Auvik Network Management (ANM) Reviews

My main use case for Auvik Network Management (ANM) is network monitoring. I will install a collector on our customer's network that monitors SNMP traffic and syslog to give us information about the current status of equipment or throughput issues. It allows us to monitor and troubleshoot and know about issues before the customer really even becomes aware of them sometimes.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) offers monitoring and alerting on potential issues as its best features. The ability to tune the alerts to receive only the ones I am interested in stands out to me.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) is very easy to set up and is quick to get set up and integrated.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) has positively impacted my organization by giving us one place to look to get a full picture of a customer's network environment without having to jump to multiple dashboards. I cannot give a specific number, but Auvik Network Management (ANM) is very helpful when we have newer technicians that do not know the individual dashboards for separate components, but they can go to Auvik Network Management (ANM) and see everything.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) could be improved with a little more proactive tuning of alerts. Right now, getting them tuned in is a manual process, so automating that a little more would be beneficial.

I have been using Auvik Network Management (ANM) for about eight months.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) is stable.

We have had no issues deploying Auvik Network Management (ANM) for any customer, regardless of size, that we have attempted, and we have used it for both small and some of our larger customers.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) customer support is very good, very responsive, and very helpful.

We did not use a solution previously.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) is very easy to set up and is quick to get set up and integrated.

We do not have a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer.

We have not really been using Auvik Network Management (ANM) long enough to give a hard metric on return on investment.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) licensing is very simple, and I feel the pricing was appropriate to the service they provide.

We did not evaluate other options before choosing Auvik Network Management (ANM).

Auvik Network Management (ANM) helps me catch issues probably once or twice a month, but it also gives us valuable information when we are working with the customer to troubleshoot other issues. I have rated this review as a nine out of ten.

We use Auvik Network Management for notifications and tracking anything that might be going up and down on our network on a daily basis.

There are times when we inherit issues from whatever company we acquire, and deploying Auvik Network Management on a site and having it map everything that it can find and pull down all of the configuration is absolutely amazing for network discovery. It helps us get up to speed faster, though it doesn't necessarily reduce our time to resolution.

Auvik Network Management has definitely helped our organization troubleshoot network issues proactively. There've been times when it's notified us about networking issues, and we've been able to reach out and get things solved before complaints from customers.

We get notifications to be able to instantly take action on network issues and start turning around tickets.

Auvik Network Management definitely influences the ability to minimize support tickets. There are definitely ways it could be better, but it definitely helps.

We have 88 networks everywhere, from Massachusetts to Washington and down to Florida. We don't have a whole network. We have 88 small networks that we monitor with Auvik Network Management. Generally, we do get whole network visibility on individual monitors. From an overall perspective, to monitor all 88, there are times when it struggles, but most of the time, it's accurate.

It took us some time to see the benefits of Auvik Network Management. The business I'm in is mergers and acquisitions. We acquire individual offices that are geographically distant and separated, so we have to integrate approximately 88 networks. We had to do some of that integration before Auvik Network Management could be immediately useful for us. After we start that process for each site, it becomes useful depending on how long we're able to get the merger process going. It usually takes about 6 months, but after we get our hands on and start to work with the site, it's usually about a month before we start seeing any sort of benefit.

There's no single feature I prefer. Overall, it's just a good product. It is easy to use.

Most of the time, the network map works great. When it doesn't work, it can be frustrating. Sometimes the network map just doesn't want to update as quickly as it should, which can be frustrating, but that's usually during the setup process. Once you've got through that pain, it's almost 99.9% of the time perfect.

Most of the time, there's a performance issue before Auvik Network Management notices it. It's usually a user telling us about it, usually because of some sort of cascading effect. Auvik Network Management sometimes catches the issue, but sometimes it just doesn't. However, we don't really use it for performance monitoring because we don't have many items that need to be monitored from that perspective.

They're working on improving Auvik Network Management. I don't know if we've bought all the features. We were looking at the server monitoring capabilities, and that seems to be really up our alley. It would be helpful if it integrates more with Windows Server event logs and other types of logs. There are many times when we see logs, and it would be great if it could filter and match when items pop up in the logs, and allow us to create alerts. Currently, it only supports syslog and similar protocols, but we need different types of log monitoring.

I have been using Auvik Network Management for about three years. In June, it will be three years.

