What advice do you have for others considering Auvik?

I would rate Auvik 9 out of 10. Auvik has the potential to reduce the time spent on setup, maintenance, and troubleshooting. While we didn't fully utilize it for that purpose, it could have offered some benefits. However, we ultimately decided to discontinue using Auvik because it lacked features available in our other tools, creating some redundancy. No maintenance was required on our end. Auvik offers a demo program. You simply load and install the provided VM template. I can't recall the exact length of the demo period, but I highly recommend trying it out.

I find the Auvik user interface easy to use overall. However, one drawback is that once the network topology map is generated, it is a static view and you can't remove or rearrange devices. This makes it a bit cumbersome to navigate, especially for networks with multiple devices. Exporting the map as a PDF also maintains this static view, which isn't ideal. To work around this, we export the data to Excel and use other tools like draw.io or Visio to redesign the topology for better understanding. I use Auvik's dashboards, and they generally provide a real-time picture of our network, which is quite accurate. However, there can be some false positives, especially with older devices. The dashboards help understand overall network health. Auvik offers free monitoring for all devices except routers and firewalls. This includes devices like network-attached devices, PCs, and printers, making it cost-effective for monitoring a wide range of assets. Additionally, Auvik provides monitoring alerts for device issues, such as low printer paper, adding value beyond just network monitoring. Overall, I would rate Auvik as a ten out of ten.

I recommend others have a clearer vision of their goals and assess how well it aligns with their intentions before opting for it. I've spent some time exploring the reporting features, and it falls short of providing all the necessary reports and alerts. Additionally, there are numerous configurations spread across various places, which can be challenging to manage. Overall, I would rate it five out of ten.

As a product, it is robust, and it's easy to generate comprehensive information. The key learning curve involves understanding how to refine and customize the data it provides, essentially eliminating unnecessary static. For me, the primary task was configuring it to align with my environment and specific use case, tailoring the information to my needs. The ongoing training they offer, with the flexibility to attend sessions at any time, is invaluable. Overall, I would rate it ten out of ten.

I rate Auvik eight out of 10.

We're customers and end-users. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

If you are a managed service provider, it is one of the best tools, and I believe it is worth the investment for senior engineers to do critical troubleshooting. It will take an application champion to make sure that it is configured properly, but it is very powerful for those who deal in the managed service provider workspace. Auvik has not empowered our entry-level technicians to solve more tickets on their own because we do not allow our entry-level technicians access to Auvik. It took me some time to learn the product and know exactly how it worked and how it was deployed. After I learned some of the nuances that were inside of Auvik, I was able to see remotes and things like that. It did take a few months of training to really understand it. A lot of it was self-paced. There was no sponsored training, so I had to learn on my own. I would rate Auvik a solid seven out of ten.

I would rate Auvik a nine out of ten. Maintenance on Auvik is only performed when we are aware of downtime. The only reason I have ever needed to perform maintenance on Auvik is to unmanage devices that are looping alerts. While troubleshooting, I may occasionally need to make changes to Auvik, but there are very few day-to-day tasks required. Once configured, Auvik requires minimal maintenance. For anyone evaluating Auvik, my advice is this: understand that while this tool won't fix problems on its own, it will help you diagnose and solve issues more efficiently and logically. It provides a visual representation of your network that you wouldn't normally see unless you were physically present in the server room. But with Auvik, you have this vital visibility from anywhere you have a computer. That's a major benefit in itself. Additionally, Auvik is very quick to set up and easy to deploy. You can be up and running in as little as a week, which is a significant advantage over other network monitoring solutions.

I would rate Auvik a nine out of ten. Minimal maintenance is required to keep the collector devices up to date. Before implementing Auvik, organizations should confirm that all devices they intend to monitor are compatible with Auvik's capabilities. This is particularly important for web-based devices, as Auvik may have limitations in monitoring such systems.

