We performed a comparison between DX Unified Infrastructure Management and Nagios XI 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."
"Probe packages and probe deployment."
"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."
"Latest version of tool comes integrated with Jaspersoft reporting solution, giving excellent reports."
"We are able to go in and actually leverage the thick client for a nice easy drag and drop solution."
"You can scale it pretty much however way you want to as long as you have the servers to throw at it."
"It delivers our customers many metrics, so they may make decisions"
"One of the things that I like about DX Infrastructure is that the topology is good enough to see what is happening in the infrastructure. You also get alerts if something is happening in the network. There are many features and benefits. It is serving our customers in knowing exactly how their network is performing in terms of reliability. It also helps them in planning the capacity. They know how much bandwidth the branches are consuming."
"It is the foundation for our monitoring solution."
"The features I've found the most useful are the plug-ins, the fact that you can connect almost everything to it. That's very useful."
"The solution is pretty stable."
"Nagios XI helps us monitor the bandwidth of the internet connection, HTTP, DNS, active directory services, and exchange data availability. We have multiple servers to monitor databases, availability of servers, and ping."
"An excellent solution that is easy and intuitive to implement."
"It's great for monitoring IT services infrastructure."
"The most valuable feature is the monitoring of processes."
"The ability to set up templates and groups of checks, as well as customize the checks themselves."
"Since this is an open source technology, if we are capable of writing the plugins in any scripting language, this product allows us to monitor anything we want."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"The company has not kept pace with developments."
"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."
"Stability."
"It would be good to implement views showing the aggregated status graphically."
"We've had issues with pulling reports."
"We have experienced challenges with finding a mechanism to deploy the agents, but it's only on the first deployment so it's not a big issue."
"We want to see more investment in the UI and the dashboard."
"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."
"The product could be optimized to improve the administrative user experience via the Nagios Core Configuration (NCC) GUI module."
"I would like to see more customization in the network map because it is a bit tricky to use it."
"The reporting part should be made simpler. While we can obtain all the reports we need, we always have to create work-arounds to get them."
"The reporting structure could be more streamlined."
"The scalability of Nagios XI is scalable. However, it is not easy to do."
"It is really difficult to integrate Nagios XI with another system to generate logs and alert our management of failures in security infrastructure."
"The Configuration Wizard needs improvement, because not all vendors are present."
"I would like a much easier GUI so that I can delete events and logs, which will free up a lot of space."
More DX Unified Infrastructure Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
DX Unified Infrastructure Management is ranked 38th in Network Monitoring Software with 120 reviews while Nagios XI is ranked 8th in Network Monitoring Software with 54 reviews. DX Unified Infrastructure Management is rated 8.2, while Nagios XI is rated 8.2. 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 Nagios XI writes "Great for monitoring IT services infrastructure with nice tools and helpful notifications". DX Unified Infrastructure Management is most compared with DX SaaS, SCOM, DX Spectrum and ManageEngine OpManager, whereas Nagios XI is most compared with Nagios Core, Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor, Wireshark and Icinga. See our DX Unified Infrastructure Management vs. Nagios XI report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors, best Server Monitoring vendors, and best Cloud Monitoring Software 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.