We performed a comparison between Opsview and Pico Corvil Analytics based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Zabbix, Datadog, Auvik and others in Network Monitoring Software."We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"What was very compelling about OpsView was that we could dial out the noise and have meaningful and actionable alerts."
"I am satisfied with the overall product since it works well…It is a stable solution."
"We use this solution for internal monitoring our own cloud platform because we are a public cloud provider. We also use it for monitoring purposes on behalf of our clients."
"The most valuable feature of Opsview is the ability to clone the services when you're monitoring something out of the test setup."
"It's a good solution. It covers all aspects of monitoring purposes."
"It has all the decoders so it's capturing every network packet and it's decoding in real-time and it's giving us latency information in real-time... It's the real-time decoding and getting the latency information statistics that we find the most useful."
"As part of my role in monitoring multiple client connections, I would use Pico Corvil Analytics to set up alerts for performance issues, such as TCP resends and dropped packets. These alerts would trigger when the volume was low and performance was poor, allowing me to work with our trading partners to find a resolution. I would present them with the statistics I had and together, we would identify the source of the issue. This collaboration resulted in the client often reconfiguring their systems. For example, we may find that a network connection needed to be made. Overall, this proactive approach helped to maintain strong connections with our clients and minimize disruptions to trading revenue."
"We can use CLI with the UI for configuring the new monitoring system, which is good."
"We use the data to analyze how much time we spend within the applications. Then, based on that, we are doing multiple analyses and types of investigations to work on reducing the amount of time spent on the latency, which helps our applications."
"The analytics features of Corvil are really good... As long as you know what the field is in the message, you can build your metrics based on that field... It means you can do the analytics that you actually care for. You can customize it..."
"The performance metrics are pretty good. We've got everything from the network layer to the actual application layer. We can see what's going on with things like sending time and batching."
"It allows us to trace the flow. The logic is built sufficiently for us to be able to break down clients' orders, underlying child orders, and execution. Thus, it's a good way for us to trace client flow through a myriad of different internal systems."
"With the Corvil Stored Data Analyzer module, we can use it for test data or a set of production data to set up the configuration for latency setup, so we can use the fields to correlate messages."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"In a future release, we would like to have Observ for AI. Any AI and intelligence it can add to the monitoring is obviously beneficial. We would also like to have automated callouts."
"Customized reporting can be improved."
"Pricing and a few certain aspects in the solution needs to be improved."
"Maybe the graphical representation can be improved. It can be enhanced for better visualization. It could be a little better. And the graph center can be improved."
"Some of the graphics on Opsview could be improved."
"Alerting isn't great... you can only put in one email address in. And that's for all kinds of alerting on the box."
"I have seen errors where the CNE and the CMC haven't synced because of something missing in the CMC, which was there in the CNE. We would get some type of error, but it doesn't actually say what exactly was missing in the CNE."
"The creation of charts and real-time windows was somewhat cumbersome. The vendor's website had an application called App Agent that required improvement. This API was designed to track message rates between microservers ingested into a microservice memory map. It allowed users to monitor the number of transactions that occurred at specific points within the application, and it was quite impressive. However, it had some limitations, and it mainly served as a tool for basic tracking. The protocols it employed could reveal the type of server-to-server communication and the specific order types, but it was not able to provide a more in-depth analysis of the application. The vendor has the potential to integrate application metrics more extensively into their product suite."
"Before I got the Corvil training... one thing that was not very efficient was that every time you had to create a new stream or a new session from within Corvil... you had to tell it what protocol the message is going to come through and how to correlate messages, etc... After I went for the training, they had already added these nice features in the 9.4 version where it could do auto-discovery... Based on the traffic that it has already seen, it could create sessions on the fly."
"There is definitely room for improvement in the reporting. We've tried to use the reporting in Corvil but, to me, it feels like a bolt-on, like not a lot of thought has gone into it. The whole interface where you build reports and schedule them is very clunky."
"It's quite difficult to see, sometimes, how hard your Corvil is working. When we had a very busy feed that chucked out a lot of data it wasn't working very well on Corvil. We had to raise a case for it. It turned out to be that, in fact, we were overloading Corvil."
"For FIX protocol, maybe we could have built-in configurations for signatures and decoders. Also, for certain protocols, which are newer, we would like to just add the signatures within the decoders itself."
"Overall, the Corvil device needs a little bit of training for people to handle it. If that could be reduced and made more user-friendly, more intuitive, it would be better."
Opsview is ranked 32nd in Network Monitoring Software with 24 reviews while Pico Corvil Analytics is ranked 51st in Network Monitoring Software with 9 reviews. Opsview is rated 8.6, while Pico Corvil Analytics is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Opsview writes "Responsive and easy to customize alerts for, while being priced similarly to its competition". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pico Corvil Analytics writes "Helpful support agents, beneficial issue detection, and high availability". Opsview is most compared with OP5 Monitor, Zabbix, Nagios XI, Instana Infrastructure Monitoring and SCOM, whereas Pico Corvil Analytics is most compared with NETSCOUT nGeniusONE, Gigamon Deep Observability Pipeline, ITRS Geneos and ThousandEyes.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors.
We monitor all Network Monitoring Software 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.