I would rate Auvik seven out of ten. Auvik may require minor maintenance after adding or correcting connections, as some of these changes may not be displayed correctly. Ensure the SNMP configuration is accurate, as Auvik relies heavily on it for network monitoring and management. Additionally, use managed switches instead of unmanaged switches to avoid potential network disruptions and complications.

Shadow IT monitoring and SaaS license management used to be uncommon thing. In just a few years, it's become table stakes. Any company not doing this is missing an important part of what IT needs to perform to secure the enterprise and manage costs. This solution provides an easy-to-use and affordable way to do this. I recommend it very highly.

My advice would be dependent on how many sites you are monitoring and what you are intending on monitoring. For network equipment, Auvik is very good. For hardware and software, such as Linux, Windows, ESXi, and other similar things, it is very poor in those regards. That would be the major thing. If you are intending on having one tool to rule them all, I would probably steer you toward that limitation because it is quite limited in the endpoint monitoring and server monitoring, but it very well exceeds in network monitoring. In terms of providing a single integrated platform, the API access to it is good. It does provide that, but the actual OS and software side of things that are not network devices is a little bit lacking. Overall, I would rate Auvik a 7 out of 10.

If you are comparing network monitoring solutions but are concerned about pricing, my advice would be to look at the big picture. You may spend less money on a solution, but you're going to spend more time configuring it and keeping it running properly. You may have to manually do some tasks that aren't featured on the cheaper version of the system. Overall, you'll probably end up spending the same amount of money with labor savings. Auvik is straightforward. I recommend looking at the time it's going to save you, and take that into consideration when purchasing it or looking at the price. Overall, Auvik does more than a lot of solutions, so it's definitely a good time saver. I would definitely recommend it and rate it at nine on a scale from one to ten.

I give the solution a ten out of ten. We generally prefer to install the Auvik collector on-premises onto a server and run it in the Linux configuration. We do this more so than using the cloud, likely for performance reasons. I recommend Auvik. It is a great tool for managed service providers because it works with any hardware vendor and allows them to scale their networking practice greatly.

I give the solution a nine out of ten. Auvik is deployed across multiple locations. We're an MSP, and we have multiple clients, each with separate networks. We installed an Auvik agent for each of those clients. Before using Auvik we must have all the credentials in our hands. It makes the deployment easier.

I rate Auvik 10 out of 10.

I rate Auvik nine out of 10. I deduct a point for the mapping and reporting. I like everything else that Auvik does. The only aspect I don't like 100% is the mapping. Also, they have canned reports instead of a built-in report builder. You have to extract the data in Power BI or some other way. They have great pieces, but I can't customize them and create my own within their system.

I rate Auvik nine out of 10. To implement Auvik, you must understand what you're trying to monitor. If you don't know where you're trying to go, it's much harder to pave the road. You must understand how to allow that monitoring within your infrastructure before trying to get it. We ran into a problem when we were deploying the collector and were only getting limited amounts of data because particular ports are closed on the firewall. We weren't getting alerts within Auvik saying something wasn't happening because it was blocked. It just wasn't working, so we had to figure out the hard way to create rules in our firewalls to allow the collector to get its data.

I rate Auvik nine out of 10. If you plan to use old devices, verify that SNMP is an option. We had a lot of issues with a device that was 25 years old.

I rate Auvik eight out of 10 overall. It's low maintenance, provides prompt alerts, and requires less expertise. Everything you need to set Auvik up is in the documentation, including guides for configuring network switches and routers. Auvik integrates well with various vendors, including Microsoft, Cisco, etc. It's well-documented. Go with Auvik if you want fewer headaches.

I give Auvik a solid seven out of 10. I might rate it eight if the Ubiquiti issue wasn't always bugging me. It tells me Ubiquiti devices are down when they're not. I recommend giving it a try. If you are trying to track multiple sites and multiple clients, it's worth a look.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. Auvik's cloud-based solution is easier to use compared to the on-premises network monitoring solutions. We don't have to maintain anything, which is nice. My advice is to deploy Auvik wherever you can to get as much data as possible.