I'd put the stability at eight out of ten. There seem to be decent maintenance windows, and sometimes we have issues with the traffic insight features. They just randomly go down. Our US4 cluster has gone down a couple of times, but overall, it's not bad.

It seems to scale pretty well. We keep adding sites into Auvik Network Management, and it doesn't seem to affect performance or anything on our end. There is nothing that we've noticed.

I've contacted their technical support two or three times. The speed was pretty great, given that they weren't high-priority issues. Two or three times when I opened a request, probably within 4 hours, someone reached out, talked to me, and everything was resolved. It's pretty good. 

Positive

The initial deployment of Auvik Network Management was difficult the first couple of times. Once we figured it out, it was pretty easy. I can't blame Auvik Network Management for some issues because a lot of it is just Microsoft Windows. We have a heavy Windows environment. It uses WMI to discover devices and pull device information. If you don't have it configured, it doesn't work quite right. That means you have to figure out how to get WMI to work correctly, and that's a Microsoft problem, not really an Auvik Network Management problem. Their instructions are helpful. They don't quite go as far as we have taken it, but it's definitely helpful.

In terms of maintenance, we have to go back every once in a while and make sure the map is up to date with Auvik Network Management because we do a lot of network gear replacement. A lot of our maintenance is going back and just updating credentials. When we swap gear, we update credentials because whatever we've acquired usually has some poorly chosen passwords. It doesn't really require maintenance so much as keeping up with your gear.

We don't use the documentation capabilities of Auvik Network Management. That's the one feature that we have not engaged with too much because we also have IT Glue. We've got our ticketing system, so it would just be one more place to put documentation, and that makes everything kind of a mess. Technically, we generate the documentation just as Auvik Network Management would, but it's through the IT Glue interface. If we have the integration set up with IT Glue, their IT Glue will go out and pull down the configuration and information about the devices from Auvik Network Management and load it into IT Glue. We just centralized that documentation, so it doesn't make much sense to keep it inside Auvik Network Management.

I would rate Auvik Network Management a nine out of ten.

The use case of my experience with Auvik Network Management (ANM) was an upgrade for my network monitoring tool and the management of the network. It served as an upgrade for my company network and monitoring.

I appreciate the automatization of the dashboard monitoring, the automatic mapping of the network, and the easy deployment of the service. The interactive dashboard of Auvik Network Management (ANM) makes the work more productive and functions automatically. It is easier to work with the dashboard of Auvik Network Management (ANM). It is a significant advantage of Auvik Network Management (ANM) monitoring. I appreciate the personalization of alerts for the network, such as discovering traffic and the software for traffic analyzation. Auvik makes it easier to work with the network and makes my team more productive.

It would be beneficial if Auvik Network Management (ANM) made it possible to change or manipulate the interface, specifically the network interface of desktop devices.

I have less than a year of experience with Auvik Network Management (ANM), just a few weeks.

They have very good support for any trouble that I could have.

Positive

SolarWinds is provided to us from another provider's network service, a third party. The third party did not give us good SolarWinds service monitoring. We searched for a similar service and found Auvik Network Management (ANM), and after reviewing all their software and systems, we considered Auvik Network Management (ANM) to be much better than SolarWinds. However, the problem might be from the third party and not from SolarWinds. We are using SolarWinds for the moment but are considering Auvik Network Management (ANM) for a change. Because a third party gave us the SolarWinds monitoring, we cannot configure or maintain the service. We can only see the dashboard without any other options. I have used SolarWinds for five or six years.

The service is a bit expensive, but they can negotiate with us to make a better price for us.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) is not implemented in my company for now, but we had a demo. We do not have much experience with Auvik Network Management (ANM), but our first impression was very good. It is pretty easy to use the mapping tools. Everything is automatic, which is very comfortable for the work experience. I rate Auvik Network Management (ANM) eight out of ten.

The main thing for us with Auvik Network Management is the alerts. We get alerted when there is a broadcast storm on a client's network or when there is a port mismatch. It is really valuable from an alert perspective.

We do not use the automated documentation capabilities of Auvik Network Management at the moment. Currently, we purely use it for alerts. If something happens on one of the switches, Auvik will generate an alert, and then that alert pipes into our support ticket system. That is the main thing we are using. We use other software for our documentation.

The biggest benefits of Auvik Network Management for me are not having to painstakingly draw network diagrams and getting the alerts. Being able to be alerted about port misconfigurations and similar issues is crucial. Often, when managing many clients as an MSP, these issues can fall through the cracks, but Auvik Network Management backs us up by informing us about port misconfigurations or incorrect VLANs.

