Vendor based vs vendor neutral certificate

Which one is better vendor neutral or vendor based i think that vendor neutral are better because they cover the topic more than the vendor based and i think they are safe for long run because you don't know when a company would lose it's market share so i think it is better to have vendor neutral certificate. So what you guys have to say about that.

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

dynamik

They're also less specialized and therefore less valuable. They're a good place to start, but you're going to limit yourself if that's all you do.

NinjaBoy

They both have their place and imo both valuable.

-Ken

Jordus

Vendor neutral certs are generally a good way to get your first foot in the door. Once that foots in, nobodies going to allow the rest of your body in until its worth something more than generic knowledge.

A Systems admin for a large credit card processing company once told me "You can be good at a lot of things, and worth nothing, or you can be great at one thing, and worth everything"

He managed a network that, if was down, would cost the company in the hundreds of thousands in a few seconds.

blargoe

dynamik wrote: »

They're also less specialized and therefore less valuable. They're a good place to start, but you're going to limit yourself if that's all you do.

I have to agree. You eventually have to become well versed in some vendor's flavor of ________(insert technology)__________, unless you want to make a career out of being an academic.

Aldur

Vendor neutral are worthless imo unless you are trying to get your foot in the door. If all you have after that point is vendor neutral certs then your certs aren't going to help you advance your career any further, to be honest they might hurt you chances.

I personally have never got a vendor neutral cert and don't plan on it.

UnixGuy

CompTIA certs are vendor neutral, but they're entry-level..so they're helpful in the entry-level based jobs.

Cert will not harm you, and knowledge is good, but my general advice (and my personal approach as well), get certified on the products you're working with..this way you are building up experience with certs and knowledge.

Have both vendor neutral and non-neutral, it won't harm you. But always match your certs with your level of knowledge and experience to avoid being marked as paper certified.

arsalankhan007

Thank you all for the comments

networker050184

If there were any worth while vendor neutral certs then I would go for them. There just doesn't really seem like there are any that come to mind that would pay off for the time investment, except for maybe the CWNP certs if you are into wireless.

UnixGuy

networker050184 wrote: »

If there were any worth while vendor neutral certs then I would go for them. There just doesn't really seem like there are any that come to mind that would pay off for the time investment, except for maybe the CWNP certs if you are into wireless.

SNIA SCP for storage is required sometimes for people dealing with SAN/NAS.

CompTIA Security+ is gaining popularity now also.

Both are theoretical introductory certs, important knowledge base for any professional IMHO.

blargoe

Is CISSP considered "neutral"?

dynamik

blargoe wrote: »

Is CISSP considered "neutral"?

Good call. A lot of the security certs are vendor neutral as well.

Aldur

dynamik wrote: »

Good call. A lot of the security certs are vendor neutral as well.

Good call indeed!

I would say that that introductory vendor neutral certs are only good for getting you foot in the door

networker050184

I forgot all about the security ones. Those seem to be the exception.

Slowhand

I don't know if I'd say security certs were simply vendor-neutral, as they tend to be second or even third-tier certs that you'd acquire after having a specialty for a good, long time. I agree that the CISSP, C|EH, Security+, etc. are geared towards being vendor-neutral, but you're expected to bring a lot of experience to the table, in relation to the material covered, in order to understand the implementation of what's learned.

dynamik

Would you prefer all encompassing instead of vendor neutral?

Forsaken_GA

It honestly depends on the vendor.

Cisco is pretty well respected everywhere, because it teaches you important networking concepts, OSPF doesn't work different between Juniper and Cisco, so if you know how to configure it on a Cisco router, you just have to learn how to configure it on a Juniper router, which is usually just a matter of syntax. It doesn't work different just because it's on a Juniper router. And since Juniper started kicking out certs, it's a vice versa situation as well. Someone who's Juniper certified can work on Cisco hardware without a major learning curve.

Now the MCSE, well, it won't do you much good if you're looking to be a Unix sysadmin.

So comparing certs just on the basis of vendor based vs. vendor neutral is an apples to oranges comparison in most cases, as the real determination is based on what field of IT that cert is for.

Paul Boz

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

It honestly depends on the vendor.

Cisco is pretty well respected everywhere, because it teaches you important networking concepts, OSPF doesn't work different between Juniper and Cisco, so if you know how to configure it on a Cisco router, you just have to learn how to configure it on a Juniper router, which is usually just a matter of syntax. It doesn't work different just because it's on a Juniper router. And since Juniper started kicking out certs, it's a vice versa situation as well. Someone who's Juniper certified can work on Cisco hardware without a major learning curve.

Now the MCSE, well, it won't do you much good if you're looking to be a Unix sysadmin.

So comparing certs just on the basis of vendor based vs. vendor neutral is an apples to oranges comparison in most cases, as the real determination is based on what field of IT that cert is for.

I agree with this. I chose to pursue Cisco certifications not for Cisco's market share but because the certs are really the only way to learn networking concepts and get a worthwhile cert out of it. The only Cisco certs that I have that are clearly pro-cisco technology right out of the box is the design track, which is basically a certification that you have read their product brochures.

Aldur

Paul Boz wrote: »

... I chose to pursue Cisco certifications not for Cisco's market share but because the certs are really the only way to learn networking concepts and get a worthwhile cert out of it. ...

I see what your saying, cisco certification does teach you a great deal about networking in general. But I have to disagree with your statement about it being the only way to learn networking and get a worthwhile cert.

Other vendor certs are quiet worthwhile and will teach you just as much or more then the related cisco certs. And to say that cisco certs are the only "worthwhile" certs that will teach you networking is a gross misconception.