I rate Auvik nine out of 10. It's a tool that's accessible to techies and businesspeople alike. It grabs the information out of the network, visualizes it, and keeps the history of everything that goes on, which is beneficial for real-time and forensic monitoring.

I would advise giving it the time it deserves to set it up correctly. Make sure that you are not preoccupied with other things. It doesn't take a lot of time, but just make sure that you aren't doing other things, and then you'll get it right the first time. It's pretty straightforward. It takes a little bit of concentration. It's not something you could just set up in a rush. You would need to make sure that you're doing everything properly and giving it the attention it deserves, which sometimes I struggle to do because I multitask quite a bit. It hasn't yet helped reduce repetitive, low-priority tasks through automation, but I can see it being able to do that. Similarly, its automation hasn't yet had an effect on our IT team's availability. Comparing Auvik’s cloud-based solution versus on-prem network monitoring solutions, I personally don't see any downside to it being in the cloud as opposed to being on-prem. It has security for logging in, and it's normally always available. It's easy to spin up collectors that will talk out to the cloud. You still have a small on-prem application, but the whole infrastructure, the system, and the database are all living in the cloud, which really helps. Personally, I find it brilliant. It's great having a cloud-based solution that is powerful, like this one. I would rate it an eight out of ten.

I rate Auvik nine out of ten. The solution does not provide a single integrated platform simply because we use many different platforms. Auvik is outstanding because it provides the most information and has the most capable feature set. Still, we have many requirements within our business that Auvik alone cannot cater to. The cloud is the future when comparing Auvik's cloud-based solution versus on-prem network monitoring solutions. On-prem can be nice, as it can be a little faster, but we have to be in the cloud now. Having one place to go, one platform, is too valuable, and it's much better. I advise those evaluating the solution to play around and use it before implementing it. I recommend the platform.

I give the solution a nine out of ten. We still use multiple applications, but Auvik has taken over a lot more of them and has also taken over areas that we just did not have applications to manage before. There is a nice network flow and analytics information. What we found the most interesting is, if we onboard or offboard a team member, our ability to manage switch configs, check in on issues quickly, and do some Syslog searches, can all be done in one place, behind one login, one permission set making it a lot easier to manage tasks on a daily basis. I'm not sure how much of Auvik's automation capability we've really leveraged or how much the solution specifically has. We have some existing systems in place and we use Auvik more as a network monitoring and remote management tool. I don't believe the solution has fully supplanted some of our existing practices. We use Auvik as an additive layer that's super helpful in terms of incident response, client engagement, and making our lives easier. Auvik provides discovery capabilities based on Mac addresses that can help keep device inventories up to date. We don't use the solution for device discovery and I am not sure how accurate it is. I find the solution very helpful in terms of getting visibility into what the network is doing and what's on it. We selected Auvik based on a number of factors that made sense at the time including, their charge model which is based on network devices and COVID affecting our locations. We didn't go through a full vendor review process the same way that we usually would and looked for a number of competitors. We saw that Auvik was affordable and fulfilled a business need. To anyone that is comparing network monitor solutions, but is concerned about pricing, I would advise the amount of time we saved with the solution was worth the money spent. I am a big open-source proponent. I've contributed to open-source solutions and used a lot of them. Most of the time open-source solutions are some of the best solutions that we can have. In some cases, there is a clear deficiency versus a commercial solution. Sometimes it's worth paying for a service, a product X because it saves the company money or it meets a compliance or insurance requirement. Business reasons can overrule other reasons. One business reason could be that we need a network monitoring, management, and remote administration capability platform so our engineers spend less time traveling between data centers to complete tasks and debug logging systems. Engineers are fairly expensive employees at the end of the day, between health insurance, salary, and vacation time. The business would be more profitable if those engineers were more efficient at their job. Auvik can benefit the organization through the reduction of staff required by minimizing the time it takes to complete each task or allowing those engineers to spend time on more useful tasks. Auvik is a helpful product that assists a company that is trying to remotely manage sites across different areas with a team. The solution adds an orchestration layer to that. Auvik adds an application on a modern platform for the management of the devices that we're controlling and makes it less taxing and easier for us to benefit from that. Auvik's cloud-based solution is convenient compared to on-prem network monitoring solutions. We sometimes perform trivial maintenance on Auvik for user management in the portal. I recommend the solution to others. Auvik is a useful platform.

