Anonymous UserData Processing Manager at a computer software company
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The initial setup is pretty easy."
"I like the fact that they are a well-supported product."
"Cisco Nexus meets all of our requirements."
"Cisco is refining the features all the time and you can see this in all the different vendors."
"The most valuable feature is performance."
"It's easy to use, and the performance is great."
"From a data center implementation, with respect to competition from your data, there isn't really a product recovery for the different tests other than Cisco Nexus. For example, if you take Multi-tenancy for the data center, it's something which, I think, only Cisco has. There are some implementation from HP, but I think it's limited there."
"Its easy management is most valuable. It is easy to use, easy to manage, stable, and very reliable."
"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 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."
"The solution is stable."
"The solution is easy to use and has good performance."
"The licensing is very complicated. They should work to simplify it."
"I am looking for a GUI that goes alongside them and more SD-WAN built to their core switches."
"I feel that this solution should be more flexible and scalable."
"They could improve on having different technologies between product models."
"There is an ongoing problem with the limitation of the TCAM table, which is that it doesn't have enough memory to allow you to be really granular with your policy."
"The price could be better."
"One of the biggest challenges, which I see is that there's a constant evolution in the product. For example, our configuration is based on what is known as traditional data center implementation. Today there is the ACI deployment and to implement, to migrate from one technology to another, that's challenging both from a configuration perspective and also from a cost perspective."
"The cost of the support can be improved. We had critical operations, and we needed 24/7 support for 365 days, which was quite expensive. We had to go for a very costly support contract, which was really a concern. The availability of spare parts, especially in a remote location such as Egypt, can also be improved."
"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."
"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."
"The disruptive upgrade was an issue for us."
"I thought that it would be less expensive."
"We use a local distributor for support, which is very expensive."
"The price of the product is reasonable."
"The Nexus 9000 is very competitively priced."
"The problem with Cisco, from what I see, is that their costs are much higher."
"Licensing is annual or every three years. We were one of the big customers, and we used to get good prices, but the cost of the support can be improved."
"The solution is expensive."
"We have a virtual license."
"In terms of price, the QFabric solution is going to be probably in the middle of the road for a fabric solution."
"The price for Juniper QFabric could improve. There are subscription, maintenance, and add-on feature fees."
"Juniper QFabric is a high-level solution but it could be less expensive."
"The pricing is high."
Cisco Nexus is ranked 3rd in LAN Switching with 18 reviews while Juniper QFabric is ranked 8th in LAN Switching with 5 reviews. Cisco Nexus is rated 8.4, while Juniper QFabric is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco Nexus writes "Performs well, good port flexibility, and scales out easily". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Juniper QFabric writes "Highly stable, straightforward CLI, and integrates well". Cisco Nexus is most compared with Cisco Catalyst Switches, Arista Networks Platform, Dell PowerConnect Switches, Extreme VDX and VMware NSX, whereas Juniper QFabric is most compared with Cisco FabricPath, Dell PowerConnect Switches and Arista Campus LAN Switches. See our Cisco Nexus 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.