We performed a comparison between Avada Software Infrared360 and HPE System Management based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Zabbix, Microsoft, ServiceNow and others in Server Monitoring."It allows non-technical users to inspect their individual components within the total infrastructure without disturbing other components and without bothering the technical teams."
"We have easily created use case testing harnesses for specific flows that incorporate various message types."
"It has role-based access to queues, giving us more insights into problems."
"The administration piece makes it very easy to do MQ administration. It gives us a lot more flexibility and capabilities."
"Monitoring that ties into our incident management system"
"It's what we use for monitoring our MQ system, so the features that they provide are just really, really good."
"This solution has improved our organization through the provision of efficient resource utilization and capacity planning."
"I think it's stable, scalable, and flexible."
"This is a good product and I recommend it."
"The interface is in continuous development and improves version by version."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy with the help of the framework consisting of Microsoft Azure."
"The managing and monitoring are the solution's most valuable features. They are something I find quite helpful in my work."
"The UI can be cumbersome - but we are still using the Viper interface and we have not had the time to check out the Alloy interface which is supposed to be much improved."
"Some of the graphics in the interface could be improved. It's pretty basic. Some interfaces are not up to what you're used to seeing on other, more Windows-like tools."
"We are still working with the FTE/MFT subscription monitoring and reporting functionality. That is an area in which we would like to see further development taking place."
"We desire a dashboard that could accumulate BOQ lengths per tenant on one screen for all tenants."
"The user interface could be sexier and more ergonomic. The competing products have similar problems."
"One area where they could improve is with their documentation. Some sections are not up to date with new release information and providing additional samples in some areas would be very helpful."
"Our customers would like to see the price lowered."
"If the solution could provide better integration to make it easier to manage everything on different servers, that would be helpful. Whatever servers a company has, be it IBM, Dell, etc., if the System Management could be a platform that links all of them together, it would make management across different server types easier."
"The return on investment report is too difficult to understand."
"The product should increase the processing capacity and allow speedy deployment, as both of them are areas with certain shortcomings where improvements are required."
"The quality of service and support for this solution needs to be improved."
"I think that support integration could be improved."
Earn 20 points
Avada Software Infrared360 is ranked 36th in Server Monitoring while HPE System Management is ranked 19th in Server Monitoring with 8 reviews. Avada Software Infrared360 is rated 8.8, while HPE System Management is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Avada Software Infrared360 writes "An offsite team performs a daily infrastructure health check and sends reports to the technical/management teams. ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HPE System Management writes " Offers reliability and helps with the virtualization part". Avada Software Infrared360 is most compared with IBM MQ and Dynatrace, whereas HPE System Management is most compared with Lenovo XClarity Controller, Zabbix, Microsoft Configuration Manager and Tanium.
See our list of best Server Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all Server 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.
