We performed a comparison between DX Unified Infrastructure Management and Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence) 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."It is reliable when it comes to monitoring."
"Having all of our information within one tool set; our alerts, our monitors, and the things that our operations team needs to function."
"It is the foundation for our monitoring solution."
"It gives an alarm when there's something going on, not just when there's an expected spike that happens every night on a server."
"I definitely appreciate the flexibility and ease of use. We've been using UIM for almost three years now. It's pretty much point and click, very easy to use. And we've had no problems scaling it to our own environment."
"You can integrate clouds, hybrid infrastructure, and on-premise infrastructure into one product."
"Another division handed us the opportunity to monitor their solutions as written, and UIM was very useful for that."
"MultiWAN and Balance service"
"The modeling required to setup ITSI has been very helpful in providing us a better understanding and a logical view of our services. The modeling is flexible and can be as granular or high level as our needs dictate."
"We save substantial time on monitoring tasks because we don't have to search for what we need. Everything is packed, so you can drill down to the end values by just doing the kit. We don't spend a lot of time on this. Splunk ITSI is easy to use and not time-consuming."
"ITSI provides a visual representation of complex tools and context, using color coding and other features to make it easy for anyone at the monitoring or service desk to use."
"In my opinion, Splunk IT Service Intelligence (ITSI) is better than QRadar. With the help of Splunk, we can get results."
"The observability is great and valuable."
"The most valuable aspect lies in its utilization of predictive analytics to anticipate and prevent incidents within a window of twenty to thirty minutes."
"The solution has been stable."
"I find the episode review, glass tables, and correlation search features very useful."
"Within this product there are individual probes, and each of these probes doesn't always necessarily output the same kind of information into our database. So when we try to collect what's called QoS data, from one probe we might get a ton of information, lots of good stuff that we can use in our database, but then from another probe, we might not get so much or we might not be able to pull the things that we want to."
"We had to do some work to make what was more of a business class solution work at an enterprise level."
"In the UMP, certain devices will show up multiple times and they don't correlate correctly. That's one of the issues."
"It is a little complex to use versus other softwares."
"We have experienced challenges with finding a mechanism to deploy the agents, but it's only on the first deployment so it's not a big issue."
"Making a GUI with criteria such as selection by robot/hub/probe etc."
"There should be wider coverage of storage infrastructure."
"The only challenge that I have with this solution is the reporting part. The users are not really comfortable with the kind of reports they are getting. Sometimes, they want to see reports in their own format. Customizing those reports with Jasper is not very easy. It could be because of the knowledge gap. If you have the knowledge of how Jasper can be configured to suit customer requirements in terms of reporting, it is good. There was a time a customer complained about one issue related to Netflow analysis. Broadcom has a separate model for that, but the customer wanted everything bundled together. It could also have IP management so that I am able to see or analyze IPs so that the IPs that are already in use don't get assigned."
"It is pretty okay. I am not sure whether the current release has already moved to the new framework where instead of the glass tables, we can directly use the Dashboard Studio. It would be nice to have that integrated into the same framework."
"The data recovery has room for improvement."
"The solution should integrate more features in NEAP."
"The problem becomes the price, as Splunk is an expensive product."
"The dashboard queries should be improved. More queries should be suggested in order to produce better dashboards."
"Splunk ITSI consumes a lot of CPU resources."
"ITSI could benefit from a security model that would allow operations team members to get involved in model building, KPI implementation, and model maintenance, while maintaining appropriate segregation of duties."
"Splunk ITSI lacks out-of-the-box solutions for enterprise users."
More DX Unified Infrastructure Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence) Pricing and Cost Advice →
DX Unified Infrastructure Management is ranked 29th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 120 reviews while Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence) is ranked 5th in IT Alerting and Incident Management with 28 reviews. DX Unified Infrastructure Management is rated 8.2, while Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence) is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of DX Unified Infrastructure Management writes "Easy to set up, simple to use, and offers great technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence) writes "Provides great end-to-end visibility into our network environment and helped us reduce alert noise". DX Unified Infrastructure Management is most compared with DX SaaS, DX Spectrum, SCOM, ManageEngine OpManager and SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor, whereas Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence) is most compared with ServiceNow IT Operations Management, Grafana, Dynatrace, Splunk APM and BMC TrueSight Operations Management. See our DX Unified Infrastructure Management vs. Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence) 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.
