We performed a comparison between Cisco UCS Manager and IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features are flexibility and management."
"When one server fails, we can attach the service profile to a new server, which saves a lot of time."
"Cisco Infrastructure is one of the top vendors and no one can beat them in terms of switching and routing."
"Cisco UCS Manager is overall a good package because it gives a GUI interface and a CLI."
"The hardware is very powerful and it is a stable solution."
"Cisco UCS has different layers of security, and you can do multiple installations of your LIAMs on top of the server and Blade. You can install VMware, Windows Server, Hyper-V, etc."
"From a usability and functionality perspective, Cisco UCS Manager is very good."
"I can deploy something in my 50-odd servers all in one go, in parallel, whereas if I was to do that individually, it could be a nightmare."
"SevOne provides support for all universal connectors. They internally work with other data sources to get features implemented. We have an SD-WAN implementation and use other app data to monitor performance. If you pull that data into one centralized location, that is very useful for management."
"I like SevOne's network flow reporting."
"We find that the reporting is particularly valuable in terms of not only communicating with our peer teams but also with the executives."
"SevOne has rich API capabilities, giving us the flexibility to control what we collect and customize the collection, creation, and manipulation of now metrics as necessary."
"The most valuable feature as of late has been the API integration with ServiceNow."
"The out of the box reports and workflows are pretty good and they meet our requirements well."
"We have benefited mainly from the use of the dashboard interface. It makes the network visually interesting for other people who are not in the network. A lot of people are not network techies who understand streams in the network. Based on location, we have streams coming in and out. They can see visually when there is some problem. They don't need to understand all the network technology behind it to be able to understand if everything is working well or if there is a problem."
"The most valuable feature is the NMS because that's the core of the system. Without the NMS, the other tools aren't that usable."
"The installation and upgrade sytems need to be improved."
"In the next release, I would like to see improvements made to their security."
"The interface and the way it is constructed is very complex. They should work to simplify it. It's quite difficult for somebody who doesn't know the product very well. Users should be able to get proficient with it faster. There's definitely room for improvement there."
"Cisco UCS Manager should have a simplified deployment in the sense of not having multiple machines, demilitarized zones, and on-premise options."
"Cisco UCS is expensive compared to others. The Cisco UCS Chassis is more expensive than a standalone server, but some companies require standalone servers because of their production load and affordability. You need to pay more if you require more features on the Blade or if you need more ports on the switch."
"We have three data centers and if we could manage all three data centers using one interface, it would be great."
"There is room for improvement in the software part of Cisco UCS Manager. It should be more user-friendly, especially when creating policies."
"Its user interface can be improved. It can be more user-friendly."
"The GUI: both the dashboard/user view and the admin tool."
"There are a lot of pain points. My main problem is that we don't have a high availability system. There are 20 peers. We're going to lose the end-of-life appliances that are old. If we lose a peer and it doesn't come back, we lose all that data. The reason we don't have high availability is because it's double the charge."
"When I started using it, I tried adding one of the BroadWorks application servers into SevOne... it created thousands and thousands of objects from that one application server and we immediately ran out of license... It would help, when new objects are discovered, if there were a way to categorize those objects and to pick the part of the object you need..."
"The customizations are very hard. The person doing it has to be very good at analytics and has to be very good in all languages"
"Their virtualization solution is not compatible with our Kubernetes environment, which is one of the reasons we are ending our relationship with them."
"The user management features need to be improved. It would be nice if we had more granular control, or layers of control, out of the box."
"User-friendly, multi-tenancy."
"Some similar solutions offer end-to-end visibility."
More IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco UCS Manager is ranked 29th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 21 reviews while IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) is ranked 34th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 53 reviews. Cisco UCS Manager is rated 8.0, while IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco UCS Manager writes "Used to manage servers, monitor or manage firmware upgrades, and push policies". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) writes "We can get a new vendor certified and monitored in our system significantly faster than before". Cisco UCS Manager is most compared with Cisco Intersight, Nutanix Prism, HPE OneView, Zabbix and Datadog, whereas IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) is most compared with Instana Infrastructure Monitoring, LogicMonitor, SolarWinds Network Device Monitor, NETSCOUT nGeniusONE and Splunk Enterprise Security. See our Cisco UCS Manager vs. IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) report.
See our list of best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all IT Infrastructure Monitoring reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
