We performed a comparison between Devo and DX NetOps based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two AIOps solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The user interface is really modern. As an end-user, there are a lot of possibilities to tailor the platform to your needs, and that can be done without needing much support from Devo. It's really flexible and modular. The UI is very clean."
"The most powerful feature is the way the data is stored and extracted. The data is always stored in its original format and you can normalize the data after it has been stored."
"The most useful feature for us, because of some of the issues we had previously, was the simplicity of log integrations. It's much easier with this platform to integrate log sources that might not have standard logging and things like that."
"Being able to build and modify dashboards on the fly with Activeboards streamlines my analyst time because my analysts aren't doing it across spreadsheets or five different tools to try to build a timeline out themselves. They can just ingest it all, build a timeline out across all the logging, and all the different information sources in one dashboard. So, it's a huge time saver. It also has the accuracy of being able to look at all those data sources in one view. The log analysis, which would take 40 hours, we can probably get through it in about five to eight hours using Devo."
"Devo has a really good website for creating custom configurations."
"The thing that Devo does better than other solutions is to give me the ability to write queries that look at multiple data sources and run fast. Most SIEMs don't do that. And I can do that by creating entity-based queries. Let's say I have a table which has Okta, a table which has G Suite, a table which has endpoint telemetry, and I have a table which has DNS telemetry. I can write a query that says, 'Join all these things together on IP, and where the IP matches in all these tables, return to me that subset of data, within these time windows.' I can break it down that way."
"The most valuable feature is definitely the ability that Devo has to ingest data. From the previous SIEM that I came from and helped my company administer, it really was the type of system where data was parsed on ingest. This meant that if you didn't build the parser efficiently or correctly, sometimes that would bring the system to its knees. You'd have a backlog of processing the logs as it was ingesting them."
"The querying and the log-retention capabilities are pretty powerful. Those provide some of the biggest value-add for us."
"It's good for root cause analysis for network problems and network link problems."
"The AI is the best feature in this solution."
"It is straightforward to configure, and you can quickly gather data from your infrastructure."
"I like that it provides an overall view of our network. From the topology view to every event, we can view it. We can also see the interface utilization for future capacity planning. It fits our use case and environment."
"The solution is stable."
"My opinion on the solution's technical support is not as great as it could be because of the issues I have faced regarding the service management element."
"Some of the documentation could be improved a little bit. A lot of times it doesn't go as deep into some of the critical issues you might run into. They've been really good to shore us up with support, but some of the documentation could be a little bit better."
"Where Devo has room for improvement is the data ingestion and parsing. We tend to have to work with the Devo support team to bring on and ingest new sources of data."
"I would like to have the ability to create more complex dashboards."
"There are some issues from an availability and functionality standpoint, meaning the tool is somewhat slow. There were some slow response periods over the past six to nine months, though it has yet to impact us terribly as we are a relatively small shop. We've noticed it, however, so Devo could improve the responsiveness."
"The Activeboards feature is not as mature regarding the look and feel. Its functionality is mature, but the look and feel is not there. For example, if you have some data sets and are trying to get some graphics, you cannot change anything. There's just one format for the graphics. You cannot change the size of the font, the font itself, etc."
"Technical support could be better."
"We only use the core functionality and one of the reasons for this is that their security operation center needs improvement."
"One improvement that could make the product better is to streamline its modules into a more cohesive solution."
"Technical support needs to be better. They need to be more knowledgeable and responsive."
"It would be better if they had an NFA network analysis feature. We appreciate features like extended network security for bucket flows, but it would be better to have some IDs, IPS functionalities, DDoS, or something like that."
"Lacks dashboards and better integration with other solutions."
"Technical support could be more responsive."
Devo is ranked 10th in AIOps with 21 reviews while DX NetOps is ranked 11th in AIOps with 5 reviews. Devo is rated 8.4, while DX NetOps is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Devo writes "Keeps 400 days of hot data, covers our cloud products, and has a high ingestion rate and super easy log integrations". On the other hand, the top reviewer of DX NetOps writes "Good performance, simple setup, and helpful for root cause analysis". Devo is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, IBM Security QRadar, Wazuh and LogRhythm SIEM, whereas DX NetOps is most compared with DX Spectrum, SolarWinds NPM, AppNeta by Broadcom, PRTG Network Monitor and IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM). See our DX NetOps vs. Devo report.
See our list of best AIOps vendors.
We monitor all AIOps 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.