Auvik Network Management absolutely gives us a real-time picture of our network, it is pretty good that way.

We used to draw all our network maps manually using programs such as Visio and draw.io. It is much better to have our network map be mapped by Auvik Network Management because we are able to have functionality with that mapping. It is not just an image of a network map. We can remote to switches.

The network map dashboard gives us pretty much full network visibility unless we specifically block something off on the network. We get pretty high-level visibility on everything from UPSs to switches to our routers and all the devices. It is very comprehensive. This full network visibility is very important. The majority of our clients are SLA or Service Level Agreement clients, so we have to monitor them monthly and catch any problems that happen on the network. Auvik Network Management definitely does the job of giving us early notice so that we can start addressing a problem sooner rather than later.

The importance of real-time performance insight varies from client to client. Some of our clients do not require absolutely perfect real-time monitoring. It is mainly useful for our infotainment clients that run 24 hours and provide entertainment services. For instance, we have one client in Toronto that operates 24 hours a day, and the real-time data helps us there. Another client we have is in Las Vegas, and they run a massive golf adventure spot. It is quite important that we know what is going on in the network there, especially at their peak times on Friday and Saturday nights. Auvik Network Management does a great job of keeping us informed and keeping us on track.

Auvik Network Management has definitely helped us decrease our mean time to resolution, especially when it comes to terminal remoting. We use Zoho RMM for our remote access to servers, but it sometimes does not work out so well, and the web remote sometimes does not start. We have had a couple of problems there, whereas with Auvik Network Management, if we are just looking for a command line interface to one of our switches, it is much faster, much more efficient, and we are able to make the change and get that resolution a lot quicker.

I absolutely love the command line capabilities of Auvik Network Management. I do not prefer nested GUI. I am a Linux guy, so the command line is great. It is also very reliable, and it always works. I have had a problem with Zoho RMM connecting to a server, but I have never had a problem with Auvik Network Management doing that. It is a bit more hardwired. With Zoho RMM, you are installing an agent on the device, and the agent sometimes fails, whereas Auvik Network Management uses SNMP setup and WMI setup, so it is a much more direct connection. It is a lot more reliable to run a command line to a switch. I've started using Zoho RMM less because of Auvik. I mainly use Zoho RMM to connect to client devices, such as client laptops and things like that, but when it comes to server management and switch management, I prefer to do it with Auvik.

Auvik Network Management has helped my organization troubleshoot network issues more proactively. We have had many cases, such as network setups installed by a third-party company that did not go according to plan. Auvik Network Management helped us get that accurate gauge. You can draw network diagrams, but you do not know for sure if that is exactly how the network is laid out, whereas Auvik Network Management gives you a clear, accurate picture. We've been able to find that a device is not in the right subnet or that a device is not connected properly to the right routes. We can then easily resolve that issue, configure those switches correctly, and put them on the right VLAN.

Auvik Network Management has helped us reduce business disruptions related to network issues. We have identified several broadcast storms using the alerts that we received from Auvik Network Management, and it has helped us implement spanning tree correctly in certain environments.

Regarding automated alerts, Auvik Network Management is not the noisiest platform. It focuses on more critical issues. We do get informational alerts, but there is often nothing we need to take action with them. We have workflows in our Autotask ticket system, so only critical issues appear in our ticket system from Auvik Network Management. Any informational issues don't clutter up the ticket system. We just pick those manually and on a weekly basis. We log in to Auvik, check those informational messages, and see if there's anything important. It is not the noisiest platform, which is a great thing because we have other platforms that are very noisy.

Being able to back up switch configurations through Auvik Network Management is an absolute necessity. It really helps us.

The interface of Auvik Network Management is pretty good. It is definitely a modern dashboard.

Auvik's network map is easy to use for someone who is experienced, but if someone is not too experienced with it, they might be overwhelmed, especially if they run a really big client network with hundreds of devices. At the same time, Auvik does a good job of nesting those devices. For example, a bunch of different servers will all be nested in one icon on the map, and when opened up, all those multiple servers can be seen. It might be a little bit confusing for a beginner, but for someone who knows what they are doing, it is great and well presented.

We have had Auvik Network Management before I joined the company; it has been around for about three years, maybe less. I joined the company in September last year, and it was already in place. It has been quite a while from what I understand.

