Loading
The honest answer is often both. MPLS buys guaranteed performance; SD-WAN buys flexibility and cost. Which matters more depends entirely on what your applications tolerate.
| Criterion | MPLS | SD-WAN |
|---|---|---|
| Performance guarantee | Contracted per class | Best effort on underlying links |
| Traffic stays off public internet | Yes, entirely | Encrypted, but traverses it |
| Cost per site | Higher | Substantially lower |
| New site provisioning | 15–30 working days | Days — zero-touch once transport exists |
| Failover speed | Seconds (routing reconvergence) | Sub-second, session preserving |
| Per-application control | Class-based | Per-application path selection |
| Uses cheap broadband as capacity | No | Yes — that's the point |
| Voice quality predictability | Contractual | Good, but not guaranteed |
| Suits regulated / compliance needs | Private transport is demonstrable | Requires more explaining |
| Central visibility | Per-link reporting | Per-application dashboards |
A tick marks the stronger option for that criterion only. Rows with no tick are genuinely a draw — and every option here wins something.
Most networks above about fifteen sites end up hybrid: MPLS carrying voice and core application traffic, broadband under SD-WAN carrying everything else. Anyone insisting it must be one or the other is selling a product rather than designing a network.
No. They solve different problems. SD-WAN is smarter about using links you have; MPLS guarantees how those links behave. SD-WAN over two broadband circuits is more resilient than one MPLS link — and less predictable.
Yes, and you should. Deploy SD-WAN over the existing MPLS plus a broadband second path, then reduce MPLS bandwidth as you gain confidence. No cutover event.
Tell us what you're running and what's going wrong. We'll tell you which is right for you — including when it's the cheaper one.
