Our client was using a single service and they wanted a more reliable service, higher speed, and much lower price. We found that solution for them by integrating services. Instead of paying $3000 a month for each of 30 locations, they got it down to about $600 a month for each location. They switched because they got what they wanted.  

I have used Silver Peak SD-WAN and Prisma SD-WAN. When comparing Prisma SD-WAN and Cisco SD-WAN, Prisma SD-WAN takes less time for the provisioning of devices to the controllers.

I have a lot of customers using Palo Alto hardware because of the support and discounts they provide.

I had previously used a solution called SpamFeed Network, which is owned by ComTech EF Data, for application acceleration over satellite. It was Linux based on OpenSuite and had compression, security, and firewall features, as well as packet inspection if desired. It worked very well, but was extremely expensive, more than double the price of a Cisco solution.

We attempted to use Cisco IPAM a few years ago. It was extremely difficult to install and even more difficult to maintain, to the point where we just scrapped it and deleted all the VMs because it was so difficult to install and maintain.

We have F5 in the environment, and I used to be an administrator for F5.

We used GTM as well as LTM. I don't actually maintain them in this role, but in a previous one, I installed and maintained LTM and GTM.

I have also used Riverbed's Suite product.

SteelHead produces acceleration products. In addition, they have a software suite that manages end-to-end traffic. You can see the flow from beginning to end.

I worked with SteelHead for five years. We removed this solution because we disliked it.

We haven't had it in a few years, but I don't recall the last version we had.

We've used different technologies from different vendors. Some customers preferred the SD-WAN from Cisco, and some preferred other vendors.

I have used SilverPeek. It is made for the end user, not for technical engineers. It is easy to deploy and has better visibility of how the network is performing than Cisco.

I have used both solutions. I have evaluated some other solutions. Technically, all the SD-WAN solutions work the same, so it depends on the organization. Cost is a factor. Cisco is on the higher side but is stable. There have been a few upgrades.

I did do a POC with VMware, and it was not great. We struggled with configurations. I've also done a POC with Aryaka and have used Fortinet and Palo Alto, as well as Viptela. 

The difference between Cisco and other options is that you get a good number of engineers. Second, the amount of time required to troubleshoot the protocol level is lower. I'm using the word protocol on the operating system that gets loaded and comes with the software. They don't even have a proper support line, and the support will not be aware of the production issues. The other competitors are three years away compared to where Cisco is today.

Having worked with both Fortinet and Cisco, a notable distinction lies in the user experience. Cisco offers a more sophisticated and customizable experience, particularly evident in meetings. However, Fortinet excels in simplicity, making it a preferred choice for those who prioritize ease of use. In terms of customization, Cisco stands out, providing a more granular approach, while Fortinet is considered more straightforward and suitable for users who prefer a less intricate setup. The choice between them depends on the specific needs and preferences, with Fortinet being a good option for a straightforward approach and Cisco offering more advanced customization possibilities.

We use different solutions like Viptela, VeloCloud and Versa.

We also have experience with Meraki. The differences are licensing and pricing, however, the features are pretty much comparable.

The decision to opt for Cisco SD-WAN over other tools depends on various factors, such as the specific environment, customer requirements, and the solution's scalability. Ultimately, it emerged as the best fit for these customers and their budgets. While acknowledging that it can be costly, it's imperative that the customer can afford the solution, considering its functionality. For instance, it facilitates seamless application delivery by enabling the migration of applications to the cloud.

I previously used Forcepoint, but they have no local support, which means we had to wait much longer to get resolutions to our issues. Cisco's knowledge base was also better.

We did not previously use a different solution. We had a fairly traditional wide area network without any sophisticated connection options.

I have been using Cisco since the beginning. I am familiar with it and it's easy to deploy, so I am sticking with it for now. I have no plans to switch to any other products, but we are looking at integrating this product with other solutions. 

