Cisco SD-WAN Reviews

We use it to manage hospitals and clinics in my country.

It has improved our connection and bandwidth.

I like the feature that lets you transfer from old devices to new devices without changing the hardware and subscription.

The price could be better. From a technical side, and everything's working smoothly. Cisco SD-WAN could be cheaper. 

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for about one year.

It's very good and stable compared to the others.

It's scalable. We have around 250 sites around Jordan.

Technical support is good. We don't have any issue with their performance.

The initial setup and deployment were straightforward.

I implemented this solution by myself.

It's expensive. If you compare Cisco with Fortinet and Juniper, you'll find that Cisco is more expensive than other vendors.

We don't have Sympatico or Versa in my country. We just have Cisco, Juniper, and Fortinet. But Fortinet doesn't have complete distribution, and the switching solution is very weak. We needed a solution that integrates with others, and we think that Cisco helped. Fortinet doesn't have all the switches, and they have some issues with statistics. This is why we chose Cisco.

I would advise potential users to try Cisco and see if they offer more for their enterprise needs. I would recommend Cisco SD-WAN to new users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco SD-WAN a nine.

We are a solution provider and Cisco SD-WAN is one of the products that we implement for our customers. I am a system integrator.

We use this product for zero-disk provisioning at branch offices. The controllers are at a central location and are used to manage the branches.

The most valuable features are zero-disk provisioning and link load balancing on an application basis. In the case of link load balancing, if an application is not working properly on the primary link, it may be fine on the secondary one. This means that if the first link goes down then it may still be accessible, which is a very good feature.

The process of onboarding the vSmart, vBond, and vManage should be improved to make it easier to manage in general. 

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for one year.

Stability-wise, it is a good product and it works very well.

This is a scalable solution. There are between 1,000 and 1,500 users.

I have been in contact with technical support and my experience with them has been fine.

The length of time required for deployment depends on the scenario, but it usually takes between two and three days to set up.

As a system integrator, I deploy this solution myself.

We need a couple of engineers at headquarters to maintain it, and we don't usually need anybody at the remote sites. Normally, it's plug-and-play.

Licensing is on a subscription basis.

In summary, this is a good product and we plan to continue using it in the future. It is one that I definitely recommend.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I have a partner in a manufacturing company that wants to reduce the use of the MPLS when using the internet. I proposed they use Meraki for the SD-WAN hub and since they only wanted to use a few WAN links I suggested the Cisco SD-WAN for their domain, main protection, and the internet for the backup of all the transitions that do not need critical time.

I have found the performance and the Zero-Touch provisioning helpful which makes it easier for us to develop.

The solution could be more secure. Security is always a priority for us.

I have been using the solution for approximately one year.

I have found this solution stable.

The solution is scalable.

One of my client's organizations has approximately 5,000 users using the solution.

The solution is easy to implement and maintain. 

If we already agreed on the design and conditions with the customer the installation can take approximately two hours to implement the hub. For the SD-WAN it can take less than one hour and if we use the VPP it is even quicker.

There is no license required for this solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Cisco SD-WAN an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for data centers with several providers. We also use the solution for branch offices. We have used it on 20 branch offices in one instance and the other instance has about 90 remote sites.

The security features are very good. We really like the application routing, for example.

The initial setup is quite simple.

The solution offers very good documentation.

Technical support is quite helpful.

The product is very scalable.

There are a lot of exciting features coming out very soon which we are looking forward to working with.

The security features could be improved.

The solution needs to offer better stability.

The product could have improved flexibility.

I've been using the solution for about thirteen months. It's been just over a year at this point, so it hasn't been too long.

The solution could have better stability. It's not ideal right now. It could be quite a bit better.

The solution can scale. If a company needs to expand it, it should be able to do so rather easily.

We typically work with small and medium-sized organizations. I'm not sure if the companies we work with intend to expand their usage in the future or not.

Technical support for the product is quite good. We're satisfied with the level of support we receive from them. 

The documents, manuals, and community support on offer are very good.

The initial setup is not complex. We found it to be straightforward and easy.

The deployment took about six months for one project and a few months for another.

You need about four people for deployment and maintenance tasks.

We tend to implement this solution for our clients if they require it of us.

We didn't look at other options before choosing this solution.

We're partners for Cisco. We're resellers and implementers.

For the routers, we are using versions 73.2 and 16.12.3. We use both cloud and on-premises deployment models.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product at an eight. We've mostly been quite happy with it.

There is a commercial bank here in our region, and they want to eliminate expensive and MPLS lines. They've been looking to implement internet SD-WAN solutions and to have them in their central system as two uplinks. One is service provided and another one is for added services.

The solution's application control and application traffic steering tool are its most valuable aspects in terms of how we utilize the product.

The solution allows organizations to have visibility into the application traffic. After implementing the solution, we can see what types of traffic we have. We can see how users are using the internet and will be able to tell if anyone is downloading something that they shouldn't be or if they are consuming a lot of data.

The whole solution needs to be re-imagined. It's quite complex right now and really needs to be simplified to make it easier for those of us using it. It should offer more simplified management as well.

The solution is expensive. They should adjust their pricing to make it more competitive.

I've been using the solution for about one year now.

The solution is stable enough. We haven't faced crashes, bugs or glitches that would make us concerned that is wasn't reliable.

The solution is quite easy to expand. We find it very scalable.

Regarding technical support, we only really needed them to assist us with the implementation of this solution and we haven't had to open a case since them. We were satisfied with their level of support.

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.

The initial setup is quite complex. The whole system is complex. You have to have a good understanding of Cisco and its products in order to handle the setup properly.

I don't recall how long deployment took for our organization.

We asked Cisco's technical support for assistance during the implementation process.

The solution is subscription-based. It is quite pricy, as compared to its competitors, for example, Fortinet. You can see the pricing on the Cisco site, and my understanding is that it's the same pricing across Europe. There are extra costs involved, however, because if you have an on-premises model, you have to buy the equipment. There are also costs associated with technical support.

We're a Cisco Gold Partner.

I'm not sure of the exact version number of the solution we are currently using.

Typically, we work with small to medium-sized enterprises.

The advantage of SD-WAN is that it can eliminate costly MPLS links. That's the big selling feature for us.

I would recommend the solution.I'd rate it seven out of ten. If it was less complicated and offered more reasonable pricing, I'd rate it higher.

I primarily use this solution for remote connectivity.

In a software-defined network architecture, it heals itself and the management of the solution is very easy.

This solution is expensive so pricing is a concern.

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for about one year.

We have had no issues with stability.

This solution can scale from SMB to the enterprise level. It is very impressive.

Scalability in this context does not concern users, but connections between the head office and branch offices. We do not deal with endpoints or end-users.

We do not have plans for expansion or increasing our usage at this point.

I have contacted technical support several times during the deployment phase and while troubleshooting. They are amazing. They are really helpful and the support is perfect.

We have only ever used Cisco solutions.

The initial setup is straightforward.

For a regular customer, the deployment will probably take between 15 and 20 days.

We deploy these types of products for our clients.

This is a good solution. It's a new technology that people should look into because it provides for seamless management of the whole network, including switches. That said, there is always room for improvement.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.