate traffic. View full review »

We didn't use any other solution.

View full review »

No, I have not due to our contract agreement with Cisco. View full review »

I have used Aruba which is very similar to Cisco. It is also easy to manage and to install. Installing it is straightforward but I don't have too much experience with the priority. We were responsible for their LAN but they have some special requirements which we didn't touch. We didn't use all functionalities in the Aruba. We just used them as Layer 2 switches or as access switches on the main site, and on the bigger sites they had still some old HP switches.

Also, if I remember correctly, Comware had all those old HP switches. We used Aruba just as Layer 2 access devices and didn't use much of the functionalities.

I prefer Cisco. Of course, Aruba is cheaper overall but not necessarily for those small Layer 2 device access switches. I don't know what the price is now, I didn't compare each comparable device. If I had to choose, I would definitely go with the Cisco.

View full review »

We've always used Ciscos switches of one kind or another. We've never used another brand. We're currently planning to change to Cisco Meraki switches. We haven't yet configured them, however. We're going to use it with a Palo Alto Firewall.

View full review »

We also have experience with HPE switches. The HPE switches are okay, but Cisco is the best when it comes to things like the CLI. I prefer them.

Juniper is also a good company and they have good switches.

View full review »

We did not use another solution prior to this one. We have always used Cisco.

View full review »

We previously used 3com switches, and we switched to Cisco in order to standardize our network hardware.

View full review »

I have previously used D-Link but remained with Cisco due to its reliability.

View full review »

I haven't used a different solution. We did the upgrade as part of the lifecycle when the previous equipment became end-of-life. It was time for the investment. At the same time, we were building out new data centers.

View full review »

Cisco Catalyst Switches are more scalable than the product.

View full review »

We also have Surecom and NETGEAR, but Cisco comes under a different class. They differ in price. Cisco is the best for our company. 

View full review »

Previously we used solutions from HP, MicroTech, and Dell. You name a popular product and we have some familiarity with it. We chose Cisco because we believe it is the best option.

View full review »

I've used Foundry switches in the past, which is a brand that does not exist any longer. Those switches were also very good in terms of stability. We used them in industrial ethernet environments. However, they are not products that are produced anymore.

View full review »

I have personally previously used Dell, which is very unstable in comparison to Cisco. You must review all documents and if you don't correctly do this, you must open a ticket. It takes  a few days for a simple question about the licenses to get answered. It can be a very frustrating process and should be simplified.

View full review »

Yes, due to demand driven by requirements. View full review »

I have used, 3com, Dell, Dlink but didn’t find the ease of use and features rich device! View full review »

Yes, linux based routers such as pfsense, zentyal. Those solutions were much more unstable. I also used some less known switches. First power supply issues eliminates them fast. View full review »