We used CA's eHealth but it wasn't very flexible. If you wanted a device certified, you had to wait for the next software release to get that certification. The vendor also wasn't very receptive to changes. It was hard to get them to adopt.

We did use a previous solution, which was called Intel. We changed for several reasons, and some of them were internal political changes. We were sort of acquired by an organization that has quite a big European presence, who was using SevOne. It was their will and drive to replace Intel with SevOne, probably for the cost of ownership. It was sort of forced on the UK base. It was just an extension of the existing European strategic platform.

It is easy to use when compared to the incumbent system that we replaced. From an administration and monitoring point of view as well as operational system support, it is just much easier to deal with. Our customers can generate reports quickly and get the same results that they used to get from the systems that this solution replaced. 

Our old NPM system was awful to change. It was very slow to create reports. Whereas, this solution is easy to change and very quick to make reports. Should we need to monitor a certain metric that we don't currently have, this solution is very quick to get that into the database, where the previous solution was slow.

We use the trends and thresholds when service may be impacted. However, before we had SevOne, we did that anyway. We just replicated the process.

We have been able to quickly edit the out-of-the-box reports relative to our previous tools, which were awful. So, it isn't extremely fast with an immediate-to-use process when going through a change, but it is doable, understandable, and quick compared to what we had. However, we don't use Data Insight, which seems to be a far better, slicker way of doing this sort of thing.

Prior to SevOne, we used CA eHealth. SevOne provides better visuals with more variety and better detail, and it gives us more control over what we can see. Overall, our new system is easier to use, easier to configure, and the visuals are nicer.

We switched to SevOne because eHealth reached end-of-life.

It is difficult for me to compare between tools because I did not begin working with SevOne until 2020, so I do not know much about the old tool. 

We previously used several other solutions. We used an IBM product and we also have smaller solutions still around the company, but they'll ultimately be replaced with SevOne.

We switched to SevOne because the other platforms were too expensive and weren't performing. It was largely a cost-out opportunity for us and a chance to also deliver a better functioning package up and network performance management tool to our business.

We did not have a similar solution in place prior to SevOne, although we did have some imperfect spotty solutions that covered certain portions of our network. What we had was nothing that was comprehensive like this. We had lots of fault management software, as well as Cisco Prime for Wi-Fi performance, and other such products. In terms of having one end-to-end performance tool, we didn't have it, and I think that's what really opened our eyes.

Fault management and performance management are different and what we did have was profoundly manual. As a result, a lot of stuff got missed.

Prior to SevOne, we used another product. There were challenges with the cost and the growth of the network. Our existing solution couldn't cope, which is why we switched.

In the past I have used CA NSM, HP OpenView, Concord, Spectrum, What’s up Gold, Solarwinds, BMC products, to name a few. While some competitors have a feature here or there that might be better on the whole, this is the best solution for us on the market for the dollar with the simplest ramp up and ease of administration.

We previously used HP OpenView. That was my thing. I liked it because of the maps, you could have all kinds of cartoons and stuff in the background. That was fun for the graphic artist people. SevOne just blew HP OpenView out of the water.

We had four servers and around 10,000 devices out there and we just couldn't handle it, it was just too much for HP OpenView. HP OpenView stagnated because I used it for about 15 years, and the last five years it looked like it was dying on the vine, with the support and stuff. They changed systems and our people in charge of budgeting and projects, decided not to go the route that HP suggested and went the SevOne route, which I'm glad they did.

The predecessor was not up to the race! Over the years of it use, it failed to meet the expectance organically. Hence the need to look for a product with better returns in many aspects.

I think they used HP OpenView. I have no idea about the reasons for switching.

Prior to using SevOne, we were using an internal homegrown solution.

After we got done building it, it largely sat idle until we started onboarding customers. As customers grew, a need for a focused operations group, tooling, processes, and procedures arose. That's where SevOne came in. We needed a legit platform to monitor the backbone rather than use existing processes and procedures that just didn't work or didn't apply.

Essentially, with the growth of the backbone and the responsibility of it, we realized that we needed an enterprise-grade solution.

We were using Cacti and Zabbix (both open source solutions). We decided to switch mainly because there were some business expectations to have a platform that would prepare reports we can show to business customers.

On the other hand, we would like to have a tool ready to prepare reports on demand and by the non-technical staff.

We are using another tool called EMC Smarts, but it is more for event monitoring. So, there isn't any drawing of dashboards. It is more only thresholds for SNMP Traps that can be received. Based on that, it distributes tickets. So, we cannot see the history nor draw the status of a link. 

A long time ago, I used Nagios, which is kind of the precursor to monitoring. However, I cannot compare it to SevOne because I used it about 10 years ago. 

Tivoli – we're still using it as a backup, but all of our RCA and SLA reporting are coming from SevOne.

We chose it because it has a fast working reporting engine and because of the scalability of the solution.

I previously used BMC BPPM (ProactiveNet). SevOne was already being used by the network group. Price was a major player in the decision to switch.

In my previous job, we used ManageEngine. In this new job, we have always used SevOne.

We had an aging infrastructure and we were looking for alternatives. Other products required DBA's, administrators, and developers. However, SevOne packaged everything together in a simple enough manner so that I could maintain a workforce and which was capable of operating the system without building and maintaining the entire infrastructure.

We used a solution called MRTG that has limits in its history. It was limited, and did not have many features such as sending of traps and capabilities such as speed. It lacks good management teams, and we would find it very difficult to manage them with the previous solution we had.

We previously used HP OVPI and we switched because the granularity of data, faster response time, quicker display, the tool was cheaper as well, and required less manual intervention.

I didn’t do the switch, the company had the product when I arrived.

I previously used a different solution, but the report rendering was extremely slow.

We used EHealth (a former CA product). Because of the upgrades and device certifications, we had to switch.

Tivoli ITNM for availability monitoring - Too complicated/over engineered and too much of a support overhead to justify remaining with it.

Tivoli NetView for capacity monitoring - An out-of-support legacy tool which had limitations for what our company wanted to do with respect to reporting.

We were using EHealth (CA) and NetQOS, but we left those products for greater scalability and speed, as well as being able to consolidate those two products into one.

I previously used CA and HP solutions. The main reason for switching was the latency in data collection and presentation. Also, the level of customisation required to change the reports resulted in a high capex cost to organization, each time the customer requested any change.

Previously we had two other CA tools. But we wanted to do everything, like automation and all types of URL monitoring, in one tool. So that's why we considered implementing this tool in our environment. Only later did we come to realize that not everything is possible through SevOne.

SevOne has much faster performance than our previous solution.

Not applicable.

The previous product did not meet all the company requirements.

SolarWinds, because we tried for a new and cheaper solution.