We performed a comparison between Alluvio Aternity and Avada Software Infrared360 based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The ability to monitor crash and health event issues at a user level"
"The most valuable features for us are the Incident Management dashboard, Application Status dashboard, and Activity Analysis UI."
"The detailed level of information you are able to get on the complete environment all of the way down to a specific machine."
"The most valuable feature is the alerting. As soon as we click on an incident, it takes us directly to the problematic PC. It's a direct solution. We click on an alert and it takes us to the incident details. The details show in different colors, in a graphical representation, and I like that the most."
"Aternity's Digital Experience Management Quadrant (DEM-Q) has been a game changer for us. While knowing your own metrics is nice, if you don't know how you compare to others or what the numbers should be, then it doesn't tell you much. This solution puts that into context (if we are doing better than others or worse), which helps us prioritize where we want to focus and do improvements versus that's just how slow it's supposed to be. It's also great in communicating what we are doing and why we're doing it to our IT leadership teams, by saying, while we're pretty far behind others in certain categories, the time and changes for our prioritizations are justified."
"Being able to proactively identify issues on user systems."
"The data collected by the agents on each end point is the most valuable feature for us."
"All of it, but it depends on who the end user is. The folks that support the applications, like the signatures that we've developed, it gives them feedback on their application performance."
"The administration piece makes it very easy to do MQ administration. It gives us a lot more flexibility and capabilities."
"It's what we use for monitoring our MQ system, so the features that they provide are just really, really good."
"We have easily created use case testing harnesses for specific flows that incorporate various message types."
"It has role-based access to queues, giving us more insights into problems."
"It allows non-technical users to inspect their individual components within the total infrastructure without disturbing other components and without bothering the technical teams."
"Monitoring that ties into our incident management system"
"I would say the reporting capabilities of this product could use room for improvement."
"Some of the dashboarding and reporting on the analytics side could be improved. I think they realize it. Obviously, some of the desktop monitoring metrics always can be improved."
"To monitor these transactions, you need to look at it, analyze it and capture it. It requires a little bit of work, but in an environment like ours, you need it to be easier."
"Potentially, the one thing that could probably help with better levels of enterprise adoption is around creating the application monitoring signatures. That process can be a little bit difficult. If one thing could be simplified a little bit, it would be the application monitoring signature creation process."
"I can see the location and computer model and I can see a bunch of different attributes. But one thing I can't see is the Internet Explorer version."
"Integrating the tool with other products is a challenge."
"In terms of a new feature, it would be good if we could restrict a user to a specific application or server. We have several customers, and we have to set up one or two servers for each customer. We have to set up one server for production and one for the test environment. Each user at the customer level can see all applications and the data of all applications, which is not really useful and good. We should be able to restrict user access at the application level or server level."
"They've additionally added some great color coding, but they need to explain better and drive down further on the meanings of this workflow."
"One area where they could improve is with their documentation. Some sections are not up to date with new release information and providing additional samples in some areas would be very helpful."
"The user interface could be sexier and more ergonomic. The competing products have similar problems."
"We desire a dashboard that could accumulate BOQ lengths per tenant on one screen for all tenants."
"Some of the graphics in the interface could be improved. It's pretty basic. Some interfaces are not up to what you're used to seeing on other, more Windows-like tools."
"The UI can be cumbersome - but we are still using the Viper interface and we have not had the time to check out the Alloy interface which is supposed to be much improved."
"We are still working with the FTE/MFT subscription monitoring and reporting functionality. That is an area in which we would like to see further development taking place."
Earn 20 points
Alluvio Aternity is ranked 21st in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 37 reviews while Avada Software Infrared360 is ranked 71st in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability. Alluvio Aternity is rated 8.4, while Avada Software Infrared360 is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Alluvio Aternity writes "Not only helped us know which devices to refresh, but helped us determine if a refresh was even necessary, with factual data". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Avada Software Infrared360 writes "An offsite team performs a daily infrastructure health check and sends reports to the technical/management teams. ". Alluvio Aternity is most compared with Dynatrace, Nexthink, SysTrack, AppDynamics and Splunk Enterprise Security, whereas Avada Software Infrared360 is most compared with IBM MQ and Dynatrace. See our Alluvio Aternity vs. Avada Software Infrared360 report.
See our list of best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability vendors.
We monitor all Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability 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.