We performed a comparison between Cisco SD-WAN and Citrix SD-WAN based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The integration of Layer 3 and application routing is great."
"This solution can scale from SMB to the enterprise level. It is very impressive."
"When considering the most valuable features of Cisco SD-WAN, the decoupling of self-monitoring stands out significantly."
"There have been no issues with stability."
"The solution has great scalability."
"You get security, all of the service you need, and it's easy to deploy."
"Cisco SD-WAN is a highly stable solution."
"The deployment is quite simple and straightforward."
"We are using it widely for the local record for SaaS-based applications. Another valuable feature is a local breakout."
"The most valuable feature of Citrix SD-WAN is customization. You are able to customize the solution to your needs."
"Downtime for branch offices is now almost zero. We have 100% real-time visibility into all of our lines. MPLS links have been replaced with lower-cost links, saving a larger percentage of line costs. Overall, I see SD-WAN as a must. And the Citrix SD-WAN product has delivered on expectations and exceeded them. (With later firmware updates we now have good firewall capabilities in the product too)."
"The most valuable feature is security, as it gives me the port bindings that cannot be accomplished using other solutions."
"The SD-WAN solution as it is already is quite feature-rich and the upgrade process is very simple."
"The main advantage of Citrix SD-WAN is that it enables fast communication between our branches and data centers. And, with its cloud management features, it also makes the process of adding new branches into our company network much easier."
"The scalability and stability are quite good in general."
"The VPN and the load balancing are the most valuable features."
"All of the configurations are based on templates, and we need to spend a lot of time doing the templates. It's good because that means that all of the configurations will be equal in the network. However, we need to spend a lot of time implementing the templates and doing the customizations."
"When it comes to adding more security features, you need to add more RAM."
"The initial setup is complex and can be improved."
"We had some issues with Cisco SD-WAN but somehow we troubleshot it and things are going well. The issues have not been a large problem."
"Cisco SD-WAN's clustering mechanism needs to be improved. If there are more than five milliseconds of latency time between installations of the VM manager, the cluster automatically breaks down."
"They should enhance the reporting because, as it is today, they need more executive-level reports."
"Some configurations or procedures could be more user-friendly. Adding a bandwidth management feature would make Cisco SD-WAN more scalable and less resource-intensive."
"We need them to start focusing on the SD-WAN compatibility with other environments and not being so vendor locked with Cisco environments."
"I would like to see support for additional reporting."
"The reports need to be improved. We need to have them customized but they don't have that right now. I would like for them to have better system predictions. We don't have that right now. My system may be working fine right now but after making some changes, that can change."
"Overall, network security and next-generation firewall features are areas that they can improve on."
"Enhancements are needed to improve the stability."
"The firewall reporting could be easier to use and filter. (It works well enough, but if I need to give an area for improvement, I think this would be it.). The built-in reporting on the product in this regard is not great."
"There are a few things that can be improved, are domain-based routing and the slowness of virtual parts, and it may be due to the wrong configuration, which we have been unable to find out."
"The only improvement for Citrix SD-WAN would be to lower its cost."
"The initial setup could be a bit easier."
Cisco SD-WAN is ranked 1st in Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions with 86 reviews while Citrix SD-WAN is ranked 9th in Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions with 21 reviews. Cisco SD-WAN is rated 8.0, while Citrix SD-WAN is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco SD-WAN writes "A solution for integrating services to enhance up-time, performance and lower costs". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Citrix SD-WAN writes " A scalable solution for MCN controller but lacks technical supports, upgrades". Cisco SD-WAN is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Meraki SD-WAN, VMware SD-WAN, Juniper Session Smart Router and Nuage Networks, whereas Citrix SD-WAN is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Steelhead, Meraki SD-WAN, Aruba EdgeConnect SD-WAN Platform and Cato SASE Cloud Platform. See our Cisco SD-WAN vs. Citrix SD-WAN report.
See our list of best Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions vendors and best WAN Edge vendors.
We monitor all Software Defined WAN (SD-WAN) Solutions 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.