CCENT or CompTIA Network+ ?

Goldencupkake

Ok, so I was reviewing the CBT of CCENT and CCNA and I have to admit, they look rather daunting. The question I have is very straight forward:

Is the CCENT something I should go after right after the A+ I just got, or should I go for my Net + then come back to the CCENT later. I heard they go hand in hand. If that is accurate, which should I go for first?

Thanks a ton, you guys are always helpful.

NOC-Ninja

Go to CCENT.

I went from CCNA without any certs. However, I sacrificed my social life and I went through networking class when I was in college (but that was 5 years ago).

earweed

I've got the Net+ and I'm currently studying for the CCENT. The Net+ is nothing but resume filler (and not really good at that) and is not in-depth enough to teach you any useful skills.
Go staright for the CCENT.

it_consultant

Screw CCENT, go straight for your CCNA. The composite test (IMHO) is easier than taking two separate tests. Either way you are going to lose a lot of hours studying Cisco, might as well take it all in the face at once. Don't be intimidated by the CCNA test, lots of people have taken and passed it. You will be happy that you did.

Panzer919

I have both only because I had to. I was about to take my ICND1 test when I was told I couldnt be promoted without my Net+, I studied for 2 days and passed. Network+ might be something worth reading just for the information but I don't see it being anywhere near as valuable to you as your CCNA.

Megadeth4168

The Cisco Certs will be more likely to hold more value on a resume. If you are a little weak on your networking concepts then the Network+ would be a good stepping stone.

There was some mention on this thread about taking the 1 test CCNA route instead of the 2 test route. This has been a matter of debate for some time. Actually, this debate came up the other day with a co-worker.

He told another co-worker that the 1 test route was better because you are playing percentages with passing. He explained that he attempted the 2 test route and passed the ICND1 with ease but bombed the ICND2. So, he took the 1 test route because it would include ICND1 material to help give him a better chance of passing the CCNA.

I personally thought this showed a lack of understanding regarding all the test objectives and that my coworker didn't want to fully understand all the objectives.

This really led me to believe that if you really want to test yourself then you should take the 2 test route. Of course I'm sure that is still a matter of debate as well.

Panzer919

Megadeth4168 wrote: »

The Cisco Certs will be more likely to hold more value on a resume. If you are a little weak on your networking concepts then the Network+ would be a good stepping stone.

There was some mention on this thread about taking the 1 test CCNA route instead of the 2 test route. This has been a matter of debate for some time. Actually, this debate came up the other day with a co-worker.

He told another co-worker that the 1 test route was better because you are playing percentages with passing. He explained that he attempted the 2 test route and passed the ICND1 with ease but bombed the ICND2. So, he took the 1 test route because it would include ICND1 material to help give him a better chance of passing the CCNA.

I personally thought this showed a lack of understanding regarding all the test objectives and that my coworker didn't want to fully understand all the objectives.

This really led me to believe that if you really want to test yourself then you should take the 2 test route. Of course I'm sure that is still a matter of debate as well.

I have had the same debates for the same reasons. My PERSONAL opinion is that 2 tests challenges you more. The ICND2 is not forgiving, you wont make up points with easy subnetting, hex or rip questions like you can with the 1 test option. I took my NA in 2 tests because it allowed me to focus on a set amount of information. There was very few ICND1 question on the ICND2 and those that I did get were understandable.

I'm sure this will start a stink fest but I completely agree with the statement that people are playing percentages to pass when they probably shouldn't be able to. I am NOT saying that everyone who takes the 1 test option is doing it for this reason or that they do not fully understand the information, but there are those who know enough to pass a "watered down" version of the test but would have their @** handed to them by the ICND2.

And just to play devils advocate, the argument can be made that Cisco does provide the option so there is nothing unethical or wrong about doing this. Cisco gives you the option to take an all in one CCNA test with a little bit of everything so why take 2 when you can just take 1?

it_consultant

I am impressed that you would take the two tests in order to 'challenge' yourself more but it is a waste of time IMHO. The level of detail found in the separate tests is truly irrelevant to most of IT life. It seems like Cisco is saying that they will give you two separate tests, but they will punish you for that route by making them harder. You can take the composite (which is still challenging) but the depth will be a little less but it will cover a larger range of topics.

