HPE Aruba CX 8325 vs Cisco Nexus 9300: 25/100G Data Center Leaf Switching
The Aruba CX 8325 and Cisco Nexus 9300 are both 1U top-of-rack switches built for 25/100G leaf-spine data center fabrics, and both run modern EVPN-VXLAN. The real difference is software philosophy: Aruba's microservices-based AOS-CX with a single time-series database and built-in Network Analytics Engine, versus Cisco's mature NX-OS that can also operate as an ACI leaf. This comparison breaks down performance, automation, security, licensing, and federal procurement so you can pick the right ToR for your fabric.
The short answer
For teams that want open, license-light leaf switching with strong automation and VSX dual-active redundancy, the Aruba CX 8325 wins on simplicity and total cost. The Cisco Nexus 9300 is the safer pick when you are standardizing on Cisco ACI, already run NX-OS at scale, or need the broadest ecosystem of validated designs. Greenfield fabrics that value vendor flexibility and predictable software costs should shortlist the 8325; existing Cisco-centric data centers extending an ACI fabric should stay on Nexus.
HPE Aruba CX 8325 vs Cisco Nexus 9300, head to head
Specifications side by side
- Form factor
- 1U fixed
- 1U fixed (most 9300); 2U on 93360YC-FX2
- Representative model
- 8325-48Y8C
- 93180YC-FX / 93360YC-FX2
- 25G access ports
- 48x SFP28 (1/10/25GbE)
- 48x SFP28 (1/10/25G); 96x on 93360YC-FX2
- 100G uplink ports
- 8x QSFP28 (40/100GbE)
- 6x QSFP28 (40/100G); 12x on FX2 models
- Switching capacity
- Up to 6.4 Tbps
- 3.6 Tbps (93180YC-FX) to 7.2 Tbps (93360YC-FX2)
- Forwarding rate
- Up to ~2000 Mpps
- Model-dependent, line-rate at all speeds
- Operating system
- AOS-CX (microservices, single TSDB)
- NX-OS standalone or ACI leaf mode
- Fabric / overlay
- EVPN-VXLAN, VSX dual-active
- EVPN-VXLAN with vPC, or Cisco ACI
- Automation
- REST API, Python NAE, Ansible, NetEdit
- NX-API, Python, Ansible, Nexus Dashboard
- Cloud management
- Aruba Central / Fabric Composer
- Nexus Dashboard / APIC (ACI)
- Security
- MACsec, Dynamic Segmentation, RBAC
- MACsec, TrustSec/CTS, ACI policy
- Airflow options
- Front-to-back and back-to-front
- Front-to-back and back-to-front
Where HPE Aruba CX 8325 wins
- Modern AOS-CX with built-in Network Analytics Engine and a single source-of-truth time-series database for fast troubleshooting
- VSX provides true dual-active redundancy with non-disruptive upgrades, simpler than legacy MLAG
- Open, standards-first design with REST APIs and Ansible keeps automation and multivendor flexibility high
- License-light model and Aruba Central integration lower total cost versus subscription-heavy alternatives
- Strong campus-and-data-center versatility in one 1U platform
Where Cisco Nexus 9300 wins
- Deeply mature NX-OS with the broadest set of Cisco Validated Designs and operational tooling
- Can operate as a Cisco ACI leaf for organizations standardized on intent-based fabric policy
- Massive ecosystem, partner base, and TAC support footprint reduces operational risk
- High-density options (93360YC-FX2) deliver 96x 25G plus 12x 100G in 2U
- Tight integration with Nexus Dashboard and the wider Cisco data center stack
Which one should you buy?
Greenfield 25/100G leaf-spine fabric with a lean ops team
Pick HPE Aruba CX 8325. AOS-CX automation, VSX redundancy, and license-light pricing minimize operational overhead and ongoing cost.
Data center already standardized on Cisco ACI
Pick Cisco Nexus 9300. Running as an ACI leaf preserves intent-based policy and integrates with existing APIC controllers and validated designs.
