We performed a comparison between Cisco FabricPath and Juniper QFabric based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two LAN Switching solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is the central management where the customer can receive all the alerts."
"The fact that the solution is on the cloud is its most valuable aspect. If you are on the cloud, you can manage your network from anywhere, any place. It's very good."
"Additional bandwidth is available when needed."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to migrate VMs between data centers."
"The most valuable features are the security, web control, and traffic control."
"As I mentioned earlier, the durability, flexibility, and security of Cisco devices are notable. Particularly with switches, the capability to implement multiple VLANs and easily aggregate the network has been advantageous. The ability to have different VLANs and aggregate the network without complications is a key feature of Cisco FabricPath."
"The technical assistance is good."
"FabricPath's best features are routing, OSPS, ethernet, and performance."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the fabric backplane having upwards of 160 GB of communication. It is a top-of-the-rack solution where you have your directors sitting in the main area and then you have your nodes expanded out to your multiple cabinets. It has a very good design and could be your server backbone."
"QFabric supports redundancy and includes all of the enterprise and service provider features that customers would want in data center or service provider network."
"The vendor maintains the product well."
"The most valuable feature of QFabric for network performance is its stability."
"It's user-friendly."
"Juniper QFabric has various advantages including scalability, simplicity, performance, and flexibility."
"It is known for being agile, flexible, and cost-effective when working with various vendors."
"The 40 gig backbone InterConneX was valuable for our use case. It is even faster now. QFabric has spine-leaf technology or topology, which basically makes every single hop only one hop away in terms of connecting from one device to another. It is a pretty good and robust solution. It works pretty well in terms of scalability, and their technical support is amazing."
"The price is a little bit too high."
"The solution is costly."
"The cloud version of Cisco Fabric Path could be improved."
"Lacks sufficient integration with SIEM."
"I would like one management console to control the network."
"If Cisco can include management for this protocol in Layer 3, that would be ideal."
"Improvements could be made on specific technical issues such as implementation."
"The prices for FabricPath are very high, and Cisco also takes a long time to deliver products (in Mexico, the delivery time is eight months)."
"The pricing structure could be more budget-friendly."
"I do not use GUI's very much for switch stacks. I am always in the CLI. However, I do know that Juniper in the past has lacked on their GUI's, but they have been working on it."
"It would be nice if Juniper provided the system integrator with training, similar to that of Cisco."
"They are working on the virtualization of the actual fabric layer. They are moving away from the original spine-leaf design to a different infrastructure. Instead of having three tiers, which was the director of the interconnected nodes, they cut them back, and they still have that kind of structure."
"Improvements could be made to QFabric's life cycle management, particularly in maintaining stable versions and extending product support."
"Having support for all OpenFlow versions would be beneficial."
"The disruptive upgrade was an issue for us."
"It works too much on rebooting and there is some memory leakage."
Cisco FabricPath is ranked 8th in LAN Switching with 22 reviews while Juniper QFabric is ranked 9th in LAN Switching with 10 reviews. Cisco FabricPath is rated 8.2, while Juniper QFabric is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco FabricPath writes "On overall effective product with good performance and a simple setup ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Juniper QFabric writes "Performs well, is easy to set up, and the vendor maintains the product well". Cisco FabricPath is most compared with Cisco Nexus and Arista Campus LAN Switches, whereas Juniper QFabric is most compared with Cisco Nexus. See our Cisco FabricPath vs. Juniper QFabric report.
See our list of best LAN Switching vendors.
We monitor all LAN Switching 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.
