We performed a comparison between Auvik Network Management (ANM) and DX Unified Infrastructure Management based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Monitoring Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"All of the features are valuable, but the ability to remote into anything, whether it's a terminal or a browser, is really big for us. It makes things a lot easier day-to-day."
"One of the best things about Auvik, and it's why it's one of my go-to products, are the remote access capabilities. Without a VPN and without any other way in, I'm able to get in and work on and troubleshoot my devices through the remote access console. It has multiple options for that and has been very useful and a huge time-saver. That's one of the killer features. It's one of my must-haves and that's why I like it so much."
"It's hard to say that one feature is my favorite, but I like Auvik's ability to map networks using SNMP. It maps the network, so I can look at all the devices and set them to provide alerts or automatically create tickets when outages occur. If clients need it, I can export all of the data into an Excel spreadsheet."
"Its network discovery capabilities are pretty good. It kind of spiders out and detects pretty much everything on the network, e.g., things that we are using and not using anymore. Its network discovery capabilities allow me to detect these things so I can track them down and shut them off."
"The automated, out-of-the-box device configuration backup capability is one of the key features for me in Auvik. To manage a network, one of my key requirements is to be able to rebuild that network if something catastrophic happens. Having up-to-date backups is a must, and this is a tool that I count on to get that right, and it has always performed as I expect."
"Auvik has alerts that help you be proactive by telling you when something is behaving abnormally."
"People typically use Auvik to look at NetFlow data, but we went for it because we wanted a convenient cloud-based platform to collect data that we don't have to host locally. We like that having space available is not our problem. You can deploy an agent on your network through a virtual machine running on a secure Linux operating system. It's a secure product, and the data we need is available in the cloud."
"The biggest draw for me is the flexibility of being alerted. If something happens with my critical infrastructure, I get real-time alerts on it in Teams."
"Having all of our information within one tool set; our alerts, our monitors, and the things that our operations team needs to function."
"Easy admin functionality. You can quickly do all the admin functionality without reducing cycles."
"MultiWAN and Balance service"
"I recall the initial setup being straightforward."
"You can scale it pretty much however way you want to as long as you have the servers to throw at it."
"It is the foundation for our monitoring solution."
"The real value is our being able to pull all the historic data that we need in order to gather every little metric and nuanced piece of information from a given device, a given piece of infrastructure, in order for us to generate alerts."
"It gives us visibility inside applications. It helps us to dig down and find the root cause of any issue within the network."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"I want to see improvement around backups; we had a case where we created a ticket for online support, and they were able to set up backups for one of our devices, but they were unwilling to do the same backup script with a different device. The script uses the same code, just a different model number, and the engineers weren't willing to add it to the other model."
"They may need to add some more integration pieces with different vendors. For example, API keys aren't available for certain vendors. While everything that I have works with Auvik and gets monitored by it, there are a few network items I have that I would like to see deeper integration with..."
"I want the network map to be faster and more responsive."
"When I change IP addresses on a device or on a server, I have to wait for Auvik to figure out that change. It will tell me the device is offline until Auvik scans the whole subnet again and finds it. If I change 25 devices, I'll get 50 emails in a short time because they've gone offline."
"I've been finding some features difficult. It might be because I'm used to PRTG, and Auvik works differently. When it comes to monitoring a simple IP address, Auvik makes it a bit harder and more complex because you have to create a service inside the site. It's not just creating a sensor and having it ping the device. You need to go to the site and create the service."
"The deployment could be better. It's something that we've done recently. Auvik uses something called a collector, and I added a collector to our main site. I only added it to the main site, but when it came to adding additional sites because this was in the testing phase, I had to reconfigure that collector. It wasn't overly clear about how to do that and how to share. They call it sharing a collector. I had to mess around a bit to reconfigure that collector and add some new sites."
"Something else I would like to see would be additional vendors for the hardware life cycle. Right now, they mainly focus on Cisco stuff, which is fine, but not every customer we have uses Cisco."
"There have been times when our SNMP community strings were incorrect or weren't updated for whatever reason, and Auvik kept trying to scan them. Changing it was a pain, and there wasn't a way to extract that from Auvik. I understand there are valid security reasons why we wouldn't want to do that sometimes. In those situations, we had to recreate those community strings and reapply them to various devices."
"There is also room for improvement in the reporting. It is not really good enough, according to our customers. So what we now usually do is use Power BI to get them the kinds of reports they want."
"It would be good to implement views showing the aggregated status graphically."
"The UIM has no features through goods and services yet. "
"I would like to see auditability. We've built our own audit functionality to ensure that every CI has the desired model configuration applied to it. And we run that on a daily basis. If that became part of the product, I think it might be a little bit less intensive in terms of resource, because we're doing it with scripts."
"Currently lacks a mobile application which would be helpful."
"The dashboards need to be improved."
"We would like to see automatic network topology."
"DX UIM's reporting and customization need to be improved."
More Auvik Network Management (ANM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More DX Unified Infrastructure Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Auvik Network Management (ANM) is ranked 4th in Cloud Monitoring Software with 131 reviews while DX Unified Infrastructure Management is ranked 25th in Cloud Monitoring Software with 120 reviews. Auvik Network Management (ANM) is rated 8.8, while DX Unified Infrastructure Management is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Auvik Network Management (ANM) writes "Enables us to get on top of issues before they become an outage". On the other hand, the top reviewer of DX Unified Infrastructure Management writes "Easy to set up, simple to use, and offers great technical support". Auvik Network Management (ANM) is most compared with PRTG Network Monitor, LogicMonitor, Meraki Dashboard, SolarWinds NPM and Domotz, whereas DX Unified Infrastructure Management is most compared with DX SaaS, DX Spectrum, SCOM, ManageEngine OpManager and SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor. See our Auvik Network Management (ANM) vs. DX Unified Infrastructure Management report.
See our list of best Cloud Monitoring Software vendors, best Network Monitoring Software vendors, and best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all Cloud 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.
