We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Compare Cisco SD-WAN vs. Steelhead

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Cisco SD-WAN Logo
19,449 views|15,772 comparisons
Steelhead Logo
3,037 views|2,022 comparisons
Featured Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco SD-WAN vs. Steelhead and other solutions. Updated: November 2021.
554,586 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
"It is very stable with very good firmware.""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.""So far, the feature that I like best is the policy configuration manager.""I like the feature that lets you transfer from old devices to new devices without changing the hardware and subscription.""Configuration interfaces are quite easy and intuitive. Being a part of the Cisco environment, Cisco SD-WAN is quite straightforward.""The solution's application control and application traffic steering tool are its most valuable aspects in terms of how we utilize the product.""There have been no issues with stability.""The deployment is quite simple and straightforward."

More Cisco SD-WAN Pros »

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

More Steelhead Pros »

Cons
"In the next release, Cisco should focus on simplifying the configuration of SD-WAN. SD-WAN has a lot of room to grow.""The solution needs to be more flexible around legacy devices.""The solution could be a bit cheaper.""When it comes to adding more security features, you need to add more RAM.""The bandwidth limitations would be good to remove, but it is a policy and license situation for Cisco because the cost is very high. It would be good to have OTP implemented with VRF. It can have support for EIGRP Over the Top (OTP) VRF. I saw some limitations in regards to the VRF protocol and the advertisement between VRF configuration. EIGRP Over the Top basically was quite limited with the VRF configuration. If you wanted to do rollback in VRF by using the EIGRP OTP protocol, the formation was not populated across. Cisco got back and confirmed that it is a configuration that I need to wait for until the next release, which is going to happen in one year. Cisco documentation is not the way it used to be before. It just gives an easy way to configure, but it doesn't go into the details of the configuration. The information that you need is there, but sometimes you want to go further and get more information, but the information is quite limited. It would be good to cover a few business cases or configuration cases. They used to be there in the past.""They should enhance the reporting because, as it is today, they need more executive-level reports.""I would like them to add some more SD-WAN ports. We have seen one implementation where there were four ISPs. Currently, we have a maximum of two ports for ISP in this device. Therefore, we cannot connect directly, and we need other switches. There should be some option to have more than two ports for SD-WAN.""Compresson deduplication should be added."

More Cisco SD-WAN Cons »

"Application response time and network performance could be improved.""The product should offer more integration capabilities.""They should include a network switch in a future release."

More Steelhead Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
"It is much cheaper than other solutions. Most of our clients are the top 500 companies, and they all have a corporate contract.""It's expensive. If you compare Cisco with Fortinet and Juniper, you'll find that Cisco is more expensive than other vendors.""SD-WAN as a service is probably something in the neighborhood of $100 to $200 a month per location.""In the Russian market where we operate, this solution is expensive.""80 percent reduction in WAN costs. There are no MPLS or P2P circuits left in the organization.""Cisco is more expensive than FortiGate.""The license consists of an annual fee.""It is expensive. The license limitation is there in terms of bandwidth. Basically, Cisco is always good in terms of performance and related things. However, if you want to have a license, for example, for 100 Mbps, they charge you because of their 100 Mbps. If you want to go without the license of 300 Mbps, it is a bandwidth license as well. This is not happening with other vendors. That is the reason why we moved away from Cisco. The bill gets a little bit high. I do remember that one time we were trying to increase the bandwidth for at least five devices, and the license got as high as 20-grand for five devices, only for the license. It was expensive for us at the time. Our company is not a big company, but it is a solid company. The price was very high, and we moved away from Cisco because of the price."

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 Steelhead Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which WAN Edge solutions are best for your needs.
554,586 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: Load balancing is a feature that allows us to take the best of our links and distribute the load intelligently, always with an eye on the end-customer experience.
Top Answer: It is not the cheapest solution on the market, however, without a doubt, it is one of the options that best handles complex topologies. Therefore there is a need to know more accurately what the… more »
Top Answer: It is transversal to all industries. What is important is to work on the costs of the solution. On the technical side, manufacturer-independent solutions should be able to handle different topologies… 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: It is very easy to install the solution.
Top Answer: We would like the solution to be less expensive. If the solution was more secure, that would be ideal. The product should offer more integration capabilities.
Ranking
2nd
out of 26 in WAN Edge
Views
19,449
Comparisons
15,772
Reviews
37
Average Words per Review
612
Rating
7.9
15th
out of 26 in WAN Edge
Views
3,037
Comparisons
2,022
Reviews
2
Average Words per Review
547
Rating
7.5
Comparisons
Also Known As
Viptela, Cisco vEdge Cloud Router
RIverbed Steelhead
Learn More
Overview

Deploy software-defined WAN without compromising the application experience.

Riverbed SteelHead CX is the industry's #1 WAN optimization solution. SteelHead CX is proven to dramatically speed up the performance of applications anywhere in the organization while delivering the best end-user experience even under sub optimal network conditions. Reduce bandwidth utilization by up to 95%, deferring costly network bandwidth upgrades. Increase performance by up to 100x for on-premises applications.

Offer
Learn more about Cisco SD-WAN
Learn more about Steelhead
Sample Customers
Doyle Research, Ashton Metzler & Associates
ElAraby, SFK Leblanc, Bobst Group, Northwest Pipe Company, Halkbank, Tradebridge, EFG Hermes
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Comms Service Provider50%
Transportation Company10%
Real Estate/Law Firm10%
Computer Software Company10%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider38%
Computer Software Company22%
Manufacturing Company4%
Government4%
REVIEWERS
Government29%
Energy/Utilities Company21%
Construction Company7%
Legal Firm7%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider27%
Computer Software Company26%
Financial Services Firm8%
Manufacturing Company5%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business47%
Midsize Enterprise16%
Large Enterprise37%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business22%
Midsize Enterprise18%
Large Enterprise59%
REVIEWERS
Small Business13%
Midsize Enterprise25%
Large Enterprise63%
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco SD-WAN vs. Steelhead and other solutions. Updated: November 2021.
554,586 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Cisco SD-WAN is ranked 2nd in WAN Edge with 41 reviews while Steelhead is ranked 15th in WAN Edge with 3 reviews. Cisco SD-WAN is rated 8.0, while Steelhead is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Cisco SD-WAN writes "Stable, cutting-edge, and robust". On the other hand, the top reviewer of 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 Citrix SD-WAN, whereas Steelhead is most compared with WAAS, Citrix SD-WAN, Silver Peak VX, Silver Peak NX and Exinda. See our Cisco SD-WAN vs. 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.