We performed a comparison between Cisco UCS Manager and LiveAction LiveNX 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."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."
"The flexibility and the ease in which the features can be expanded are the solution's most valuable aspects."
"The solution is highly scalable, mainly because of the templates that make it easy for you to actually edit on the system."
"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 hardware is very powerful and it is a stable solution."
"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."
"From a usability and functionality perspective, Cisco UCS Manager is very good."
"All in all, LiveAction LiveNX has become an indispensable tool for maintaining and improving our network's reliability and performance, ultimately supporting our organization's goal of providing timely and dependable delivery services."
"One of the valuable features is the ability to create CLI scripts on the fly to fix any issues. We were using it for QoS modeling to ensure that we were properly modeling QoS, and it basically said here is what you need to fix to get this QoS done, whether it is ACL or something else. It would either push or recommend. If you have the right credentials, you could also push. It is very good if you are a Cisco shop. It gives you reporting, latency, and bandwidth utilization for your applications, so you can do good capacity management planning. There are a lot of pieces that LiveNX can give you. It is a total NPM solution for SD-WAN."
"The product has a very good graphical interface."
"We don't have any complaints about the software. According to my team, it's a very good tool that's very intuitive."
"The intention and the idea of the filter is great."
"The alerting feature is very good because it allows you to set MOS alerts at various network junctures or data points."
"Its analytical capability is really good."
"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 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."
"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."
"Its user interface can be improved. It can be more user-friendly."
"The solution's pricing is high and could be reduced."
"Cisco UCS Manager is not a scalable solution because once you have 160 blades, it cannot be expanded more."
"There is room for improvement in the software part of Cisco UCS Manager. It should be more user-friendly, especially when creating policies."
"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."
"Improved documentation and more responsive customer support can help in addressing issues faster."
"Sometimes the solution does not register devices properly and that is a bug."
"The tool crashes sometimes when we try to pull reports simultaneously."
"They need to create a more simplified UI."
"The only downside to this software is the price."
"This is a horrible solution and I think everything needs to be improved."
"It is not as robust as other NPM solutions. For instance, there is a problem while labeling specific applications. It works well with well-known applications, but when you have to put in new applications that are not very known and set them up with names, ports, URLs, or some protocols, it is not as intuitive."
Cisco UCS Manager is ranked 30th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 21 reviews while LiveAction LiveNX is ranked 53rd in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 7 reviews. Cisco UCS Manager is rated 8.0, while LiveAction LiveNX is rated 6.8. 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 LiveAction LiveNX writes "Greta visual analytics and real-time monitoring but requires better documentation". Cisco UCS Manager is most compared with Cisco Intersight, Nutanix Prism, HPE OneView, Zabbix and Datadog, whereas LiveAction LiveNX is most compared with ThousandEyes, SolarWinds NPM, Cisco Secure Network Analytics, OmniPeek and NETSCOUT nGeniusONE. See our Cisco UCS Manager vs. LiveAction LiveNX report.
See our list of best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors.
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.