Argumentation for using a hardware router in the office?

Question

network hardware

Good afternoon. Office of about 50 users. Currently, a server on centos is used as a router. For redundancy, there is a second server with similar settings. I argue for replacing it with a hardware solution (microtick)
My arguments
-Cost (Mikrotik is cheaper than a server)
-Use of resources (Server could be used for other tasks)
-Reliability (There are no moving parts like hdd, cooler on the processor in Mikrotik or other hardware router and other things.The power supply is much easier to replace and find on sale.)
-Security (There is nothing in hardware routers other than what is needed for its operation. Even if you take into account that everything is closed from the outside through iptables)
-Power consumption (hardware router on ups will survive much longer than the server.)
-Low maintenance time (the current router also does not require high costs. But when implementing new functions, in my opinion, a ready-made router solution is more convenient)
-Quick and easy ability to back up settings.
Requirements: reliability. The ability to monitor traffic (now a transparent sqid proxy. I'm planning Netflow)
I would like to hear from you the pros and cons for a software router based on linux, a software router based on linux-router Distributions (pfsense, m0n0wall, router-os, and others) and hardware solutions with router-os, pfsense or others.

Answer 1

Trust my experience: judging by the question, you already have enough arguments, and no additional argument from the outside will help you convince your leadership.

Answer 2

Always between a limited hardware solution, I choose a Linux centos router.
More flexible, wider, faster.