HPE Networking vs. Cisco: What Does Gartner Say, and What Is the Reality?

Most networking decisions in Sweden are not made based on an evaluation. Rather, they are made out of habit. “We’ve always used Cisco” is still one of the most common arguments we hear, and it’s not a bad argument. A habit is cheap—until it isn’t.

This post therefore compares HPE Networking and Cisco on two levels: what independent analysts like Gartner say, and what we see in real-world networks. The tone is deliberately objective. After all, both are reputable platforms, and you deserve a comparison that treats them as such.

The short answer:

HPE Networking is ranked as a leader in Gartner’s evaluations of enterprise networks for wired and wireless networks, with particularly high ratings for cloud-based management (Aruba Central) and built-in security. Cisco has the largest market share and the broadest portfolio, but in real-world environments, we often see greater licensing complexity and higher total cost of ownership. The right choice depends on your environment, not on habit.

What does Gartner say?

Gartner regularly evaluates providers of enterprise networking solutions for wired and wireless networks. In the latest evaluations, HPE Networking consistently ranks in the Leaders quadrant, with strengths in cloud-based network management, AI-powered operations, and security built into the platform rather than added on top.

Both are positioned in the Leaders quadrant. HPE ranks highest among all vendors, both in terms of ability to deliver and vision. It’s worth keeping this in mind the next time the “everyone uses Cisco” argument comes up. Let the facts speak for themselves.

At the same time: Gartner evaluates platforms, not your environment. A quadrant is a starting point for questions, not a definitive answer.

HPE Networking vs. Cisco in Real Life

We’ve encountered both platforms in hundreds of networks over the years. Here’s what the patterns look like in the field:

• The Licensing Model. Cisco’s portfolio is broad and robust, but many customers find its licensing model difficult to navigate. Features move between packages, and costs increase in increments that are hard to predict. HPE’s model is easier to calculate, with fewer tiers and clearer definitions of what’s included.
• Management. Aruba Central consolidates wired, wireless, and WAN networks into a single cloud-based view. Cisco’s equivalents are capable but have historically been spread across multiple tools, which in practice means more consoles and more training.
• Expectations vs. reality. Customers who switch providers often expect the difference in the network to be minimal. The most common feedback we hear afterward isn’t about speed or features, but about simplicity: fewer tools, fewer surprises on the bill.

None of this makes Cisco a bad choice. It makes it a choice that should be reconsidered with the same care as any other vendor decision.

Area by area

For those who would like the comparison in bullet points:

• Wireless: Both offer high-quality Wi-Fi. HPE Networking’s radio optimization and AI-powered troubleshooting in Central are frequently praised in independent tests; the main difference in everyday use is manageability.
• Wired: Functionally equivalent for most environments. The difference lies in the licensing structure and in how switches and access points are managed within the same tool.
• Security: HPE builds access control and dynamic segmentation into the platform. Cisco, on the other hand, offers robust security products as separate add-ons with their own licensing.
• Management: Aruba Central brings everything together in a single cloud view. Cisco’s toolset is powerful but more fragmented.
• Ecosystem: Cisco has the widest range of third-party integrations and certified personnel on the market.

In summary: For large global corporations, Cisco’s breadth may be the most important factor. For most Swedish organizations, however, simplicity, built-in security, and predictable costs carry more weight.

The key question: What is the total cost?

A platform comparison that focuses solely on feature lists misses the point. What really matters is the total cost over the life cycle: licenses, management, expertise, troubleshooting time, and—not least—the cost of being stuck with a model that no longer fits.

What if the analysis concludes that a switch is warranted? In that case, the next concern is often the project itself. It’s an understandable concern, but switching platforms is a craft with a well-established methodology.

The Question You Should Ask Your Current Partner

No matter the platform: ask your network partner this question: “If we were building our network from scratch today, would you recommend the same solution we have now?”

An honest answer to that question says more than any quadrant. And if the answer is slow in coming, it may be due to something we’ve written about before: that the partner’s business model—not your environment—drives the recommendation.

We specialize in HPE Networking, and we’re not shy about saying so. But our recommendation always starts with your environment, your requirements, and your budget. Sometimes the answer is to stick with what you have.

Frequently asked questions

Is HPE Networking better than Cisco?

It depends on the environment. Gartner ranks HPE Networking as a leader in enterprise networking for wired and wireless networks, with strengths in cloud management and built-in security. Cisco has the broadest portfolio and the largest installed base. For most medium-sized Swedish organizations, however, HPE’s simpler licensing model and centralized management are strong selling points.

What does Gartner say about HPE Networking and Cisco?

Gartner’s Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Wired and Wireless LAN Infrastructure (April 2026) places both HPE and Cisco in the Leaders quadrant, with HPE ranked highest among all vendors. Be sure to read the latest report, as the rankings are updated annually.

Is it expensive to switch from Cisco to HPE Networking?

The migration involves a project cost, but this should be weighed against ongoing savings in licensing, administration, and uptime. For many organizations, the payback period is shorter than a hardware lifecycle cycle.

Does everything have to be replaced at once?

No. Most migrations take place in stages, site by site or function by function, with both platforms running in parallel during the transition.

Finally

Habit is one reason. It’s just not a decision. If it’s been a long time since you tested your choice of platform against the facts, maybe it’s time to do so—regardless of what the answer turns out to be.