Alongside Cisco, we also use Fortinet. If we have a firewall or edge/perimeter security or other security measures in place already, we can simply go with Cisco. This is because the interconnectivity, branch connectivity, configuration level, solidness, and other features of Cisco are already adequate and, in some cases, superior. So when it comes to the networking components alone, I prefer Cisco.

But if the customer is asking for networking plus the perimeter level security, then I have to look into products like Fortinet, because with their lower pricing and so on, Fortinet comes out on top. Fortinet is much cheaper than Cisco. And for configuration, Fortinet's interfaces are also very comfortable to use when it comes to complex configurations.

Prior to this, we used Cisco IWAN.

The truth is that I started using an initial solution called IWAN, the intelligent network. It tried to take the best of current technologies and provide it in a network format. In my opinion, it did not achieve its goals.

I've worked with a variety of other solutions in the past. They have their own approaches to the industry.

Sophos, for example, approaches their solution from a security perspective. The main premise of the product is its ability to secure the network itself. Others have close relationships with VMware solutions that provide for an easy way to bind the applicable network with the network walls.

In the near future, most will need to provide for UCTE, which will become a must-have for any solution.

Fortinet does not have a UCTE itself, but it has a low segment and basic equipment that is really interesting because it is so cheap. Plus, it's not so difficult to add it in to complete another appliance. This is one thing that we sometimes use to expand security requirements while still being able to have specific SD-WAN equipment.

Cisco SD-WAN was our company's first choice, but they also use Fortinet.

The typical brands we deal with are mostly Cisco, Palo Alto, Zscaler, and, in more recent times, Check Point and Citrix.

We are also using Meraki.

Meraki is more suited to small companies, whereas Cisco is more for larger enterprise companies.

I have used Citrix SD-WAN as well, although I have very little experience with it.

I have experience with a variety of different solutions. I also have worked with
Versa, Fortinet and FatPipe.

I am currently using Fortinet SD-WAN because it is less expensive. It is not as expensive as Cisco SD-WAN. That is the reason we switched from Cisco SD-WAN to Fortinet SD-WAN.

We are also using Fortinet. Fortinet SD-WAN is more user-friendly, but Cisco is better overall. 

Prior to this solution, we used Cisco iWAN.

Most of our customer using traditional WAN technologies and we are the one configuring and deploying those solution, now we are on the way of educating them the importance of SD-WAN and finally implenting it

I have worked with VMware products, but not with SD-WAN.

MPLS, P2P lines and multi-point VPN mesh. These were either too expensive or required too much operational overhead. 

Prior to Cisco SD-WAN, we were using a manual configuration. We used to achieve the same functionality; however, in order to make it simple and easy to manage, we switched to this solution.

I have not worked with other similar products and have no experience with them.

We definitely worked with the other vendors, other competitive vendors. All of them have pros and cons. I have not switched from one vendor SD-WAN to Cisco. It's a relatively easy technology, however, it's not that easy to switch from A to B. We've worked with, for example, HPE, Aruba, and Fortinet.

We have at least 10 to 15 customers making use of SD-WAN, but three or four when it comes to Cisco SD-WAN. This is because we also deal in other products, such as the segment concerning Silver Peak, Barracuda and NG Firewall. As we act as the consultant, we do not limit ourselves exclusively to the use of Cisco. There are various requirements which must be considered and these differ with the needs of the customer. 

We use both Cisco and Juniper.

I'm working for a partner in Vietnam. They have many vendors, including Aruba and Meraki Cisco.

We have also worked with Meraki SD-WAN, but the choice of solution depends on the customer's size and requirements. Meraki is for smaller clients. For example, Meraki only supports two landings, whereas Cisco supports more than that.

Prior to going with the solution we made use of Silver Peak SD-WAN. 

We've also worked with Fortinet. Cisco is better for larger enterprises and for telecom operators. However, Fortinet is a much cheaper solution in terms of pricing. Fortinet is also much easier to implement. Cisco implementations tend to be complicated.

We have only ever used Cisco solutions.