We look at reliability metrics, SLA track records, pricing benchmarks, regional coverage, support responsiveness, and integration capabilities. Our data comes from real deployments and Net Promoter Scores through our distributor network, not just vendor marketing materials.

SD-WAN (software-defined wide area networking) routes traffic across multiple connection types based on real-time conditions, improving performance and reliability. Organizations with multiple locations, cloud-heavy workloads, or aging MPLS contracts typically benefit most. We assess your traffic patterns to determine the right approach.

Yes. We benchmark your current spend against market rates, identify redundant services, evaluate alternative architectures, and negotiate better pricing across carriers. Most organizations save 15 to 35 percent through contract optimization and provider diversification.

A full network assessment typically takes three to five weeks, covering architecture review, traffic analysis, provider benchmarking, and actionable findings. You get a prioritized roadmap with specific provider options, projected costs, and an implementation timeline.

Hybrid WAN runs two or more connection types alongside each other, typically dedicated circuits for traffic that has to be reliable and broadband or wireless for everything else, with policy deciding what goes where. It suits organizations with many sites where a full dedicated-circuit build is unaffordable and pure broadband is not dependable enough. The usual trigger is an MPLS contract coming up for renewal at a price that stopped making sense some years ago.

Wireless WAN covers fixed wireless access and 5G or LTE circuits used as primary or backup connectivity. Its clearest advantage is time to install, which matters a great deal when fiber to a site comes back quoted at nine months and a six-figure build. It also works well as diverse backup, because a wireless path does not share a conduit with the fiber a backhoe just cut. Where it struggles is sustained heavy upstream traffic and sites with poor signal, both of which are worth testing before committing.

Start from what each site actually needs rather than what the incumbent already sells you. That means traffic patterns per location, which applications are latency sensitive, what genuine physical diversity looks like at each address, and which carriers can really serve those specific buildings, which is usually a far shorter list than any sales conversation implies. BitSherpa evaluates 110 network companies against those constraints and benchmarks the pricing, which is where most of the value tends to sit.

On the provider side, BitSherpa is compensated by the provider you select rather than by you. Worth saying plainly, because it is the reason the evaluation is neutral rather than a reason to doubt it. All 110 providers compensate the same way, so no shortlist pays better than another, and compensation continues only while you stay with the provider you chose. A carrier that misses its install dates costs BitSherpa the relationship as well as your patience.