CCNA is a test you take with strategy. If you are really good at the topics in the second test and only OK with the topics in the first test, take the composite. Its a timed test, I think you get a minute or a minute and a half per question. Being able to simply not answer questions you don't know to move onto the ones you do know and not take a huge hit for that is nice. Say you can't do hex for crap, on the composite their might be one question, on the separate exams their may be 2 or 3. Which test should you take?

Panzer919

My reasoning was
1) I was in the network academy and when we got through with the first half I wanted to get it out of the way instead of waiting
2) It was the same price to take 2 tests or 1
3) It allowed me to understand whether I knew the material or did I just pass by using the easy questions as a crutch.

Again, this will be an infinite debate with no real winner or loser, Kinda like real equipment VS GNS3.

it_consultant

In essence you are right, two more challenging tests will test you better than one less challenging test. Unless you are not talented at taking tests that require a broad knowledge base. Then being able to accurately recall facts that are completely based on completely separate topics will be more challenging for you.

Playing to percentages is one of those things that just come with the territory of certifications. Believe me, there will be no time in which we compete for a job and you will win it because you opted for the two test option. You might be able to do hex better then I can, of course I use an online calculator for that anyway, if it ever comes up at all.

When I say to go for the composite test, I am not passing judgement one people that take both. I am usually saying it just for the sake of efficiency. Take one test, get the cert, go home.

Dakinggamer87

I would skip Network+ and go towards CCENT/CCNA instead. It will be more beneficial to your IT career.

N2IT

It's not even close. CCENT by a landslide. Then move onto the CCNA, which can lead to greener pastures. Network + is nice, but not very sought after by employers in my experience.

Megadeth4168

it_consultant wrote: »

Playing to percentages is one of those things that just come with the territory of certifications. Believe me, there will be no time in which we compete for a job and you will win it because you opted for the two test option. You might be able to do hex better then I can, of course I use an online calculator for that anyway, if it ever comes up at all.

I have to disagree under the circumstances of the scenario that I laid out. The reason why I brought the point I did initially was not to spark a debate, but rather to show a positive side to taking the 2 test route.

Take your example: My co-worker and I go for a network position, I took the 2 test route and passed both tests with flying colors while my co-worker failed his ICND2 but decided to take the composite test to play percentages and now we are both interviewing for the job.

We are asked technical questions pertaining to NAT, ACL's, OSPF and Inter-Vlan Routing, areas that were weaker for my co-worker than they were for me. Who do you think will move on past the technical interview? Unless my co-worker went back and studied, it's pretty clear.

Now, I understand that not everyone taking the composite is doing so in an attempt to play percentages and even if they do it doesn't mean they don't know the material but in the scenario I laid out it just rubbed me the wrong way. It was almost as if my co-worker was saying: I failed, but instead of working on my weak areas I decided to play the percentages and see what happens.

it_consultant

Megadeth4168 wrote: »

I have to disagree under the circumstances of the scenario that I laid out. The reason why I brought the point I did initially was not to spark a debate, but rather to show a positive side to taking the 2 test route.

Take your example: My co-worker and I go for a network position, I took the 2 test route and passed both tests with flying colors while my co-worker failed his ICND2 but decided to take the composite test to play percentages and now we are both interviewing for the job.

We are asked technical questions pertaining to NAT, ACL's, OSPF and Inter-Vlan Routing, areas that were weaker for my co-worker than they were for me. Who do you think will move on past the technical interview? Unless my co-worker went back and studied, it's pretty clear.

Now, I understand that not everyone taking the composite is doing so in an attempt to play percentages and even if they do it doesn't mean they don't know the material but in the scenario I laid out it just rubbed me the wrong way. It was almost as if my co-worker was saying: I failed, but instead of working on my weak areas I decided to play the percentages and see what happens.

I doubt that the reason that you did better than him was because you went for the two test option. I am almost sure its because you knew your shi*t better than he did. Good on your for that. I took the composite test originally and recerted by passing (with almost a perfect score) the CCNA Security test. You could say that I played percentages there. I knew I would be better at security since I work with firewalls almost exclusively when it comes to networking equipment and I rarely touch the CLI of a router or switch...hell we use ProCurves anyway.

I have to say that the composite test is not significantly easier than the two exam option. I failed exam one of the 2 test option and busted my ass to pass the composite exam.

