Disclaimer

The  Author of this posting offers the information contained within this  posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that  there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose.  Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not  be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this  posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.

Liability Disclaimer

In  no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including,  without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out  of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author  has been advised of the possibility of such damage.

Posting

The have "Cisco" on their nameplate.  They often cost more and they usually do what they're supposed to (and if they don't, Cisco will usually correct).

Otherwise, you'll likely to find a competitor's switch that offers the same features or comparative features and it often costs less.

I suspect you're likely looking to make up a comparison sheet to perhaps justify obtaining a 2960 vs. brand-X, but the intangible "does it really work as it's supposed to" is often overlooked by "bottom line" bean counters until they start to tote up the cost of unplanned downtime.  I'm not saying Cisco equipment is perfect, but stories (and they're not fictional) of Cisco equipment being on-line without a reload for years and years (sometime longer than some Brand-X company has even been in business), shouldn't be overlooked.

It's often difficult to justify obtaining Cisco equipment on just sales literature features.