We performed a comparison between Cisco UCS Manager and Moogsoft 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 reporting functionality will give you any report you want."
"From a usability and functionality perspective, Cisco UCS Manager is very good."
"Ease of management is certainly the most valuable feature in this product."
"I can quickly manage the provisioned servers."
"What I like most about Cisco UCS Manager is the ease of administration. It also allows the central management of maintenance, installation, and configuration activities."
"The hardware is very powerful and it is a stable solution."
"When one server fails, we can attach the service profile to a new server, which saves a lot of time."
"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."
"Moogsoft's most valuable features are event management, correlation, and observability."
"There are AI features in Moogsoft. Moogsoft has one wonderful feature that allows you to convert multiple alarms into situations. Generally, all other MoM tools get the alarms, and then convert it into an incident directly. There is one extra layer they have added before converting any alarm into an incident. Suppose there are multiple alarms that are somehow all related to a single source of issue. It converts all the alarms into a single situation, which then gets converted into an incident."
"The solution is extremely helpful with correlating IP failures and it has a very good sort of flow chart of IP systems. For example, if you see a failure in system A, you can track it down to the system causing the issue. This is a very handy feature."
"Moogsoft is easily deployable and ready to use."
"The AI component allows you to check previous cases and diagnose problems easily."
"Incident management is streamlined with Moogsoft. One standout feature is its unique situation-creation capability, differentiating it from other fault management tools. While other tools typically convert alarms directly into tickets or incidents, Moogsoft adds a middle layer where multiple alarms can be aggregated into one incident. Moogsoft's strong AI capabilities also allow it to correlate similar alarms automatically based on past experiences."
"I like the prediction features."
"The product currently seems to be a few steps ahead of the competition."
"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."
"I found it a bit of a challenge to get training on UCSM. I've been trying to get that for some time now. I feel like I have to figure it out a lot of things myself. For years I've to log calls with support whenever I've got challenges that I cannot resolve. If I had some training or more manuals, I'd be better able to handle more things on my own."
"In the next release, I would like to see improvements made to their security."
"The automation within the solution needs to be simplified."
"Cisco UCS Manager is not a scalable solution because once you have 160 blades, it cannot be expanded more."
"The pricing can be better."
"There is room for improvement in the software part of Cisco UCS Manager. It should be more user-friendly, especially when creating policies."
"The tool needs to improve its support. It appears that the support responsiveness from Moogsoft is not aligned with the severity of the incident. Instead of proactively addressing issues, customers have to chase Moogsoft for resolution. In Moogsoft, unlike other tools like Splunk, the process follows a step-by-step sequence. You need to start each process in a specific order, typically following a sequence."
"The documentation and flexibility for generic integration could be improved."
"I would like to see more integrations. It is rather difficult to install the enterprise systems with the agents."
"They are very much dependent on open-source technologies like RabbitMQ message bus. They are using open-source databases, Apache Tomcat, NGINX. If we face any issues with Apache Tomcat or the RabbitMQ message bus, then we do not get support from them. We have to troubleshoot it ourselves."
"I would like to see how Moogsoft integrates with the multi-cloud and brings out a single pane of glass, to see everything on one screen."
"I would like to see additional reports or information on the dashboard that includes metrics about CPU usage and memory."
"It is taking a long time to set it up and could do more to roll out quickly."
"Moogsoft is dependent on external products to do orchestration and SOP-based functionality."
Cisco UCS Manager is ranked 29th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 21 reviews while Moogsoft is ranked 38th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 11 reviews. Cisco UCS Manager is rated 8.0, while Moogsoft is rated 7.6. 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 Moogsoft writes "A cost-efffective cloud solution for noise filtration but needs enhanced interfaces". Cisco UCS Manager is most compared with Cisco Intersight, Nutanix Prism, HPE OneView and Zabbix, whereas Moogsoft is most compared with ServiceNow IT Operations Management, OpsRamp, BigPanda, Dell CloudIQ and Dynatrace. See our Cisco UCS Manager vs. Moogsoft 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.