We performed a comparison between Avada Software Infrared360 and IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Server Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It has role-based access to queues, giving us more insights into problems."
"It allows non-technical users to inspect their individual components within the total infrastructure without disturbing other components and without bothering the technical teams."
"The administration piece makes it very easy to do MQ administration. It gives us a lot more flexibility and capabilities."
"Monitoring that ties into our incident management system"
"It's what we use for monitoring our MQ system, so the features that they provide are just really, really good."
"We have easily created use case testing harnesses for specific flows that incorporate various message types."
"Flexible architecture: You can extend the system and its capacity by attaching another cluster pair."
"The most valuable feature as of late has been the API integration with ServiceNow."
"I like SevOne's network flow reporting."
"The out of the box reports and workflows are pretty good and they meet our requirements well."
"One of the solution's biggest strengths is its capacity management performance, with out-of-the-box reports through NMS, as well as its ability to collect NetFlow-related data from devices. The collection of network performance and flow data is important because we have many critical business applications."
"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."
"We find that the reporting is particularly valuable in terms of not only communicating with our peer teams but also with the executives."
"The monitoring of the network is very customizable. That is its unique feature."
"Some of the graphics in the interface could be improved. It's pretty basic. Some interfaces are not up to what you're used to seeing on other, more Windows-like tools."
"The user interface could be sexier and more ergonomic. The competing products have similar problems."
"We desire a dashboard that could accumulate BOQ lengths per tenant on one screen for all tenants."
"One area where they could improve is with their documentation. Some sections are not up to date with new release information and providing additional samples in some areas would be very helpful."
"We are still working with the FTE/MFT subscription monitoring and reporting functionality. That is an area in which we would like to see further development taking place."
"The UI can be cumbersome - but we are still using the Viper interface and we have not had the time to check out the Alloy interface which is supposed to be much improved."
"We previously have had discussions on some reporting enhancements. So, we raised a feature request, which was delivered from SevOne."
"The method of searching for SIP and the way to create the groups."
"Would benefit with the addition of AI modules for proactive data insights."
"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."
"You need to plan integrations. That has been the biggest bug with SevOne so far. For the things that SevOne pulls directly, those are easy to understand, modify, and put into the database. For things that need to use the Universal Collector or xStats, you need to plan that stuff well in advance."
"One area that requires a little bit of improvement is the topology of visualization and being able to map out connections, end-to-end. It's able to do that, but it's not as impressive as we would like it to be. We would like to understand the different interface types and the connection points better, through the visualization. Heatmaps also need further development."
"SevOne should work with the graphs legend functionality."
"NMS has several areas for improvement. It should be more user-friendly inside of NMS for some of the functionality in there. It's been getting better the last version or two, but the there have been bugs in there whenever I've gone to new versions."
More IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Avada Software Infrared360 is ranked 36th in Server Monitoring while IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) is ranked 17th in Server Monitoring with 53 reviews. Avada Software Infrared360 is rated 8.8, while IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Avada Software Infrared360 writes "An offsite team performs a daily infrastructure health check and sends reports to the technical/management teams. ". 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". Avada Software Infrared360 is most compared with IBM MQ and Dynatrace, whereas IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) is most compared with Instana Infrastructure Monitoring, LogicMonitor, SolarWinds Network Device Monitor, Splunk Enterprise Security and SolarWinds NPM. See our Avada Software Infrared360 vs. IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) report.
See our list of best Server Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all Server 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.