We performed a comparison between Checkmk and Cisco DNA Center 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."The single dashboard is a valuable feature."
"We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it has a lot of different pieces, and they all work together...It is a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable features of Checkmk are its resource monitoring, infra monitoring, and log factor configuration."
"It's versatile, scalable, and easier to use compared to other solutions like Nagios and OMD."
"I really like the auto-discovery feature."
"We can monitor multiple sites using the product."
"The initial setup of Checkmk was easy...It is a very stable solution."
"The product gives a consolidated view."
"What's most valuable in Cisco DNA Center is the ability to manage any Cisco infrastructure and device through it. Setup was straightforward."
"The solution has the capability to scale."
"We have many people from the team who manage a lot of devices. By using Cisco DNA Center, it has taken some of that burden away, we are impressed with it. We did the investment in CAPEX, but in the OPEX was very low."
"The product offers an intuitive and automated way to manage user networks. It gives me an insight into the network health."
"The best feature of Cisco DNA Center is the visibility page, where you can see everything on the dashboard, and you don't have to be a technical person to view the issues."
"Cisco VXLAN is a protocol that has been around for some time, but the practical implementation and operational capability of Cisco DNA Center bring it to life."
"The solution helps with the management and orchestration of campaigns. It helps with visibility and analytics. I also like its SDA configuration."
"The technical support needs improvement."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"If an alert is generated for a specific pattern in the log, and if Checkmk catches that log, it will stay there even after the alert is resolved."
"In Checkmk, the documentation can probably be improved a bit more."
"I think that the integration and the exporting of the data collected are areas where Checkmk lacks but should try to improve the most."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"Sometimes we receive alerts, and it can become annoying when you acknowledge an alert. It is very clunky when you acknowledge the alert. The process is not very intuitive, and there are instances where it feels a bit cumbersome to acknowledge an alert."
"It is easy for tech-savvy people, but newcomers might find it intimidating."
"The solution can be quite pricey."
"We encountered issues with their response times, which had a big impact on our workflow."
"The solution’s security side could be improved."
"Requires more focus on the digital side of things."
"It seems to be a little bit more centered toward wireless than wired. You've got more options you can do wirelessly than you can with the wired switches, but it works for what we need it to do. We would like to see a little bit more about the traffic, and we're looking at what's out there to see about that. We are looking at something that might give us a bit more insight into the actual traffic. If they had the full functionality on the wired side, as they do on the wireless side in terms of being able to view traffic and everything, it would be good."
"There are some software problems from version to version. It takes a long time for DNA Center to recognize the video and control access devices."
"The weaknesses primarily involve pricing and the ongoing need for increased bandwidth and data throughput."
"The task failure reporting or provisioning failure reporting could be a little bit better in the UI, with more information given to the user."
More Juniper Mist Premium Analytics Pricing and Cost Advice →
Checkmk is ranked 19th in Network Monitoring Software with 6 reviews while Cisco DNA Center is ranked 24th in Network Monitoring Software with 37 reviews. Checkmk is rated 8.6, while Cisco DNA Center is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Checkmk writes "A reasonably priced tool for system and application monitoring". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco DNA Center writes "Practical implementation of VXLAN is good and provides centralized control". Checkmk is most compared with Zabbix, Icinga, Netdata and Centreon, whereas Cisco DNA Center is most compared with Cisco Prime, Aruba Airwave, SolarWinds Network Configuration Manager, Juniper Mist Wired Assurance and Huawei eSight. See our Checkmk vs. Cisco DNA Center report.
See our list of best Network 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.