We are partners and mediators with Broadcom. We buy the suite and purpose the it with additional features or design separate, integrated solutions for customers.

We did not evaluate other solutions. We received DX Performance management as part of a larger software package, and we used what we got

I tested Grafana but it was not as good as DX Performance Management.

We looked at InfoVista. We already have InfoVista at the bank, so we looked at them, but their solution just was not viable for us. 

Currently we have an issue where, if the store goes down, we get 20 tickets spread across different tools. We knew we needed to scale it back to only one actionable item. We needed to use one tool that would encompass everything and scale out, and be able to provide the flexibility to let us narrow it down to what we need.

Our most important criteria when selecting a vendor are scale, stability, and support. We evaluated CA, HPE, Riverbed, and BMC. We went with CA because of our partnership with that vendor. We are most confident in that partnership.

There were several.We had the IBM product, we had SolarWinds, and we had CA in our environment as well. So we evaluated all of these tools relative to the requirements from our 24/7 operations and for our tier-3 support teams, and made the decision to go with CA.

One of the key requirements was this notion of off-the-shelf capabilities, and the requirement for us to be able to use the tool, to use dashboards, to use reports, to be able to performance manage our solutions, without having to go in and write scripts, without having to build up reports, without having to search for data. This native capability out of the box was one of our prime requirements.

We had all of the technical requirements that you need for other tools. Does it speak natively, and standard protocols? Does it have certifications for all of the vendor models that we have in our environment? All those kinds of typical requirements.

For us, the ability to use the tool immediately, whomever we went with, was one of our main requirements. We wanted to be able to deploy the tool and make good use out of it without having to send teams to two weeks of training, and then go back and try to figure out how to use what Performance Management gives us.

We evaluated other options in the past when we selected eHealth. We did a full evaluation and we went with the CA solution.

After we had only been on it for two or three years, we felt comfortable with CA, their approach, and their strategy for handling network performance management. We just decided to stick with CA and migrate to their next generation, the CAPM.

We looked at SolarWinds. We looked Riverbed. I think we just looked at CA. We did not go looking at a lot of them. CA also came to us, because we had someone working on the other side to say, "Hey, we already had them in-house, take a look at a tool they had in place."

That helped them, because they were there. Once they could provide the tool that we wanted, and they were able to go through our use cases along with other vendors, that is how they got selected. They fitted with everything that we needed.

I was not on board at the time that they were doing of the selection of this tool set, with Anthem. I'm aware that they were also looking at NetCool as another option, and I am not sure why CA was ultimately selected. I also don't have any information about pricing. I'm not sure what they spent on it.

Netcool, Solarwinds.

We did evaluate two competing options from HPE and Alcatel Lucent.

Before choosing we also evaluated SevONE, APG, and InfoVista.

On our side, it depends on the customers' needs. We test on one customer to be honest, as a solution. However, we are thinking pricing, scaling, and so on. Also, to use PM for all other customers.

We looked at some open code tools. However, they don't have any support or guarantees like CA.

We looked at other solutions such as IBM, HPE, etc.

Since I inherited CA products in this job, choosing CA PM was the first choice for compatibility.