We performed a comparison between Cisco Piston Enterprise OS and Juniper AppFormix based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about VMware, Nutanix, IBM and others in Cloud Management."We have seen a 30% performance improvement overall."
"I only deal with the infrastructure side, so I really couldn't speak to more than load balancing as the most valuable feature for me. It provides specific actions that prevent resource starvation. It always keeps things in perfect balance."
"Before implementing Turbonomic, we had difficulty reaching a consensus about VM placement and sizing. Everybody's opinion was wrong, including mine. The application developers, implementers, and infrastructure team could never decide the appropriate size of a virtual machine. I always made the machines small, and they always made them too big. We were both probably wrong."
"The system automatically sizes and moves resources based on the needs of the applications."
"The biggest value I'm getting out of VMTurbo right now is the complete hands-off management of equalizing the usage in my data center."
"My favorite part of the solution is the automation scheduling. Being able to choose when actions happen, and how they happen..."
"We have a system where our developers automate machine builds, and that is constantly running out of resources. Turbonomic helps us with that, so I don't have to keep buying hardware. The developers always say, "They don't have enough. They don't have enough. They don't have enough," when they just configured it improperly. Therefore, Turbonomic helps us identify configuration issues on their side so it doesn't cost me money on the other end to buy resources that I don't really need."
"We can manage multiple environments using a single pane of glass, which is something that I really like."
"It offers enough support so that you don't need to have the need to get another device."
"It's a stable product. I didn't find any issues with regard to stability. I would rate the stability a ten out of ten."
"The solution's technical support is good."
"The GUI and policy creation have room for improvement. There should be a better view of some of the numbers that are provided and easier to access. And policy creation should have it easier to identify groups."
"There is an opportunity for improvement with some of Turbonomic's permissions internally for role-based access control. We would like the ability to come up with some customized permissions or scope permissions a bit differently than the product provides."
"If they would educate their customers to understand the latest updates, that would help customers... Also, there are a lot of features that are not available in Turbonomic. For example, PaaS component optimization and automation are still in the development phase."
"After running this solution in production for a year, we may want a more granular approach to how we utilize the product because we are planning to use some of its metrics to feed into our financial system."
"I would love to see Turbonomic analyze backup data. We have had people in the past put servers into daily full backups with seven-year retention and where the disk size is two terabytes. So, every single day, there is a two terabyte snapshot put into a Blob somewhere. I would love to see Turbonomic say, "Here are all your backups along with the age of them," to help us manage the savings by not having us spend so much on the storage in Azure. That would be huge."
"Since the introduction of a HTML 5 based interface, our main - but minor - criticism of a less than intuitive operation managers' GUI would be the area of improvement."
"The management interface seems to be designed for high-resolution screens. Somebody with a smaller-resolution screen might not like the web interface. I run a 4K monitor on it, so everything fits on the screen. With a lower resolution like 1080, you need to scroll a lot. Everything is in smaller windows. It doesn't seem to be designed for smaller screens."
"Turbonomic doesn't do storage placement how I would prefer. We use multiple shared storage volumes on VMware, so I don't have one big disk. I have lots of disks that I can place VMs on, and that consumes IOPS from the disk subsystem. We were getting recommendations to provision a new volume."
"The solution is just too expensive, so maybe the pricing could be better."
"This solution has a yearly licensing. In my country, it's really expensive."
"My expectations were probably slightly more for the third-party tool integration; for example, regarding the analytics, I had some different tools. So, integration was not as good as I was expecting. So, analytics, configuration tool I was not really happy. So, there is room for improvement in context with integration with existing tools in our network environment."
Earn 20 points
Cisco Piston Enterprise OS is ranked 51st in Cloud Management while Juniper AppFormix is ranked 27th in Cloud Management with 2 reviews. Cisco Piston Enterprise OS is rated 9.0, while Juniper AppFormix is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Piston Enterprise OS writes "A simple interface and helpful support for a solution that grows with us". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Juniper AppFormix writes "Good scalability, useful in terms of collective analytics, and low latency ". Cisco Piston Enterprise OS is most compared with Abiquo, whereas Juniper AppFormix is most compared with .
See our list of best Cloud Management vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Management 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.
