Differences between UC500 and 1861

I started with CME when it first came out and never really understood the major differences between the UC500 and the ISR. Now that Cisco has release the 1861 the waters are even muddier! I guess from a marketing perspective Cisco wants to push into the SMB, but they are not very clear as to "why" you would pick one over the other.

It seems to me that Cisco needs to better control their business units because its silly to have so many devices doing exactly the same thing. Now that the ISR series is reaching all the way down to match the UC500 at the 8 user level one must really ask themselves how best to serve their customers. Do you try to save a few dollars with a fixed image UC500, or go with the 1861 which can support more advanced routing and VPN functions? True, the UC500 can handle more users, but so can the 2800 series...

Personally, I prefer an ISR and 3560 switches if the customer can afford it. I have had too many situation that required complicated configs that needed the flexibility of IOS on the switches. I have used the UC products and they are very good, but I come from an enterprise background and want the level of flexibility if I can get it. I dont sell CME on price, you have to sell in on ROI and value.

Anyway, here is a link to the ISR 1861, and about 1/2 way down there is Cisco's explaination of the difference between the UC500, 1861 and 2801. As you can see the 1861 and UC500 must be using the same chassis, and the only real difference is support HWICs on the 1861 and Wireless on the UC500. I guess the major advantage of the 1861 is that it does not have fixed images. Its a tough call and if you ask 3 different people at Cisco which one fits the best, you will get 3 different answers.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps5853/ps8321/prod_qa...