Geek1969

I went the Net+ route before going the ICND 1 & 2 route. I enjoyed Net+ because it was not completely Cisco specific. Granted there is not much call for Net+ certified people, but I think it provides a great foundation of knowledge to move into Cisco specific exams. If you are lucky enough to have your employer paying for the exams, take it. If not, read it for your own knowledge or head straight into Cisco. Either way is possible.

it_consultant

I like net + because it has things like mapping network drives. One of the (many) failings of the Cisco curriculum is that it leaves you completely unprepared to support common Microsoft networks. This is why a lot of CCNA and CCNPs are also Microsoft certified and why a lot of Microsoft guys (like me!) have their CCNA.

The other failing, as I see it, is the harping of Cisco specific protocols. EIGRP might be the **** but most people use OSPF. CCNA does not prepare you very well for OSPF networks. I got schooled one day on the difference between not-so-stubby areas and totally stubby areas. Not in a bad way, a network engineer was giving me a healthy dose of OSPF instruction. It does not prepare you in any way for BGP and how iBGP and eBGP protocols work together in corporate and service provider networks.

I think Cisco should change their tracks to have a CCNA - CCNP program that is more tuned for the service provider and one that is tuned for the corporate network. One would focus on supporting networks with a lot of Microsoft services, the other one would be routing and switching (to include transport technologies like OC3 over SONET) for the service provider.

Just my 2 cents...

earweed

I agree about the Net+ giving a few extra non-proprietary things the CCNA doesn't. The CCNA goes way deeper into what they go into is why I'm pursuing my CCNA right after I finished my MCITP:EA. I can handle the MS network stuff and I'm learning about Ciscos way of doing things now. I'm also learning that in the real world a lot of things are done differently than either of them.
I already have my Net+ and actually recommend that to a network noob (like I was) and I personally think that every MS guy/gal should also be at least conversant, if not qualified, in Cisco technologies (also in whatever technologies may be encountered in the workplace like Juniper, Brocade, and different San technologies)

chrisone

NET+ if you plan on going a server role.

CCNA if you plan on going the network role.

pert

CCENT has no value in any way shape or form to anyone. It's only meaning is your halfway to a CCNA.

Network+ is valuable in a lot of gov't jobs and required by a lot of contractors and HR types. I think it means jack when it comes to job use, but its way more useful for finding work.

Are you going to get a CCNA? Then get one, CCENT doesn't mean anything though.

Megadeth4168

pert wrote: »

CCENT has no value in any way shape or form to anyone. It's only meaning is your halfway to a CCNA.

Network+ is valuable in a lot of gov't jobs and required by a lot of contractors and HR types. I think it means jack when it comes to job use, but its way more useful for finding work.

Are you going to get a CCNA? Then get one, CCENT doesn't mean anything though.

Not always true. Granted, the market for the CCENT is small, but it does hold some value, and as proof of this I personally know someone who got their start in IT with only a CCENT certification. Heck, the job they landed was 40K with benefits. I understand its a rather isolated case, however, he did get hired because he had that certification, therefore it held value to his employer.

That all being said, I have to agree with you that CCENT (on its own) without intent of pursuing a CCNA is generally speaking, worth less than the network+. I just thought I would share a little success story as it relates to the topic.

Thxlbx

I will taking the CCNA sometime next year as part of my WGU BS:IT Security program, but was considering doing Net+ on the side this summer to complete the CompTia triology (I have my A+ and Sec+ already). Net+ is not part of my WGU program, so I would be paying out of pocket. Would it be worth it to take as something that would help later with the CCNA? Wondering if getting the Net+ would be worth the extra time on the side, and the expense. If a Net+ would not help out in the job world, then it might not be worth it to me to take. Thoughts?

Megadeth4168

Thxlbx wrote: »

I will taking the CCNA sometime next year as part of my WGU BS:IT Security program, but was considering doing Net+ on the side this summer to complete the CompTia triology (I have my A+ and Sec+ already). Net+ is not part of my WGU program, so I would be paying out of pocket. Would it be worth it to take as something that would help later with the CCNA? Wondering if getting the Net+ would be worth the extra time on the side, and the expense. If a Net+ would not help out in the job world, then it might not be worth it to me to take. Thoughts?