I have never had any problems with the stability of Auvik Network Management. It runs pretty fast. A lot of platforms, especially when it comes to CRMs, CMSs, and ERPs, are still built on PHP and MySQL, which I feel is archaic now and slow to query, whereas many companies are going other routes these days, such as ReactJS, Angular, NextJS, MongoDB, and PostgreSQL. It seems to be a lot faster. I have been wondering if Auvik Network Management is built on modern web technology because it is pretty fast and queries things quickly.

Auvik Network Management absolutely has a lot of opportunities to scale.

We have contacted Auvik Network Management support a couple of times. One thing that is quite nice is that we do not have to contact them often because we very seldom have problems with Auvik Network Management. In the handful of past cases that we have contacted Auvik Network Management, it has mainly been billing queries and things like that, not technical problems or bugs.

I would give Auvik Network Management support a ten out of ten. They are really responsive. I deal with a lot of different vendors on a daily basis, and I can easily say that their support is very responsive compared to some of the other vendors that I need to communicate with. Some vendors can take 24 hours, which is acceptable, to a month to reply to us, whereas Auvik always responds on the same day. If we send something through, we usually get a response on the same day. Ralph, our Account Manager, is also great and very responsive.

Positive

I have not used any alternatives to Auvik Network Management. I have always been on the ISP side of things, and this is the first time I am working on the MSP side of things.

We used other monitoring tools when I worked as an ISP, but we were not managing people's networks, so this is the first time I have used a network management tool such as Auvik Network Management.

It was already deployed when I joined the organization. 

Learning how to use Auvik Network Management comes down to what your network knowledge is. If you are someone who has done CompTIA Network+ and things like that, and you have done certifications, it is very easy. I had no orientation or onboarding into Auvik Network Management from my internal team when I joined. I just went to town, got login credentials, logged in, and started to get to know the platform. Because it is so easily laid out and the modern UI is in place, it is very quick to get to grips with. On the other hand, if you are not skilled in networking and you are starting from scratch, it might be a little bit overwhelming at first because there are so many different options to choose from and menus. However, it all becomes simpler when you understand the core premise. Beginner users might need more documentation and hand-holding. If we get new junior technicians into the company, I suspect I will definitely be the new person to train them, but if you are skilled in networking, you can just log in and go.

I do not know anything about the pricing of Auvik Network Management. Our CEO handles all of that part of the business. I assume it is not crazy. I know it is on a per-switch basis or per-device basis, but I am not sure what the exact values are.

Any type of automation is great. We are currently only using automation for piping the alerts from Auvik into our ticket system. Any further automations would take a lot of pressure off the team. I once ran my own ISP, where many people were scared of automation, thinking it would replace them. What I kept trying to stress to them was that automation makes their jobs easier and gives them a better work-life balance. With my previous business, I got our automation overall in the company for all our processes to 86.7%, without firing a single person.

I would rate Auvik Network Management a ten out of ten. My job is very busy. I work more hours than I should in a day, and it has made my life much easier to the point that I think it's worth ten points.

We used Auvik Network Management (ANM) for network monitoring until I was no longer with the institution.

It expedited processes by allowing us to graphically see where issues were occurring and track them in real-time, which improved our efficiency. It also empowered entry-level technicians by enabling them to respond to incidents without direction.

The ability to view configurations in plain text and gather all device configurations was very handy. We appreciated the dashboard statistics for identifying problem areas and found the logical topology maps to be helpful. Auvik Core's ease of use also enhanced troubleshooting speed and efficiency.

We were unable to integrate Auvik with a geographical map, which limited our ability to track issues to specific buildings on campus. Compared to other products like SolarWinds, Auvik needs a similar feature. Additionally, the cost was high.

I was involved with Auvik for just under two years.

The quality and speed of Auvik's customer support were excellent. They were knowledgeable and responded quickly with accurate and useful information.

Positive

We have used SolarWinds. The main difference is Auvik provides a high-level network topology by default and has a better graphical interface. However, SolarWinds has a comparable dashboard at a high level.

The initial setup involved placing the collector on a server and sending it up to the cloud. It was straightforward.

Two people were required to implement Auvik.

Auvik is pricey, and we were paying a lot for it, especially when compared to SolarWinds.

We considered SolarWinds as it has comparable features.

Auvik offers free training to become an Auvik Certified Professional, which is highly recommended.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use the solution pretty much for what it was designed for. We use it for network monitoring and its dashboards. 

