We performed a comparison between CA eHealth [EOL] and OpenText Network Automation based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco, Fortinet, Broadcom and others in Network Management Applications."The most valuable feature of this solution is the fact that it sends me canned reports. It's easy to use and easy to update."
"When compared with SolarWinds, it is more user-friendly, and tasks can be completed more quickly."
"Pushing the network configuration to bulk devices. This saves a considerable amount of time that the engineer spends in pushing the network configuration."
"I would like to see improved index shifting."
"Level one administration task can be defined in Micro Focus Network Automation but it could be more simplified."
"Compatibility of the devices needs to be enhanced, as it seems to be limited."
CA eHealth [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Network Management Applications while OpenText Network Automation is ranked 12th in Network Automation. CA eHealth [EOL] is rated 7.4, while OpenText Network Automation is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of CA eHealth [EOL] writes "It has a lot of data on a stable platform. It only has a few canned out-of-the-box reports". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Network Automation writes "Helps the configuration backup be validated before and after any change in the network infrastructure". CA eHealth [EOL] is most compared with NetMaster Network Intelligence, whereas OpenText Network Automation is most compared with Cisco DNA Center, SolarWinds Network Configuration Manager, BackBox, NetBrain and BMC TrueSight Network Automation.
We monitor all Network Management Applications 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.