Slowhand

dynamik wrote: »

Would you prefer all encompassing instead of vendor neutral?

I'd prefer omnipotent or megalomaniacal, but all-encompassing will do for the infosec certs.

dynamik

Slowhand wrote: »

I'd prefer omnipotent or megalomaniacal, but all-encompassing will do for the infosec certs.

Oh, sorry

If it's any consolation, I use both when describing you

Slowhand

Aldur wrote: »

I see what your saying, cisco certification does teach you a great deal about networking in general. But I have to disagree with your statement about it being the only way to learn networking and get a worthwhile cert.

Other vendor certs are quiet worthwhile and will teach you just as much or more then the related cisco certs. And to say that cisco certs are the only "worthwhile" certs that will teach you networking is a gross misconception.

Maybe a more diplomatic way to put it is, "Cisco's are the most sought-after certs in the industry; being an early leader in the world of networking equipment, Cisco's certifications are an excellent way to learn networking concepts that are common to most companies and devices."

rossonieri#1

agree with forsaken and paul,

well, i do like cisco and microsoft curriculum, i must admit that they both tought me the basic foundation of any IT (and *professional-level*) related materials - that years from there, i could develope and integrate with other great IT sources as well - like the current wording of OSS, that could be Linux and the like, or Juniper, or some other.

the beautiful thing is to make them work together.

vendor neutral nor vendor-based, as long as it good to enhance our knowledge/capability/specialty - why not?

Aldur

Slowhand wrote: »

Maybe a more diplomatic way to put it is, "Cisco's are the most sought-after certs in the industry; being an early leader in the world of networking equipment, Cisco's certifications are an excellent way to learn networking concepts that are common to most companies and devices."

lol, Oh I knew what Paul was trying to say and that he didn't mean any offense but I just couldn't resist

dynamik

Aldur wrote: »

lol, Oh I knew what Paul was trying to say and that he didn't mean any offense but I just couldn't resist

Whatever. A Juniper net admin is to a Cisco net admin as an Easy-Bake Oven operator is to a Le Cordon Bleu chef. Just sayin...

/fdiplomacy

zoidberg

dynamik wrote: »

Whatever. A Juniper net admin is to a Cisco net admin as an Easy-Bake Oven operator is to a Le Cordon Bleu chef. Just sayin...

HAHAHA nice.

And I'd appreciate if you all would stop bashing my Network+

Daniel333

You get what you put into a certification.

e.g. You can pass Net+ by knowing that NAT changes one IP address to another. Or you should set up RRAS or a Cisco router and make it happen. On the hand you can't pass your MCSE or CCNA:Sec without knowing NAT.

Anyhow, it's always been my thought it's a Microsoft/Cisco world out there. Don't stop until you are a triple MCA and CCIE.

Aldur

dynamik wrote: »

Whatever. A Juniper net admin is to a Cisco net admin as an Easy-Bake Oven operator is to a Le Cordon Bleu chef. Just sayin...

/fdiplomacy

Too mean

zoidberg wrote: »

HAHAHA nice.

And I'd appreciate if you all would stop bashing my Network+

lol, well if you'd get off your butt and get an IE or something... I mean c'mon!

Paul Boz

Aldur wrote: »

I see what your saying, cisco certification does teach you a great deal about networking in general. But I have to disagree with your statement about it being the only way to learn networking and get a worthwhile cert.

Other vendor certs are quiet worthwhile and will teach you just as much or more then the related cisco certs. And to say that cisco certs are the only "worthwhile" certs that will teach you networking is a gross misconception.

I considered the Juniper certs before I even got my CCNA, but the Juniper certs didn't offer the same level of networking fundamentals through expert knowledge that the Cisco stuff does. If you can understand cisco material you can administer Juniper boxes. they all have value but Cisco has more "perceived" value because of their market share.

Aldur

Paul Boz wrote: »

I considered the Juniper certs before I even got my CCNA, but the Juniper certs didn't offer the same level of networking fundamentals through expert knowledge that the Cisco stuff does. If you can understand cisco material you can administer Juniper boxes. they all have value but Cisco has more "perceived" value because of their market share.

Without a doubt cisco does teach some great networking fundamentals, that is honestly where I learned the basics of networking. True, if you know cisco you can work a juniper box, but isn't the reverse true? I know lots of people who are Juniper certified and can administrate cisco boxes. The only difference is syntax when it comes to administering the different boxes.

What was it about the juniper certs that made you feel that they didn't offer as much as the cisco certs? I almost took the CCNA back a 1 1/2 years ago but started working with Juniper routers, focused on that. I would have to say that the CCNA taught more basic network knowledge and the JNCIA-M expected you to know this already, eg. subnetting. But this worked great in my situation, I didn't need to rehash those basic concepts and so I was able to go on to more advanced topics. I felt like the Juniper certs offered more for me at the time since it jumped into more advanced topics immediately.

It is true that cisco certs have a more perceived value do to cisco having the biggest peice of the market share. Something to keep in mind though is the amount of people who are certified in cisco related it's market share. I know plenty people who are cisco certified and are having troubles getting jobs because of the competition.

I personally plan on being certified in both cisco and juniper, as zoidberg said earlier in this thread, most places do not buy just one vendor but are multi-vendor environments. It is really limiting to just be certified in one vendor.

buchatech

I agree with everyone else. The neutral certs are good for entry level/getting you rfoot in the door. Specific certs are make you more valuable they say you are an expert in this or that. For example I have been considering the Network + but have gone past it in my career and it may not be worth me getting now.