Gartner Blog Network


Vendor Differentiation

by Andrew Lerner  |  February 24, 2014  |  9 Comments

It’s no secret that when clients talk to Gartner, they often ask about the differences between vendors’ solutions.  In addition to end-user clients, we speak regularly to vendors and I talk to roughly 25-30 on a semi-regular basis (in the Networking, ADC, WOC, DDI space).  Thus, one of the things that analysts often ask vendors is “What is the differentiation“?   This comes up so often, I’ve considered printing a “Where’s the Diff” T-shirt, modeled after Wendys’ “Where’s the Beef” marketing campaign in the mid-80s…  Vendor responses to this question vary widely, ranging from

wtb

a) The technical:  “our processing algorithm is 63% faster because of our proprietary XYZ technology” to

b) The very simple: “we’re the only vendor that provides this“; which often is only partially true, to

c) The very un-differentiated:  “we have an OpenStack plugin“. 

However, perhaps the most common response from vendors is “our architecture“, which is (in my opinion) the worst answer.  While many (well at least some) of the vendors truly do believe their architecture is the best, does it really matter to buying customers?  No, because in most cases, 90% of clients don’t believe and/or care about vendor’s differentiated architecture.  Why Not? Because all vendors claim to have the best architecture – they hardly ever say “XYZ vendor’s architecture is better but we compete on price“.  In addition, most buyers are pre-occupied with running their businesses and networks versus debating vendor architectures.  Since all vendors tell customers their “architecture” is differentiated, it just noise at this point (along with saying “we are Simple, Agile, Cloud-ready and Software-Defined”). 

Instead of architecture, vendors’ focus should be on what value enterprises derive from the architecture.  This includes meeting tactical and strategic requirements and use-cases.  For vendors, if your “architecture” helps customers do things better/simpler/faster/cheaper or more scalable versus your competition, this is great…but start with that message.  Then, throw-in a real-world example, or two, or ten.  After that, you can explain the how – which is via your (differentiated) architecture.  But please don’t start with architecture, or in another words – differentiate your differentiation message.  And for a deeper dive into dissecting differentiation between vendor solutions, you can check out this published Gartner research:  Four Key Questions to Ask Your Data Center Networking Vendor.

Regards, Andrew

Category: networking  

Andrew Lerner
Research Vice President
4 years at Gartner
19 years IT Industry

Andrew Lerner is a Vice President in Gartner Research. He covers enterprise networking, including data center, campus and WAN with a focus on emerging technologies (SDN, SD-WAN, and Intent-based networking). Read Full Bio


Thoughts on Vendor Differentiation


  1. Hank Barnes says:

    Great examples, Andrew.

    I might also, humbly, suggest that vendors check out my Webinar on Differentiation.

    http://my.gartner.com/webinardetail/resId=2640217?srcId=1-2993194175

    Its free and available On Demand from http://www.gartner.com

  2. […] Where’s the Differentiation, and please don’t tell me about architecture? […]

  3. […] Our difference is our architecture. […]

  4. […] problems. Further, it’s easy for network teams to get caught up in near-religious battles over vendor architectures or specific features. However, the reality is that multiple approaches can often solve the business […]

  5. […] it is extremely dynamic and vendors are cranking up the vendorspeak, while touting their highly differentiated architecture to solve container challenges. Not to mention that basic things like network mgmt/visibility are […]

  6. […] PS – Network vendors have their own set of worst practices, including vendorspeak and saying things like “our difference is the architecture“ […]

  7. […] to instructions generated from an intent-based manifest. The real difference for Slooflirpa is the vendor’s architecture. Slooflirpa is privately-held, and headquartered in Columbia, […]



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments or opinions expressed on this blog are those of the individual contributors only, and do not necessarily represent the views of Gartner, Inc. or its management. Readers may copy and redistribute blog postings on other blogs, or otherwise for private, non-commercial or journalistic purposes, with attribution to Gartner. This content may not be used for any other purposes in any other formats or media. The content on this blog is provided on an "as-is" basis. Gartner shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever arising out of the content or use of this blog.