We were trying to solve for visibility more than anything else. The monitoring we do is more preventative than remedial. In the time we've used it, we've migrated a lot. It's helping us more on the understanding and project management side rather than monitoring. 

The ease of setup is one of its most valuable aspects. 

The visibility and topology diagrams are great. The dashboarding is quite useful.

Its integration with ConnectWise has been the most beneficial for managing our network performance. 

Auvik is a bit of a capturing tool. For us, we can highlight the high-level elements and problems. Our network is relatively secure, so we haven't actually used it for alerting. However, it is there as a preventative and monitoring measure more than anything else. 

The interface is great once the configuration is done. 

We do get a real-time picture of our network. The visibility we get is around 95%, with the remaining 5% our fault, based on the way we're set up.

The solution has helped decrease our mean time to resolution. However, it varies, depending upon the severity, for example. It's reducing any networking tickets time to resolution somewhat. For example, we are moving some clients from one subnet to another, and in those circumstances, it's taking half the time for us to do that in a process way. 

If it's purely network monitoring, it's absolutely brilliant. It shows ups and downs, and provides a lot more information than you generally need. However, since we know it provides a lot more information, we use it for lots of different things.

It reduced our mean time to resolution by 20% to 30% across the board. 

For our second line, third line, our network teams, it has increased productivity and reduced time source solutions by about 10% to 15%. 

As with all SMP's monitoring tools, it's a little difficult to get exactly where it needs to be until you've completed your desktop.

We're a bit complicated as a use case as we've got data centers and clients. We're mixed management with multiple subnets. If the network was simpler, it would work perfectly. There are a couple of overlaps. Things could be clearer.

Things are easily confused if there are multiple data feeds. So, if we have a server with three of our network clouds, it won't necessarily get the hierarchy accurate. Being able to drag and influence them in the network map would make a lot more sense. Therefore, being able to influence the map manually and overwrite it or customize it would make a lot of sense.

I've been using the solution for about a year and a half. 

We have the solution in multiple locations, for example, in data centers, client sites, and offices. We don't have a huge amount of endpoints. We do have a cloud platform and use it to monitor that. Our clients are largely SMBs.

We've had no requirement to be in touch with support just yet. 

The only instance of reaching out was when we raised a query during the first time installation. It was a deployment query, and it resolved almost instantly. If we understood the solution a bit more, we could have solved the issue ourselves. 

There is good technical support documentation. There are elements that need to be kept up-to-date, however. They could refresh it a bit more. That said, it's not really a problem or enough to complain about. There are too many changes happening in the industry for any documentation to be perfect. 

Positive

We've used all kinds of solutions. We do have SolarWinds instances, for example, however, we don't tend to use them much. We've also used PRTG. Auvik is faster to set up.

The deployment was simple. We implemented it in half an hour. 

We did have a vendor assist us with the deployment process. 

While I couldn't quantify it at this time, we have definitely seen an ROI. 

It certainly helped out with one of the projects that we're involved with. Whilst we've had it for 18 months, we've really only embraced it over the last six and we won't really see figures from it until the end of next quarter.

We've likely saved five to six hours a week so far.

The solution is a little on the expensive side. That may be skewed for us since we use it more as a monitoring and preventative tool, and largely it's meant to be a remediation tool. While it is expensive, it's not so much so that it makes me want to switch.

We're an Auvik customer and partner. 

While the solution has not yet empowered our entry-level technicians to solve more tickets on their own, they will be able to soon. We're just moving across to utilizing more alerting and bespoke alerting. We're telling Auvik some of the things that we want to know and don't want to know. That is now starting to power the help desk. That change has been happening over the last week. So, by the end of this week, it will be.

I'd recommend the solution to others. Its ease of deployment and ability to provide basic information about a network, and monitoring basic information about a network, is actually very good. It puts things on the screen almost immediately. When alerts fire, it points to those alerts, and you can literally click through and find the problem almost instantly. The only negatives are around some things that you would expect. That said, overall, absolutely, I would recommend it. The peace of deployment and ease of information are worth it. It's very, very easy to understand. It's very, very easy to see where your problems are, and it's very, very easy to use that information to remediate the problems. However, for my advanced monitoring, it's a little more difficult to understand exactly where the information is coming from and how it's utilizing the information. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Our network infrastructure is monitored by Auvik Network Management. This includes firewalls and network traffic. By using Auvik, we gain data and analytics that fuel our diagnostics, alarm systems, and overall network environment insights.

