We performed a comparison between Cisco CloudCenter and Cloudify based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."You can scale it easily."
"I can define all components and create a blueprint for consumption across all services."
"The solution includes a lot of features and is useful because you can configure all the way down to ports."
"Upgrades are very simple as well because they've allowed us to get updates directly in the CloudCenter Suite manager. If you need to do an upgrade to your setup afterward, you just push a button and it rolls out the parts and retires the old ones. It's seamless and very simple compared to what we've done before."
"Cisco CloudCenter's scalability is good."
"The initial setup is fairly straightforward if you have a basic setup."
"Cisco has a lot of published information and documentation that helps users understand the product and its offering very well."
"The solution is agile and it has APIs for integration."
"The solution includes the option to run background scripts and processes from a connected API."
"Product has given us the ability to catch early scaling issues that many companies hit on with private clouds."
"You can use only what you need. You can remove certain Cloudify functions from the framework to create a "minified" version of what you need. This might only consist of the messaging delivery system, and the orchestration functions."
"Valuable features are auto-scaling and load balancing."
"TOSCA model allows modeling the application rather than the automation. It is a machine-readable representation of the application and its infrastructure, which can be used for other things too, not just for the orchestration (e.g. enterprise architecture big picture, who connects to whom)."
"Has great extendability which means you can build your own custom logic."
"Cloudify provides the infrastructure-as-code, as well as operational action capabilities (orchestrated startups or upgrades, and more)."
"Cloudify works in cases where you have very advanced service chaining requirements. It really works well there, and it fits the best. They have a standardized markup that's based on TOSCA, which is a standard. I like the fact that they're standards-based. Their solution works extremely well if you have the talent and the manpower to write TOSCA descriptors to deploy and interchange services or to automate the configuration and turn up of services."
"The solution needs to be more simple."
"They should provide an entire cloud offering, from architecture to network security features."
"For many clients, the main problem with the solution is the price. Cisco is very expensive. If they could somehow make the pricing more competitive, that would be a big draw."
"They can add some of those features to make the platform more usable for different backgrounds and developer skills."
"Improvements are needed in UI and multi-tenancy for this solution."
"The improvement I would like to see is not one thing particular to CloudCenter. I'd say it's more of a message that the system is still using a lot of the different products and if they would all just fit better together, they all could be faster together."
"The tool should improve its security on the XDR part."
"I'm not a big fan of CloudCenter. I don't have anything against it, however, the on-premise version has been so hard to upgrade and maintain."
"Certainly the UI could use some intensive work, but nevertheless, overall, it’s a complete product with its 3.4 version and much better features are available with 4.0."
"The upgrading process could be simplified."
"Install of the product itself could be improved and I would like to see better event monitoring."
"It lacked the user interface for multitenancy and basic platform management tasks. It is a leader in the niche area that they like to perform in, but it only does about 30% of top-tier advanced functions of platform management. It doesn't meet about 70% of what you need to manage a private cloud platform."
"Unlike the Docker environment, Cloudify takes time for configuration and its learning curve."
"Error handling could be improved; GUI is lacking with respect to user privileges and connectivity."
"The solution is a bit of a headache because mistakes happen in the blueprint every time we deploy and they require modifications."
Cisco CloudCenter is ranked 18th in Cloud Management with 9 reviews while Cloudify is ranked 20th in Cloud Management with 12 reviews. Cisco CloudCenter is rated 7.8, while Cloudify is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco CloudCenter writes "Useful features for configuring down to ports but extremely expensive". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cloudify writes "Works very well for advanced service chaining requirements and has extremely advanced engineers for support". Cisco CloudCenter is most compared with Cisco Intersight, VMware Aria Automation, Cisco UCS Director, CloudStack and Faddom, whereas Cloudify is most compared with Morpheus, VMware Aria Automation, CloudStack, OpenNebula and Scalr. See our Cisco CloudCenter vs. Cloudify report.
See our list of best Cloud Management vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
