Compare Cisco SD-WAN vs. Riverbed Steelhead

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Cisco SD-WAN Logo
19,182 views|16,371 comparisons
Riverbed Steelhead Logo
3,433 views|2,516 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco SD-WAN vs. Riverbed Steelhead and other solutions. Updated: July 2021.
522,693 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
"This solution can scale from SMB to the enterprise level. It is very impressive.""So far, the feature that I like best is the policy configuration manager.""The segmented traffic it provides is the best in the industry right now.""The solution's application control and application traffic steering tool are its most valuable aspects in terms of how we utilize the product.""Cisco is an industry leader, so customers have a high level of trust with the brand more-so than with some newcomers that might have some more revolutionary solutions, but no name recognition.""There is minimum blind space in this solution.""It's very easy to manage and monitor the network's health and security using the solution.""The product's brand recognition is one of the most valuable aspects of the solution."

More Cisco SD-WAN Pros »

"TCP optimization... caches a particular TCP connection and the next time a user uses that connection he will reach the destination easily.""I find the most valuable to be the compression and exchange replication."

More Riverbed Steelhead Pros »

Cons
"This solution is expensive so pricing is a concern.""It would be very helpful if we had better access to a knowledge base, or online documentation, to help both us and our customers learn to use this solution.""Cisco's router and voice gateway has not been available since the launch of SD-WAN.""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 client portal needs to be improved in order to make the solution much better.""The main issue is that not in the technology, but it comes back comparison. When we do a comparison with other SD WAN solutions, they are priced better.""Since most user-data is going through the solution, we are concerned about security, as all the information is in the cloud and not on-premises. The user data authentification should be higher to better prevent malicious attacks.""The initial setup could be a bit less complex."

More Cisco SD-WAN Cons »

"Application response time and network performance could be improved.""They should include a network switch in a future release."

More Riverbed Steelhead Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
"We pay for the Cisco Customer Care support, which is a couple of hundred dollars.""80 percent reduction in WAN costs. There are no MPLS or P2P circuits left in the organization.""Cisco is more expensive than some competing products.""SD-WAN as a service is probably something in the neighborhood of $100 to $200 a month per location.""The costs are a bit on the high side.""It is much cheaper than other solutions. Most of our clients are the top 500 companies, and they all have a corporate contract.""The license model is too complex with too many flavors and options. You might not be able to see it from an end user's point of view, but from a telco point of view, their license model is too complex. They should have a flexible license model. If you want to have good pricing, you need to buy it for a two-year, four-year, or five-year license immediately. Some other vendors have much more flexible license models.""It is going to be on a yearly basis. There are no additional costs."

More Cisco SD-WAN Pricing and Cost Advice »

"The solution is expensive and the service contacts are costly too. The cost of the device makes the value proposition borderline acceptable for us. The service contract fees we pay is approximately $30,000 annually."

More Riverbed Steelhead Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which WAN Edge solutions are best for your needs.
522,693 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: I have found the solution's main features are its ability to be customized, network traffic classification, and has a wide range of features that can be set.
Top Answer: The price of the solution is the only negative factor, it is much more expensive compared with the Cisco Meraki SD-WAN solution.
Top Answer: Cisco should focus more on making products that are convenient for users. Sadly, I think they are more interested in making money rather than making reliable products. The Cisco way of thinking is to… more »
Top Answer: We just did an assessment for our 47 datacenters around North America. The top two enterprise-level network monitoring solutions were ExtraHop first, Riverbed SteelCenter second. Their negotiated cost… more »
Top Answer: I find the most valuable to be the compression and exchange replication.
Top Answer: They should include a network switch in a future release.
Ranking
2nd
out of 26 in WAN Edge
Views
19,182
Comparisons
16,371
Reviews
32
Average Words per Review
610
Rating
8.0
15th
out of 26 in WAN Edge
Views
3,433
Comparisons
2,516
Reviews
1
Average Words per Review
609
Rating
7.0
Popular Comparisons
Also Known As
Viptela, Cisco vEdge Cloud Router
RIverbed Steelhead, Steelhead
Learn More
Overview

Deploy software-defined WAN without compromising the application experience.

Riverbed SteelHead is the industry's #1 optimization solution for accelerated delivery of all applications across the hybrid enterprise. SteelHead also provides better visibility into application and network performance and the end user experience plus control through an application-aware approach to hybrid networking and path selection based on centralized, business intent-based policies for what you want to achieve as a business.

Offer
Learn more about Cisco SD-WAN
Learn more about Riverbed Steelhead
Sample Customers
Doyle Research, Ashton Metzler & Associates
Orasure Technologies, Energia Communications Inc., GHD, JLL, Northwest Pipe, Dudek & Associates, Lathrop & Gage, Carilion Clinic
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Comms Service Provider44%
Transportation Company11%
Real Estate/Law Firm11%
Computer Software Company11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider39%
Computer Software Company22%
Manufacturing Company4%
Government4%
REVIEWERS
Government23%
Energy/Utilities Company23%
Construction Company8%
Legal Firm8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider28%
Computer Software Company23%
Financial Services Firm7%
Manufacturing Company5%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business46%
Midsize Enterprise18%
Large Enterprise36%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business23%
Midsize Enterprise12%
Large Enterprise66%
REVIEWERS
Small Business7%
Midsize Enterprise21%
Large Enterprise71%
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco SD-WAN vs. Riverbed Steelhead and other solutions. Updated: July 2021.
522,693 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Cisco SD-WAN is ranked 2nd in WAN Edge with 36 reviews while Riverbed Steelhead is ranked 15th in WAN Edge with 2 reviews. Cisco SD-WAN is rated 8.0, while Riverbed Steelhead is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Cisco SD-WAN writes "Stable, cutting-edge, and robust". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Riverbed Steelhead writes "Scalable Data Referencing provides LAN-like speed over WAN". Cisco SD-WAN is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, VMware SD-WAN, Versa FlexVNF, Meraki SD-WAN and VMware NSX, whereas Riverbed Steelhead is most compared with WAAS, Citrix SD-WAN, Silver Peak NX, Silver Peak VX and Sangfor WANO. See our Cisco SD-WAN vs. Riverbed Steelhead report.

See our list of best WAN Edge vendors.

We monitor all WAN Edge 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.