Most of what Auvik does is the high-level monitoring of what's going on, and then it does require the higher-level staff to see, when we have a problem, how we fix it. The lower-level staff couldn't figure that out. So it doesn't really help with delegating things to junior people. If Auvik wanted to map out VLANs specifically, that could be added, but it wouldn't change my opinion of whether the mapping is good or bad. The mapping is good and the VLAN handling is good. Everything else really just comes down to having someone who understands network engineering to really suss out all of the issues that Auvik sees. We did not see a reduction in mean time to resolution with Auvik. It is just one extra tool. We didn't have nearly the number of customers that we do now, back when we first started using Auvik, so we can't really point to a reduction. We've been using it for so long that we've brought on customers and put them in Auvik right away. However, when clients have networking issues, I'm sure it has reduced the amount of time it takes for us to figure out what the problem is. But for us, it's more the mean time to reconfiguration that has dropped drastically. For example, if we need to add another floor, expand a network, shrink a network, or add another site to it, instead of having to do a walkthrough of the network to see what's there, we hop into Auvik, spend five minutes looking at the map, and we're able to present a valid diagram to the customer of what needs to go where. The solution is not perfect, but I can't think of anything that would make it better for me or my company. Between its cost and what it covers, I would give it a 10 out of 10.

I rate Auvik a nine out of ten. The only difficult part about this solution is the installation because it's something new. Everything goes smoothly after the first step.

If you're considering it, just install the trial, and it'll sell itself. It's pretty easy once you get to know it. It's not that difficult. If you want to get into the advanced details, as with any software, it takes a little while to get used to all the advanced options, but in general, it's pretty easy to use. Its ease of use is important, but more important is that it works if something happens, which it does. I am not sure about the effect its automation has had on our IT team's availability. It's difficult to say how busy they would be with or without it, but I would think it would have had a positive impact. Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

It's not really replacing any tasks. Rather, it's a good tool to see if the network is down. We have others that do the same thing, but Auvik is more for investigating issues. My advice is to take your time. Make sure that the credentials are correct when you input them. Go through their guide on setting up WMI for Windows workstations to get better results. Just don't rush it and get good data.

Check the knowledge base articles because they're very helpful, and don't be afraid to use the forums as well because the people are very responsive there.

Try all the features, investigate it and be curious about everything that Auvik can offer. I've been using it for several months, but I don't think I have used all the features. If you test it, my advice would be to try all the options.

In terms of technical insight, if you're looking for good insight into your client's environment, Auvik is a great solution. Auvik has definitely impressed me. It seems like it's very lightweight, yet it gives you a lot of features.

I would advise negotiating as hard as you can on price per agent because that did help us do a fair amount of pre-planning. This would have been true for any of the solutions that we looked at. You need to know how you plan on grouping your clients, or how you plan on organizing. Knowing how that structure is going to flow makes a huge difference in your onboarding time. It hasn't helped us reduce repetitive, low-priority tasks through automation. There is almost no automation. It is great at learning. It is great at visualization and things like that, but there is no automation in there. I would rate it an eight out of ten. There are areas where it could do better, but all things considered, it is a good, solid product.

