We performed a comparison between Cisco UCS Manager and DX Performance Management 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."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."
"Cisco Infrastructure is one of the top vendors and no one can beat them in terms of switching and routing."
"It is more robust than other solutions. So, the stability is good."
"The reporting functionality will give you any report you want."
"Cisco UCS Manager is overall a good package because it gives a GUI interface and a CLI."
"The interface is ergonomic and native. We can use UCS Manager to do all the configurations for the servers, including storage, networking, and all the other components we need inside the fabric. It's simple and flexible."
"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."
"From a usability and functionality perspective, Cisco UCS Manager is very good."
"One feature I like about CA Performance Management is the certification of the devices."
"What is most useful is visibility."
"Since the implementation of the tool, it has cut down on probably 60% of our outages and letting us know what is going on."
"There is a good amount of vendor certification which comes with the product. That's all factory-loaded, no need to load any custom-made files. Most of the metrics are calibrated and captured from the devices based on the defaults available from vendor certification."
"There is another component of the tool called Network Flow Analysis. It gives us the ability to troubleshoot issues which do not appear right away."
"The tool helps us understand network performance."
"It gave us one location, one place to do all of group administration, and to build dashboards, and device administration, inventory counts... it really reduced our overall administrative overhead."
"It is very easy to add devices; just be aware that it requires SNMP to be enabled."
"The integration with other solutions could be better. I think Cisco can only integrate using Intersight. There is a second interface available as a SaaS platform, in the cloud, or on-premise. It's based on the Redfish protocol, which is standard for all the B-series servers in the market. We can integrate other solutions using API."
"I want to be able to schedule multiple sequential updates in one go."
"I found it a bit of a challenge to get training on UCSM. I've been trying to get that for some time now. I feel like I have to figure it out a lot of things myself. For years I've to log calls with support whenever I've got challenges that I cannot resolve. If I had some training or more manuals, I'd be better able to handle more things on my own."
"The installation and upgrade sytems need to be improved."
"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 pricing can be better."
"The interface and the way it is constructed is very complex. They should work to simplify it. It's quite difficult for somebody who doesn't know the product very well. Users should be able to get proficient with it faster. There's definitely room for improvement there."
"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."
"I'm not a fan of many extra features since they usually burden the software and reduce its reliability."
"The solution could improve the database model. It is also not very good because they have a lot of interconnections with other data sources, such as NFA and VNA."
"Policies could be improved."
"When it goes through discovery, or whatever it is doing in the back-end that slows it down, sometimes we get some failures with it. "
"Product has issue collecting IP SLA data."
"CA PM can be complex to build and configure. Creating the folders / groups / sites required establishing many rule sets."
"I would like to have more tasks, graphs, and possibilities for linking to the graphs and reports added to the solution."
"We would like to be capable of reporting network performance with a report strictly focused on the times outside business hours, which CA PM does not currently support. We have discontinued the use of the Business Hours Filtering until CA engineers are able to resolve or offer guidance."
Cisco UCS Manager is ranked 30th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 21 reviews while DX Performance Management is ranked 2nd in DX NetOps with 31 reviews. Cisco UCS Manager is rated 8.0, while DX Performance Management is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco UCS Manager writes "Stable and resilient, but slightly more complicated to deploy". On the other hand, the top reviewer of DX Performance Management writes "The vertical database loads faster than any other product available". Cisco UCS Manager is most compared with Cisco Intersight, Nutanix Prism, HPE OneView, Zabbix and Datadog, whereas DX Performance Management is most compared with DX Spectrum, Zabbix and OmniPeek. See our Cisco UCS Manager vs. DX Performance Management report.
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.