That's a good question. The Network+ does have some overlapping material that will help you with the CCNA, but it might not be as much as you might think.

As far as value, there are some jobs that require a network+, just as there are jobs that require a CCNA. Moreover, HR people don't know the difference, so it may end up being better to have both.

I personally have not had any jobs open up to me as a result of the network+, but by the time I got it I was already well established in my career.

pert

I don't think any of the CompTIA certs are really worth it anymore now that you need to renew them, except the Security+ which is absolutely required for a lot of govt positions in the US. I have seen Net+ requirements on jobs before, but not many. If you had a CCNA I don't see you getting turned if they require a Net+, but they may make you take it later. I say youre better off just going for the NA and skipping it.

MrRyte

Megadeth4168 wrote: »

Not always true. Granted, the market for the CCENT is small, but it does hold some value, and as proof of this I personally know someone who got their start in IT with only a CCENT certification. Heck, the job they landed was 40K with benefits. I understand its a rather isolated case, however, he did get hired because he had that certification, therefore it held value to his employer.

Out of curiousity; did that person go straight into networking or did he start at help desk?

Megadeth4168

MrRyte wrote: »

Out of curiousity; did that person go straight into networking or did he start at help desk?

My friend has the job title of System Administrator, the job required a decent understanding of basic networking concepts. He told me that during the interview, the supervisor discussed the CCNA as he (the supervisor) had just gotten it. Perhaps the supervisor saw some merit in the CCENT, having gone through it himself.

I should mention also that the position requires the ability to use both Windows and Linux OS's . My friend doesn't have certifications in either, nor had he ever worked on those OS's in a business or enterprise setting (no domain experience ect...) but he knew enough about Linux and Windows to land the job.

CodeBlox

I had planned to take Net+ about a year ago. Just as I finished covering all the objectives for Net+, I decided to just go to CCNA and not take Net+. It seems like network+ maps to CCENT. The only difference is CCENT is actually hands on and you actually apply what you learn. With the Network+, it felt like the only things I could apply were the IP addressing and subnetting, and the wireless stuff.

StandardSanders

I am debating the same thing as the original poster here but want to give a little background info and see what recommendations can be made.

Currently:
I have 0 certs or degrees
The only experience I have is working a call center as a T1 DSL rep (2.5 years) -- don't see this counting for much
My job will poissibly pay for passed certs (has to be approved by management)

Basically I make around 22k/year doing this and its cakewalk work, I'm an overnighter which means plenty of study time. I'd rather steer away from actually classes at this point in time and just study on my own as I am currently doing towards Net+.

My goal is to move into a role where I am not facing end users and basically troubleshooting/maintaining networks on a more direct level, and obviously get paid more (Though honestly making 30-40k would be excellent money to me at this point).

Any guidance and advice on moving up to some experience that might actually count for something in advancing a career in the field would be greatly appreciated.

instant000

StandardSanders wrote: »

I am debating the same thing as the original poster here but want to give a little background info and see what recommendations can be made.

Currently:
I have 0 certs or degrees
The only experience I have is working a call center as a T1 DSL rep (2.5 years) -- don't see this counting for much
My job will poissibly pay for passed certs (has to be approved by management)

Basically I make around 22k/year doing this and its cakewalk work, I'm an overnighter which means plenty of study time. I'd rather steer away from actually classes at this point in time and just study on my own as I am currently doing towards Net+.

My goal is to move into a role where I am not facing end users and basically troubleshooting/maintaining networks on a more direct level, and obviously get paid more (Though honestly making 30-40k would be excellent money to me at this point).

Any guidance and advice on moving up to some experience that might actually count for something in advancing a career in the field would be greatly appreciated.

Might be a good idea to go towards the track of Cisco/Juniper at this point.

N2IT

instant000 wrote: »

Might be a good idea to go towards the track of Cisco/Juniper at this point.

+1

Personally I would go the Cisco route. Every environment I have been associated with has held Cisco certifications with high regards. Granted, this has been with 5 different organizations, not 100's.

Repo Man

StandardSanders wrote: »

The only experience I have is working a call center as a T1 DSL rep (2.5 years) -- don't see this counting for much

When you start looking for a job it will probably be help desk or NOC and hiring managers will love that you have years of phone support. Of course you'll still be doing phone support for end users but the pay/end user attitudes will be much better.