In terms of comparing Auvik’s cloud-based solution versus on-prem network monitoring solutions, it is a tricky balance because while the Auvik database and the backend are all cloud-based, you still have an on-premise collector doing some of the management for you. The management of it is cloud-based, but there is an on-premise component to it. There are some alternatives, such as PRTG or Zabbix. They're all on-premise alternatives, but they are very much a pain to manage, particularly when you have multiple sites and multiple clients. Having the backend cloud-based is very useful. However, that's a feature that they share with Domotz. Domotz is cloud-based in the same way. Overall, I'd give Auvik a seven out of ten. Tech-wise, it's a ten, but its pricing is a very big barrier to adoption.

I rate Auvik eight out of 10. Before deploying Auvik, you should check to ensure it integrates with all your current solutions, including your RMM, documentation tools, and PSA. That's crucial because it's automating inventory and configuration updates. It integrates with ConnectWise Manage, ConnectWise Automate, ITGlue, Opsgenie, and Meraki, but I'm unsure which solutions are incompatible.

I'd probably give Auvik an eight out of 10 at the moment. We're still waiting for them to become compatible with all of our devices. If they had that compatibility, I'd probably rate it nine or 10. For those thinking about adopting Auvik, I would say go for it. My advice is to put time into setting up the alerts because that's one of the best parts about it. If you have those alerts set up, it's going to save you a lot of time. You don't even need to go into Auvik to investigate. With that notification, the process comes a behind-the-scenes method for resolving those alerts. You should have a plan so your IT team knows what to do when one of those alerts is triggered.

Give Auvik a shot. Do the demo. It doesn't take long to do the proof of concept. And during the proof of concept they give you access to their resources so you can go in and do that Auvik certification. The most important part of that is being able to go through all of their material and really see what they're capable of. During the demo you can dig deep. I love it. I use it every day, multiple times a day.

Go for it. It's a really good solution.

I would advise others to check it out. It doesn't hurt. They give you a two-week free trial. You can kind of just say that you want to try this, and then, you try it. There is no haggling back and forth with sales. They give you access to the platform for two weeks. For us, I had done the trial just to get it implemented, and then, they extended the trial for us free of charge for another two weeks so that we could get all the approvals in place to adopt the platforms and start paying for it. They make it super easy, so try it out. The automation of network mapping has enabled junior network specialists to resolve issues directly and freed up senior-level team members to perform higher-value tasks, but it is not because of the tool. It is because of the proficiency level of our team. We don't have junior network staff. There is just me. Our help desk folks are our junior staff, and it is just not in their wheelhouse yet. It goes back to that organizational operational maturity. We've got like the help desk that helps the end-users, and then we've got the engineers who deploy and are kind of like that highest escalation point. It kind of goes from zero to 60. They check something out there, and the help desk will get a ticket saying that it must be a network thing. It just comes right over to me. I'll try to use those opportunities as a teaching opportunity to show, "Hey, log in to Auvik, and then you can see here that the device is online. We've got some other monitoring tools that we use as well for workstations in virtual infrastructure to see that it is not a network issue, and here's how you can dig through Auvik to see it." It increases the proficiency level of our staff. The tools kind of assist with that change and with them improving. A network engineer can tell the help desk guy until he is blue in the face about how things work, but when you have something to kind of visualize, you can look at metrics and performance indicators. It, kind of, helps in providing a little bit of context to the topics that I'm talking about, and then, they can, kind of, use those things. So, the proficiency definitely is improving, and the tool helps with that. We have not used the TrafficInsights feature. We have a cybersecurity team, and they have a tool called Darktrace, which is TrafficInsights on steroids. It has got some AI or machine learning built into the platform, and it does some really gee-whiz stuff. Because of the presence of that tool, I haven't gone into configuring TrafficInsights yet. It is on my list of things to do because it is just convenient to have all of your data that you might want to access available in one window, as opposed to having to log into another device and learn how to use another device or another tool. So, eventually, I'll get around to that TrafficInsights so that the information is available. If there is anything that Auvik has taught me, which is also one of my general rules of thumb, is that when something is not working as expected, it is not necessarily a problem related to that thing. For example, if it is a problem that I'm having with Auvik, usually it is not indicative of a problem with Auvik. Similarly, it is not necessarily a problem on the network that is impacting users. It tends to point to something not being configured correctly on the network. It kind of highlights our own mistakes. For an advanced network operations center, Auvik is very easy to use and super easy to deploy. It is intuitive, and its features are very useful to an extent. When it comes to a more advanced network team, there are things that Auvik doesn't do. Doing those things would make it awesome, but they would just make the platform more complex and probably less easy to use. So, for the fundamentals, Auvik does a fantastic job. Once you go beyond the fundamentals, Auvik still does a pretty good job, but there are some things that I would not be surprised that the platform will never do. That's because it is not intended to be Cisco DNA Center. It is intended to be a broad platform that supports everything to a degree. For an unsophisticated or a very small network team, I would give it a nine out of 10 because of ease of use. A managed service provider is a good example because the folks who consume the product are not network specialists. They primarily used it for backup, mapping, KPIs, and assisting in troubleshooting. For mid-range organizations, it is a solid nine. For advanced networking teams, it is probably a five because it is not going to give you all the information that you want. It is not going to do all of the things that you might want it to do, but the things that it does, it does very well.

