We performed a comparison between DX Performance Management and OpenText Network Node Manager i based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two DX NetOps solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is very easy to add devices; just be aware that it requires SNMP to be enabled."
"One feature I like about CA Performance Management is the certification of the devices."
"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."
"You can have thousands of devices inside and hundreds of thousands of interphases without a problem."
"The tool helps us understand network performance."
"When devices are having performance issues, it proactively build dashboards which allow us to go and do health checks, and resolve problems before they become an issue."
"You can create intelligent alerts so you have enough time to replace the router or interface before it's full. The same is applicable for CBQoS channels."
"Scalability is the reason we bought the product to begin with. It was designed from the ground up for carrier-grade services, and we are in effect a MSP ourselves. So we were really interested in looking at something to be able to handle the multi-tenancy and scale as large as possible. This was the only solution that we really considered at that level."
"Topology creation is the most valuable feature."
"A good enterprise-level solution."
"Real time network monitoring application: It is very stable, which provides quick root cause analysis (RCA) for any network faults."
"If you install one node on Network Node Manager and want to scale it up, it's pretty easy to create more nodes."
"You can utilize the main file from various vendors for integration."
"It gives us a good overview of what's happening in our networks and the devices in the networks."
"The platform has good stability."
"Our monitoring and network teams of less than 100 people use this solution. The availability and fault monitoring are good."
"This solution's implementation process could be quicker. They could also optimize the hardware requirements."
"The quantity of views which are tied to specific metric families is too high. Also, the problem is the view doesn't tell you which metric family it uses, so you don't know why you don't see data."
"I would like to have more tasks, graphs, and possibilities for linking to the graphs and reports added to the solution."
"For CA PM, there should be a way of easily migrating the reports coming from eHealth going to CA Performance Center, since CA PC is replacing eHealth."
"It seems like we escalate more than I would like to. If anything, they should look at how the tier support goes in place."
"Some of the individual report views, the way some of the columns sort, there's room for improvement in giving us more flexibility in being able to sort reports based, for example, on what columns the metrics fall under."
"I think it would be helpful having a more comprehensive set of certifications so that I could natively deploy devices to my environment and the tool would immediately recognize and immediately be able to provide relevant performance information without a lot of tuning on my part."
"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."
"Only to improve the GUI."
"The solution should integrate with NAC servers."
"They should add AI options in the product's next release."
"Reporting. Even though this is available in separate software (iSPI) there is potential in making the reporting more SLA-aware and more intuitive."
"When I open a ticket, usually they respond very late. Some of the people I negotiate with seem undertrained."
"The deployment architecture and installation part needs improvement."
"The dashboards are not customizable and it's not user-friendly."
"Micro Focus Network Node Manager is not powered to drill down for traffic visibility."
More OpenText Network Node Manager i Pricing and Cost Advice →
DX Performance Management is ranked 2nd in DX NetOps with 31 reviews while OpenText Network Node Manager i is ranked 9th in Network Management Applications with 23 reviews. DX Performance Management is rated 8.2, while OpenText Network Node Manager i is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of DX Performance Management writes "The vertical database loads faster than any other product available". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Network Node Manager i writes "Easy-to-implement product with a valuable map topology feature". DX Performance Management is most compared with DX Spectrum, OmniPeek and Zabbix, whereas OpenText Network Node Manager i is most compared with SolarWinds Network Configuration Manager, Cisco DNA Center, Fortinet FortiManager, DX Spectrum and IBM Tivoli NetCool. See our DX Performance Management vs. OpenText Network Node Manager i report.
We monitor all DX NetOps 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.