Multivendor environment that prizes open APIs and avoiding lock-in
Pick HPE Aruba CX 8325. Standards-first EVPN-VXLAN, REST, and Ansible support make it easy to automate alongside other vendors.
Federal or SLED fabric refresh needing TAA-compliant ToR switches
Pick HPE Aruba CX 8325. TAA-compliant configurations with predictable licensing simplify contract pricing; we can source on GPC, SAP, and FAR.
Enterprise extending a large existing NX-OS estate
Pick Cisco Nexus 9300. Reusing NX-OS skills, automation, and operational playbooks lowers retraining and migration risk.
Frequently asked
What is the main difference between the Aruba CX 8325 and Cisco Nexus 9300?
Both are 1U 25/100G data center leaf switches with EVPN-VXLAN, but the Aruba CX 8325 runs the microservices-based AOS-CX with a built-in analytics engine, while the Nexus 9300 runs NX-OS and can also act as a Cisco ACI leaf. The 8325 leans open and license-light; the Nexus leans into the broad Cisco ecosystem.
Is the Aruba CX 8325 good for an EVPN-VXLAN leaf-spine data center?
Yes. The 8325 supports standards-based EVPN-VXLAN and pairs it with VSX dual-active redundancy and Fabric Composer for orchestration. It delivers up to 6.4 Tbps in 1U with 48x 25G and 8x 100G on the 48Y8C model, making it a strong leaf for modern fabrics.
How do the port counts compare?
The Aruba 8325-48Y8C offers 48x 1/10/25GbE SFP28 plus 8x 40/100GbE QSFP28. A common Nexus 9300 leaf like the 93180YC-FX provides 48x 25G plus 6x 100G, while the higher-density 93360YC-FX2 reaches 96x 25G and 12x 100G in 2U. Match the uplink ratio to your spine design.
Which has lower total cost of ownership?
For most leaf-spine builds the Aruba CX 8325 has lower TCO because AOS-CX bundles automation and analytics with fewer add-on subscriptions. Cisco Nexus costs rise with Smart Licensing tiers and, in ACI deployments, APIC and Nexus Dashboard licensing. Exact figures depend on scale and support level.
Does AOS-CX or NX-OS offer better automation?
Both support Python and Ansible. AOS-CX adds a built-in Network Analytics Engine and a single time-series database that simplify telemetry and troubleshooting natively on the switch. NX-OS offers mature NX-API and Nexus Dashboard tooling, with the deepest automation in ACI mode.
Are these switches TAA-compliant and available on federal contracts?
Both Aruba CX 8325 and Cisco Nexus 9300 ship in TAA-compliant configurations suitable for federal and SLED buyers. As an authorized HPE Aruba Networking reseller, we can source TAA-compliant 8325 switches on GPC, SAP, and FAR vehicles, with quotes aligned to your contract pricing.
Can the Aruba CX 8325 replace a Cisco Nexus 9300 in an existing rack?
In standalone NX-OS leaf deployments, yes - the 8325 maps cleanly to the same 25/100G ToR role with EVPN-VXLAN. If the Nexus is running as an ACI leaf under APIC, migration is a larger fabric project because you are moving off intent-based ACI policy, so plan the transition carefully.
Which switch is better for a Cisco-centric versus multivendor environment?
Stay with the Nexus 9300 if you are standardized on ACI or have a large NX-OS estate and skill base. Choose the Aruba CX 8325 if you value open standards, REST-driven automation, and reduced vendor lock-in, especially in multivendor data centers.
Related comparisons
Brand vs brand
HPE Aruba Networking CX 6300 vs Cisco Catalyst 9300
Brand vs brand
Juniper QFX5120 vs Cisco Nexus 9300
Brand vs brand
HPE Aruba Networking AP-655 vs Cisco Catalyst 9166
Brand vs brand
HPE Aruba Networking AP-755 vs Cisco Catalyst 9178 (CW9178I)
People also ask
Build your HPE bill of materials.
Send us the requirement, the project, or an existing quote to beat. We come back with a validated, TAA-compliant HPE configuration and a real price, often below list.
connect [at] getuniqcli.com · Chicago, IL