We performed a comparison between Aruba IntroSpect and Auvik Network Management (ANM) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Roaming feature, application control and firewall features."
"The most valuable feature is the end-user monitoring. If there is any abnormal behavior on the machine, the administrator will be alerted."
"I haven't heard of any issues with stability."
"Shadow IT monitoring is huge for us since so many of our customers are highly regulated."
"The extensive personalization and customization options are great because it lets me do a lot. I can set up different permission structures, assign various staff members read-only access and others full access, and customize my notifications."
"The topology map is good. It shows each device and whether it has a safe connection, how long it has been connected, and its activities. That's really helpful. Knowing the map helps our efficiency."
"I appreciate Auvik's traffic insights."
"The most valuable feature is device discovery through SNMP."
"The configuration management is the most valuable feature. I worked at an MSP before where they didn't have something collecting network device configurations. It was basically up to the technician who did it last, and you never knew if they saved a copy or not. Auvik makes that a lot more automated so we don't have to worry, if a device dies, that we don't know how it was configured."
"The stability is rock solid."
"Auvik makes it super simple to have sub-tenants and you can then view high-level details from the "parent" tenant, which is our MSP interface, while also diving deep into the client-side and having full access there for assigning client-level permissions."
"The packet analyzer needs improvement."
"Technical support is a little slow."
"I would like to see improvements made to the dashboard, where you can get the information with a simple click."
"I would relegate the network map to its area instead of being the focus of every page. The network map is in the front and center of the UI. I would rather have the option to look at it when I need it instead of having it on every single page. It's beautiful, but I don't need it on every page."
"The mapping automatically finds all the interfaces but tags some of them incorrectly. For instance, if it can't find how a CPU interface is connected, it will use the MAC address last seen on the router and sometimes attribute cloud-connected devices to the route, but it's not actually there. That's not a true connection."
"Sometimes we get false positives, which every now and then is not a big deal. But it would help if they made it a little easier to suppress some of the alarms."
"The NetFlow app can be a bit compressed and difficult to customize for better readability."
"It needs flexibility for the pooling of information. Because it is fully automated, it is pooling everything from the device from a given category. There is no way to exclude things that are not important or if you want to temporarily remove them to see statistics of other things. For example, we get about 100 MB from Auvik. We are unable to limit this. We would rather stop monitoring something, since some features will always give you alerts, because they shouldn't be monitored. However, it is impossible to exclude them, e.g., the internal interface. If somebody disconnects the device from the internal interface, we get an alert. So, this is something that is really painful for us. More flexibility would solve most of our issues."
"The price shouldn't be an issue for a larger organization, but a smaller organization or an MSP might struggle because the billing is per device. You're paying for your firewalls and devices that appear on the network. If you have a smaller organization with an extensive network, your revenue won't be able to support that cost. That's probably the biggest downside for me."
"I would like firmware/software updates for hardware, for at least switches and routers. I already have the feature request in, and it is on their list of things to try and do. Cisco stuff has been notoriously and historically kind of a pain to do, and that is what we use primarily. So, that would be a wonderful thing to get, as it is a device-by-device process. It would be nice to be able to get through that at least in a less fiddly way. It is a pretty manual process now."
"When I change IP addresses on a device or on a server, I have to wait for Auvik to figure out that change. It will tell me the device is offline until Auvik scans the whole subnet again and finds it. If I change 25 devices, I'll get 50 emails in a short time because they've gone offline."
More Auvik Network Management (ANM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Aruba IntroSpect is ranked 14th in Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) while Auvik Network Management (ANM) is ranked 3rd in Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) with 139 reviews. Aruba IntroSpect is rated 8.6, while Auvik Network Management (ANM) is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Aruba IntroSpect writes "A straightforward setup for technical users and an overall good product". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Auvik Network Management (ANM) writes "Enables us to get on top of issues before they become an outage". Aruba IntroSpect is most compared with Arista NDR, Cisco Secure Network Analytics, LogRhythm UEBA and Darktrace, whereas Auvik Network Management (ANM) is most compared with PRTG Network Monitor, LogicMonitor, SolarWinds NPM, Zabbix and Meraki Dashboard. See our Aruba IntroSpect vs. Auvik Network Management (ANM) report.
See our list of best Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) vendors.
We monitor all Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) 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.