We decided to implement Auvik after struggling to find a network monitoring solution that ticked all the boxes. We needed a cost-effective option with a user-friendly interface, backed by a responsive company committed to ongoing product updates. Unfortunately, the market seemed to offer outdated, once-great products or solutions prohibitively expensive for small businesses and MSPs like us. Thankfully, our experience with Auvik has been good. Both our dedicated sales representative and the onboarding technical support team have been phenomenal.

Despite the usual setup time – an hour or two for getting things connected and entering credentials – the platform started pulling data from our devices almost immediately. It was practically instantaneous, aside from the standard management deployment time. Interestingly, the network map took a bit longer to figure itself out compared to the platform itself. The platform started showing me interface details, traffic information, and even automatically identified our WAN connections. We did have to set credentials later, and thankfully, we had backups of our devices ready beforehand, since it seemed like the platform wanted that information before the network map fully visualized everything. Overall, the deployment process was remarkably quick and easy.

Last Sunday, I encountered an issue that the dashboard interface helped resolve quickly. I could easily locate the specific device on the map and clicking on it brought up all relevant information. This allowed us to directly investigate the problematic port, view its traffic status up or down, without the need for a more cumbersome process. Traditionally, we would have had to VPN into the network, log in to the switch using its credentials, and then identify the specific port involved. The dashboard streamlines this process, saving time frequently. While it may not be a massive improvement, it offers a noticeable efficiency gain in our mean time to resolution.

Our company is still in the early stages of adopting Auvik, a monitoring platform that can be used for all of our customers. This means that we will eventually have one platform for all our alerts and for our technicians to access. This will simplify things internally for our company by reducing the number of platforms our technicians need to be familiar with to support our clients. It will also reduce the amount of documentation we need to maintain. With Auvik, our technicians will spend less time on maintenance and troubleshooting because they will only need to learn and use one platform. Currently, our technicians haven't started using Auvik yet, but the plan is to move away from all the various monitoring solutions we've been using for different customers and consolidate everything onto this one platform. Once our technicians are using Auvik, it will make our jobs significantly easier and faster.

Auvik stands out for its ability to combine network and per-port traffic inspection with log aggregation and data flow analysis in a single platform. This comprehensive approach is rare in network monitoring solutions. Even more impressive is that Auvik offers these high-end enterprise features at a cost-effective price. Traditionally, such capabilities are only found in expensive products. The combination of powerful features and affordability made Auvik a very attractive choice for us.

The Auvik interface has a modern look and feel in terms of its color scheme and layout. However, some elements are arranged in a way that I find counterintuitive. As a company with a web and application development team, we have a strong focus on user interface and user experience. For some features in Auvik, the placement of buttons and functionalities doesn't feel optimal. We've had to consult our representative several times on how to find specific options. For example, editing a device requires navigating through the sidebar to a specific category and tab, then selecting the device, line item, and checking a box before finally reaching the edit button. Additionally, the placement of buttons seems inconsistent across different sections, making the overall workflow less intuitive and requiring more training to become proficient.

My ideal real-time network monitoring would involve seeing all my data at once, including connection speeds and throughput. While Auvik's automated network map is visually appealing and generally accurate compared to competitors, it lacks some key features. For example, unlike a competitor's recent feature that shows traffic between trunk connections, Auvik only displays a single color for connection links, indicating wired or wireless status. This doesn't provide vital information like link speed or potential problems. Additionally, connections with momentary issues simply disappear from the map, which is frustrating. Auvik could integrate valuable alerts and insights from other parts of the platform directly onto the map. This would highlight potential issues with specific devices and their connections. While I acknowledge ongoing development efforts, there's still a significant gap in desired features. Another limitation is the lack of manual map editing. For instance, our server has multiple Ethernet connections entering a single switch, but the map erroneously shows them spread throughout the building. With no way to manually adjust this, the map's accuracy suffers. While Auvik's map is aesthetically pleasing, I wouldn't rely on it for complete accuracy.

