We performed a comparison between Cisco UCS Manager and IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The flexibility and the ease in which the features can be expanded are the solution's most valuable aspects."
"The most valuable features are flexibility and management."
"The management is one of the most valuable features of this solution."
"I can quickly manage the provisioned servers."
"Cisco UCS has different layers of security, and you can do multiple installations of your LIAMs on top of the server and Blade. You can install VMware, Windows Server, Hyper-V, etc."
"From a usability and functionality perspective, Cisco UCS Manager is very good."
"Technical support has been good so far. We haven't had any issues with them. We're satisfied with the level of service they provide our company."
"I can deploy something in my 50-odd servers all in one go, in parallel, whereas if I was to do that individually, it could be a nightmare."
"The SMP and the xStats, which is for flat file integration, are both useful for integrating the various metrics that the device provides to monitor the performance of those systems."
"We've had great feedback from our customers about SevOne support. They're willing to set up a remote session upon request. You have to go through three tiers of support with most vendors, and they ask a lot of screening questions before they will do a remote session. You need to spend a lot of time before an engineer will host a remote session to look at your problematic system."
"The most valuable feature as of late has been the API integration with ServiceNow."
"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 comprehensiveness of this solution's collection of network performance and flow data is one of the basics in the field for what it does. It meets all of our needs. So for all those areas, for the most straightforward collection capabilities, right up to NetFlow and even telemetry, it meets all those demands. Not only just basic or fundamental SNMP collection capability, but the product also supports what we need for the future with telemetry streaming. So it's very comprehensive."
"We have benefited mainly from the use of the dashboard interface. It makes the network visually interesting for other people who are not in the network. A lot of people are not network techies who understand streams in the network. Based on location, we have streams coming in and out. They can see visually when there is some problem. They don't need to understand all the network technology behind it to be able to understand if everything is working well or if there is a problem."
"With this tool it is interesting to show the info to the client and explain where the traffic is."
"The monitoring of the network is very customizable. That is its unique feature."
"Cisco UCS is expensive compared to others. The Cisco UCS Chassis is more expensive than a standalone server, but some companies require standalone servers because of their production load and affordability. You need to pay more if you require more features on the Blade or if you need more ports on the switch."
"The solution's pricing is high and could be reduced."
"What's lacking in Cisco UCS Manager is the performance dashboard. If a blade has any performance issues, you should be able to create a dashboard on Cisco UCS Manager. Currently, this feature isn't present."
"There is room for improvement in the software part of Cisco UCS Manager. It should be more user-friendly, especially when creating policies."
"Getting a CLI report on routers, switches, or any other CLI configuration device is difficult."
"We have three data centers and if we could manage all three data centers using one interface, it would be great."
"The installation and upgrade sytems need to be improved."
"I want to be able to schedule multiple sequential updates in one go."
"Would benefit with the addition of AI modules for proactive data insights."
"There is no service mode setup in this monitoring tool if you want to snooze alerts for any specific amount of time, to account for any activity change or major incident."
"User-friendly, multi-tenancy."
"With the administrative management of the appliance, if some object appears from SevOne because something changed in the network or whatever, then as an administrator you will not be aware. If you are using this object in a report, this object will disappear from the report and you will not be aware of it. So, if you have 1,000 reports, you cannot always check these reports everyday to see if objects are missing or information has disappeared. We don't have any information on alerts, saying that something is happening there and maybe we need to take action. If an object was replaced by another one, or if a link was replaced by another one, then the graph needs to be changed because it doesn't exist in the graph anymore. However, we don't have this information."
"Their virtualization solution is not compatible with our Kubernetes environment, which is one of the reasons we are ending our relationship with them."
"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."
"Some similar solutions offer end-to-end visibility."
"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."
More IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco UCS Manager is ranked 29th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 21 reviews while IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) is ranked 35th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 53 reviews. Cisco UCS Manager is rated 8.0, while IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco UCS Manager writes "Used to manage servers, monitor or manage firmware upgrades, and push policies". 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". Cisco UCS Manager is most compared with Cisco Intersight, Nutanix Prism, HPE OneView, Zabbix and Datadog, whereas IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) is most compared with Instana Infrastructure Monitoring, LogicMonitor, SolarWinds Network Device Monitor, NETSCOUT nGeniusONE and Splunk Enterprise Security. See our Cisco UCS Manager vs. IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) report.
See our list of best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all IT Infrastructure Monitoring 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.