The TrafficInsights feature shows us network bandwidth usage without the need for expensive, in-line traffic decryption. I use it to see what sites people are going on and how to block certain things, like social media. Though, it is not that important to us, because we don't have an issue with our bandwidth. So, if we had an issue with our bandwidth, I would have to monitor it more, but we don't at the present time. Auvik is very useful. I would rate it as eight out of 10.

My advice would be not to forget to set up the external IP because it was also a good feature. I would rate Auvik a ten out of ten.

Keeping in touch with our original Auvik rep has helped. He's been my main point of contact when it comes to anything else I've needed with Auvik because obviously, they know. Instead of going through the standard support stuff, actually having somebody to email and contact has always been beneficial. I would rate Auvik a nine out of ten. AI implementation would make it a perfect ten.

Evaluate whether it is suitable for your purposes and network, in terms of scalability and flexibility, versus using other features, like disaster recovery or emergency login. We haven't discovered a lot of devices with Auvik. It is based on the identified networks. Though, it is not scanning all interfaces, e.g., if you don't have the appropriate subnet. You need to define the range by, e.g., IP devices, then it will scan that range and update the topology automatically. However, it is not an out-of-the-box automatic discovery. It is worth having two instances on two different parts of the network to have more reliability on a network level. I would rate this solution as a seven out of 10.

Definitely go through the proof of concept testing. The results speak for themselves. It's a fully rounded product and everyone I know who has used it has been happy with it. When you're first deploying it, understand how you need to set up your locations. Otherwise, you're going to end up redoing work. If you're in a larger environment, you need a little bit of knowledge about where things are to be able to put stuff in the right places. If you're small, you can just drop it in and be super-happy with what it gives to you. Overall, compared to everything else out there, it's a solid 10 out of 10. I haven't found anything that gives me what I need better.

Auvik is for any networking department. If you have a very complex network or a lot of devices that need to be monitored, Auvik would be the best fit. Auvik is not for a simple environment. If you have 10 devices or 10 branch/site offices, then Auvik is not a good fit because it will become expensive. We are still in the testing phase of the TrafficInsights feature, which gives you full visibility into what is happening on your network. Also, the TrafficInsights feature will help you to say where protocols or services are consumed heavily. In the long run, it helps you to optimize your bandwidth based on your country consumption. It gives you a lot of details and integrated traffic insight, which we unfortunately need to hold back on because of data protection laws. It doesn't configure out-of-the-box automatically. That is a manual job. For an enterprise environment, I would rate this solution as 10 out of 10.