I've had some trouble using Auvik's device proxy, which allows technicians to connect to network devices through Auvik's platform. The Mac software I need isn't fully functional yet, so I might be doing something wrong, but other products like Domotz work flawlessly. One of the main reasons we chose Auvik was to eliminate the need for VPNs, on-site PCs, or network tunnels for technicians to access devices. This would reduce our equipment costs. While the pricing is fair overall, the jump between plans is significant. For instance, their higher plan offers features like NetFlow statistics and analytics for firewalls, which require more data and rightfully cost more. However, the entire client site is included in that plan, and there's no option to pay extra for specific devices. I'd be happy to pay more for those features on select devices, but the current pricing structure prevents me from getting them. This seems like a missed opportunity for both Auvik and us. Not all my devices need the extensive logging and data collection offered in the higher plan. Network switches and access points, for example, have their own controllers that handle SysLogging, so I wouldn't need Auvik for that. However, I would like to pay extra for those features on our firewalls and routers. In the current situation, neither side benefits. If we pay for the higher plan, our costs increases, which will eventually impact our customers' prices. However, convincing customers to pay for this one additional feature within the entire monitoring platform is difficult.

I have been using Auvik Network Management for one year.

Throughout this process, I've primarily relied on my representative for assistance. While I haven't directly contacted their technical support line, my representative has involved them on my behalf. This may be a slight deviation from the usual procedure, but it has still allowed me to reach the appropriate people.

The technical support team has been very responsive in identifying and resolving any technical issues I've encountered. They were able to quickly understand the situation with minimal questions. Additionally, I appreciate the granular control I have over their access to client data. I can grant them temporary or read-only access, which allows for collaborative troubleshooting without compromising security or hindering our learning experience.

Overall, I've been very impressed with the technical support team's knowledge. We understand they aren't responsible for diagnosing internal network issues; their focus is on supporting their platform and ensuring our connection to network devices. So far, their responsiveness has been excellent.

Prior to implementing Auvik, we experimented with a number of network management solutions. These included PRTG, Domotz, LibreNMS, and the built-in NinjaOne option. We also evaluated SolarWinds. We've explored a wide range of options. Our goal is to find a standardized solution, and we believe Auvik fits the bill. PRTG was expensive so we could only use the free version that only allowed for 1,000 sensors, proving too restrictive for our needs. LibreNMS required a high level of technical expertise for deployment and maintenance, which wasn't feasible for all our technicians. SolarWinds simply didn't meet all our requirements. While NinjaOne is still in active development. We may revisit it in the future. Overall, Auvik strikes the perfect balance between functionality, ease of use, and scalability.

The deployment of Auvik requires installing an agent and some information. The deployment took around one hour. 

Although Auvik is a cloud-based solution, it requires software installation on a computer or server within our network. This initial process can be cumbersome. In our experience, the provided API key wasn't functional, and creating separate API keys isn't an option. Instead, we need to create full user accounts, which feels unnecessarily complex.

Once the connector is installed, the user interface presents challenges. Management credentials and network scanning configurations are located in separate areas. While the deployment section attempts to consolidate these settings, it becomes irrelevant after the initial setup. Ideally, the interface should streamline the initial configuration process, instead of requiring users to navigate through various menus.

Another concern is the requirement for generic credentials. Instead of specifying credentials for each device, we must provide generic ones that are simply tested for functionality. This raises security concerns. These generic credentials are tested against various devices in our environment, even those for which they are not intended. While we trust our security measures, a compromised device could potentially allow the Auvik connector to expose these credentials to unauthorized devices. Ideally, the system should allow for specifying credentials on a per-device basis, eliminating the need for generic credentials and the associated security risks.

The implementation was completed in-house.

I came to a surprising realization about Auvik's pricing. It turns out they only charge for routers and switches! This means all our access points, security cameras, camera servers, and other infrastructure are monitored for free. While the client understandably wanted the server on-site, most other devices are a bonus. This is a huge advantage – with a typical network, we might have one firewall, three switches, and 60-70 access points. With Auvik, we only pay for the four core devices, bringing the cost down significantly. In my opinion, Auvik could advertise this benefit more clearly. Many other platforms charge for every device, so Auvik's free monitoring for a large portion of the network is a game-changer. It not only helped us make the decision but also benefits non-profits we support. The fact that they're confident enough in their platform to offer this makes Auvik a truly valuable and supportive solution.

