We performed a comparison between IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) and Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring 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."One of the most valuable features is the graphs, which you can build instantly. I have used some open-source platforms in the past, but they are not as good. With SevOne, the sampling in the graph can be every few seconds, not just every few minutes, and that's really helpful. It's really fast."
"The modules and the performance management reports that come with data insights are two of the most valuable features. I also find the reports for Wi-Fi, Netflow, LAN, and WAN for monitoring to be very good."
"The most valuable feature as of late has been the API integration with ServiceNow."
"SevOne’s data collection functionality is very good. From a collection point of view, we pull SNMP data, which is simple. It is easy to manipulate the pull in the estate. It is really simple compared to some of the other products that we have used. However, for deferred data, i.e., things that we import or don't pull directly, we tend to have a preplanned integration. So, its Universal Collector is really useful."
"Scalability. I have never had to worry about how to handle really big environments."
"Another useful feature is that SevOne gives you real-time insights into your network performance. It polls every five minutes. That is important for our customers because there are some network teams that are always monitoring their networks."
"Its ability to monitor practically any type of network device via SNMP is most valuable. This is the main functionality that we're using. If a network device exposes a metric, such as interface utilization, SevOne will monitor it for us."
"We've had great feedback from our customers about SevOne support. They're willing to set up a remote session upon request. You have to go through three tiers of support with most vendors, and they ask a lot of screening questions before they will do a remote session. You need to spend a lot of time before an engineer will host a remote session to look at your problematic system."
"The feature I find most valuable, is the data integration."
"The tool is efficient in collecting, monitoring and evaluating logs."
"The data collection from our VMs, containers, databases, and backend components is valuable."
"Great monitoring of network devices."
"We haven't really experienced any glitches or bugs."
"The alerts are the most valuable feature."
"It's a very easy-to-use solution."
"The solution's basic visibility is one of its most valuable features. So, it is a solution that is easy to use...The solution's initial setup process was straightforward."
"When I started using it, I tried adding one of the BroadWorks application servers into SevOne... it created thousands and thousands of objects from that one application server and we immediately ran out of license... It would help, when new objects are discovered, if there were a way to categorize those objects and to pick the part of the object you need..."
"Software upgrades can be tricky is not easy."
"High-frequency polling is data-intensive because you're pulling more. If SevOne could figure out a way to manage the impact of high-frequency polling on the system, that would be very popular."
"The user management features need to be improved. It would be nice if we had more granular control, or layers of control, out of the box."
"We previously have had discussions on some reporting enhancements. So, we raised a feature request, which was delivered from SevOne."
"The tool needs improvement in non-Cisco SD-WAN."
"Some similar solutions offer end-to-end visibility."
"The reporting of NMS is good, but it could be better."
"Splunk would be better if some tools were integrated to be able to take action on security or network concerns."
"The clustering part of indexes can be more refined."
"In the next release, I would like to see more integration with other solutions."
"I would like to see an improvement and some innovation in the customer interface."
"The deployment can be quite complex."
"They need more EDR functionalities."
"They do not have all the features that I expect right now."
"The cost needs to be re-examined. It's extremely expensive to run. It's also expensive to expand. That's the number one complaint all of my customers have when it comes to Splunk. It's way too expensive compared to other solutions."
More IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) is ranked 34th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 52 reviews while Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring is ranked 14th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 23 reviews. IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) is rated 8.6, while Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) writes "We can get a new vendor certified and monitored in our system significantly faster than before". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring writes "Helps to ingest a massive amount of raw data and use it effectively". IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) is most compared with Instana Infrastructure Monitoring, LogicMonitor, SolarWinds NPM, Splunk Enterprise Security and NETSCOUT nGeniusONE, whereas Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring is most compared with ServiceNow IT Operations Management, Nagios XI, Cisco Intersight, ITRS Geneos and ControlUp. See our IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM) vs. Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring report.
See our list of best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors and best Cloud Monitoring Software 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.