We performed a comparison between Corelight and SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer 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."It's easy to create additional dashboards specific to supporting specific tasks."
"It is easy to deploy and easy to handle."
"It's an easy way for us to get visibility in a client's environment."
"The most valuable feature is the embedded IDS from Suricata."
"Corelight is easy to use."
"The software management tools are very useful for our customers."
"They have instructional videos and other information available on the site to assist you with learning it."
"The program is scalable enough for our usage."
"It doesn't cost too much."
"The dashboard alerts me when a critical device goes off the network."
"It helps us know when a branch is down because it has a graphic presentation of all the locations a node represents."
"What I like about SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer is that it's useful for analyzing traffic. It also has an application visibility feature that lets you control applications."
"What people found most valuable in SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer is its report customization feature."
"In the next release, building a graphical user interface would be helpful."
"Corelight hasn’t added features in a long time."
"They can enhance the interface of the product. They can make it more interactive and also easier to use for feature access."
"Machine learning could be a good improvement, but it's very costly."
"The solution’s architecture is complex and difficult to understand. There are multiple machines and VMs."
"What needs improvement in SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer is performance because sometimes, my team struggles too much for the solution to perform correctly for a specific deployment in my organization. Having a more detailed view in SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer is another area for improvement, but that's more part of the protocol than the actual solution."
"As people always complain about the pricing for SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer, it's an area for improvement in the solution. People find it expensive. Another area for improvement in SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer is support, as it could be better."
"Customer Support is quite complex."
"Technical support could be improved with quicker response times."
"The licensing should be more realistic so that we can adjust the number of nodes according to my needs, rather than in fixed increments."
"It is very slow to pick the dynamics of the network."
"It's scalable, but it could be simplified because it's not completely easy."
"They should work on the configuration of the Log Analyzer feature."
More SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer Pricing and Cost Advice →
Corelight is ranked 7th in Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) with 5 reviews while SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer is ranked 6th in Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) with 34 reviews. Corelight is rated 9.0, while SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Corelight writes "An open-source solution that gave us insight into our clients' network traffic flow ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer writes "Displays traffic visibility and efficient traffic flows". Corelight is most compared with ExtraHop Reveal(x), Darktrace, Vectra AI, Cisco Secure Network Analytics and NetWitness XDR, whereas SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer is most compared with Zabbix, Cisco Secure Network Analytics, ManageEngine NetFlow Analyzer, SolarWinds NPM and Darktrace. See our Corelight vs. SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer 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.