In the end, we were deciding between Domotz and Auvik. Auvik's initial pricing structure was a concern. Their tiered system required a minimum number of devices per tier to get a reasonable price. While their desire to be profitable is understandable, this presented a hurdle for us. However, Auvik impressed us with their willingness to work with us. They emphasized that they wouldn't lose a customer solely on price, as long as open communication existed. This flexibility in finding a solution was a major factor in our decision. Another reason we chose Auvik was the user interface and user experience. We found Auvik's interface to be superior to Domotz's. Additionally, Auvik's pricing based on individual devices, rather than NetFlow, was a significant advantage. This meant we wouldn't be penalized for devices with minimal traffic or high port counts. From a business standpoint, this eliminated the need to constantly monitor billing for small variations in device usage. With Auvik, we pay a fixed cost per device and receive all the necessary features, regardless of its size or complexity. Consistent and predictable billing was another key consideration in our choice.

Auvik Network Management gets a solid eight out of ten from me. While the network maps and user interface could be improved, the software delivers exactly what we need out of the box. It connected to our devices seamlessly and provided valuable analytics data and information logging. The setup process was straightforward, and the learning curve wasn't steep.

We're currently in the early stages of implementing Auvik, which means our existing software is still operational. To ensure a smooth transition, we typically allow a three-to-four-month overlap period for new software before fully integrating it into production. While I've been the primary user so far and can provide initial insights, our help desk technicians haven't yet been granted access to Auvik.

There is a minimal amount of maintenance required, primarily for alerts. The default settings include alerts for all devices, but not all of them are relevant to our needs. We simply need to adjust these defaults. Aside from that, the system is truly "set it and forget it." It will notify us of any problems, and as an IT company, we have internal procedures to log in and investigate any alerts. However, there is no ongoing maintenance required after the initial installation.

Setting up Auvik is smoothest when your network devices are already configured for SNMP. If you're unsure about your equipment's SNMP settings or lack a configuration altogether, take some time to familiarize yourself with your devices before proceeding. Having your device credentials readily available will also expedite the process. As long as both SNMP logging and credentials are prepared, Auvik deployment becomes a breeze. However, investing a few minutes to learn the Auvik interface beforehand will pay off in the long run. A grasp of the interface will make Auvik exceptionally user-friendly and position it as a powerful and functional solution for your needs.

We use Auvik for network troubleshooting and monitoring.

We needed more visibility into the networks we manage. Auvik's automatic network mapping was something that helped us visualize the Management Network. The benefits were immediate. We quickly identified a few problems and resolved them quickly. For example, some links were slower than expected, and we remedied those issues fast.  Without, Auvik we would need to spend more time troubleshooting.

Auvik has helped our junior technicians solve more tickets. We've encouraged them to use Auvik, which enables them to navigate a network visually. I think they would have trouble without that visualization. 

Auvik's visual mapping and search features have been very useful. We can locate precisely where each device is on the map. The network map provides a real-time picture of the network that offers total visibility. 

The interface is good, but it can be sluggish and difficult to use on a small screen. I usually need a large screen to navigate it when monitoring more complex networks.

Also, the points on the network map will sometimes shift. They will be connected one way, but they will be connected a different way after I refresh. This doesn't happen often, but when it does, I question the reliability of our network map. 

We have used Auvik for nearly two years.

I've never seen Auvik crash, so I think it's 100 percent stable.

Auvik scales to where we need it to be, so it's perfectly scalable.

I rate Auvik's support seven out of 10. We contacted them about an issue with the mapping. The problem was complex, so it took a while to resolve.

Neutral

Before Auvik, we had another tool that was difficult to implement, so it wasn't deployed in many places. We also used UniFi's built-in network mapping, but that requires you to use only UniFi hardware. Auvik can integrate multiple vendors and do the same thing across the board.

Deploying Auvik was straightforward. It has an agent and uses SMP for the devices. We already had SMP enabled, so it was easy. We did it in-house, and it took about two months to fully deploy. About eight people were involved, including Auvik's support. It doesn't require any maintenance aside from onboarding devices. 

Auvik's pricing is decent. I forget exactly how much we pay, but we've never been dissatisfied with the value we get from this. The licensing model is palatable to us. I haven't looked at the licensing too closely, but I believe Auvik only charges for some devices, not based on the number of endpoints at each site. 

They also have an add-on product called SaaS Management. We did a demo but didn't purchase it.  While it's useful, I think there are too many drawbacks. We thought it was a little expensive and didn't feel we could get enough value from it to justify it. It was interesting but somewhat invasive and a tough sell to our customers. Considering the potential invasiveness and price, we decided not to deploy it. 

I rate Auvik eight out of 10. Auvik has a very short learning curve, so you can jump in and start using it.