We performed a comparison between DX Unified Infrastructure Management and IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Monitoring Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"I recall the initial setup being straightforward."
"The real value is our being able to pull all the historic data that we need in order to gather every little metric and nuanced piece of information from a given device, a given piece of infrastructure, in order for us to generate alerts."
"It is easy to implement but requires good planning."
"The benefit is easy installation. Thus, the model approach of the product and out-of-the-box probes, which deliver direct value."
"This solution allows us to have an overview of the infrastructure and identify areas where the performance isn't optimal, or where upgrades could be carried out."
"You can integrate clouds, hybrid infrastructure, and on-premise infrastructure into one product."
"It reduced cycles for a lot of quick out-of-the-box functionality. It also allowed us to get away from being stuck in SNMP, VTP V2, based off of agent deployment."
"It provides a comprehensive monitoring solution for our open systems."
"We find that the reporting is particularly valuable in terms of not only communicating with our peer teams but also with the executives."
"Scalability. I have never had to worry about how to handle really big environments."
"The most valuable feature as of late has been the API integration with ServiceNow."
"It's a great solution for highlighting and discovering useful information regarding our network's elements."
"One of the most valuable features is the graphs, which you can build instantly. I have used some open-source platforms in the past, but they are not as good. With SevOne, the sampling in the graph can be every few seconds, not just every few minutes, and that's really helpful. It's really fast."
"The modules and the performance management reports that come with data insights are two of the most valuable features. I also find the reports for Wi-Fi, Netflow, LAN, and WAN for monitoring to be very good."
"It also gives us the closest thing to real-time insight into network performance that we have, with just a 10-second delay. It's very important for us to know the health of the infrastructure very quickly."
"I like the tool’s scalability and real-time reports. Earlier, we struggled to give real-time reports to clients. I also like the tool’s deployment model where we can deploy it either on-premises or in-house. We don’t have to carry the data all over the globe. Also, I am impressed with the tool's flow reporting and Wi-Fi."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"In the UMP, certain devices will show up multiple times and they don't correlate correctly. That's one of the issues."
"The only challenge that I have with this solution is the reporting part. The users are not really comfortable with the kind of reports they are getting. Sometimes, they want to see reports in their own format. Customizing those reports with Jasper is not very easy. It could be because of the knowledge gap. If you have the knowledge of how Jasper can be configured to suit customer requirements in terms of reporting, it is good. There was a time a customer complained about one issue related to Netflow analysis. Broadcom has a separate model for that, but the customer wanted everything bundled together. It could also have IP management so that I am able to see or analyze IPs so that the IPs that are already in use don't get assigned."
"There is also room for improvement in the reporting. It is not really good enough, according to our customers. So what we now usually do is use Power BI to get them the kinds of reports they want."
"The dashboards need to be improved."
"The company has not kept pace with developments."
"It is a little complex to use versus other softwares."
"Within this product there are individual probes, and each of these probes doesn't always necessarily output the same kind of information into our database. So when we try to collect what's called QoS data, from one probe we might get a ton of information, lots of good stuff that we can use in our database, but then from another probe, we might not get so much or we might not be able to pull the things that we want to."
"The other element is that there are no real templates, out of the box. Let's go with an example where we do have the probe, which is great, and we do have a really nuanced customer with a small set of devices that maybe not a lot of other customers use. There might not be a template in place, so effectively we have the tool in front of us but we still need to develop a solution. So it would be really nice to see a little bit more of something like a central repository of templates that we could use. That would help us expedite our onboarding process."
"Their virtualization solution is not compatible with our Kubernetes environment, which is one of the reasons we are ending our relationship with them."
"Software upgrades can be tricky is not easy."
"User-friendly, multi-tenancy."
"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 GUI: both the dashboard/user view and the admin tool."
"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."
"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."
"We need to be thinking about streaming telemetry protocols. They already have the port for enhanced visualization, which they already have through Data Insight."
More DX Unified Infrastructure Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
More IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
DX Unified Infrastructure Management is ranked 37th in Network Monitoring Software with 120 reviews while IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) is ranked 41st in Network Monitoring Software with 52 reviews. DX Unified Infrastructure Management is rated 8.2, while IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of DX Unified Infrastructure Management writes "Easy to set up, simple to use, and offers great technical support". 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". DX Unified Infrastructure Management is most compared with DX SaaS, DX Spectrum, SCOM, ManageEngine OpManager and SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor, whereas IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) is most compared with LogicMonitor, Instana Infrastructure Monitoring, SolarWinds NPM, Splunk Enterprise Security and SolarWinds Network Device Monitor. See our DX Unified Infrastructure Management vs. IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors, best Server Monitoring vendors, and best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all Network Monitoring Software 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.