We performed a comparison between Auvik Network Management (ANM) and Cisco UCS Manager based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The ability to trace cables is the most valuable feature. The solution provides link detection and port detection features with the switches. It's invaluable to have the ability to see where one device is connected and identify the exact port without having to trace any cables."
"The TrafficInsights feature not only shows me network bandwidth usage without the need for expensive, in-line traffic decryption, but it gives me which device is using the most traffic. It ranks devices by which are using the most CPU, memory, storage, and it keeps those up to date, non-stop."
"Remote accessibility of the network devices is the most valuable feature. I often have to log into switches and routers to make changes, and I can do so from any computer as long as I have an Internet connection. I don't need to have my laptop or a VPN. Auvik is faster."
"Monitoring is probably the most active thing Auvik does for us. If a particular device on the network goes down, we have that granularity to see which network element is causing the problem."
"The fact that it provides a single, integrated platform for our organization is important as well. Having 50 different accounts to log into would make things difficult at times."
"Auvik allows me to filter by network elements, so I can get a quick glance at a customer's infrastructure without looking through handmade diagrams. It provides me with an overview of how everything is laid out. From there, I can really drill down into individual inventories and switch ports. For example, I can determine what the issue is, but I don't need to be on the premises and log into customer equipment. It saves a lot of time."
"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."
"The network mapping, the logical layout, is the part that I love the most, showing what switch is connected to what switch. I couldn't live without it. That is the big selling point for me."
"When one server fails, we can attach the service profile to a new server, which saves a lot of time."
"The flexibility and the ease in which the features can be expanded are the solution's most valuable aspects."
"Cisco UCS has different layers of security, and you can do multiple installations of your LIAMs on top of the server and Blade. You can install VMware, Windows Server, Hyper-V, etc."
"The reporting functionality will give you any report you want."
"The management is one of the most valuable features of this solution."
"I can quickly manage the provisioned servers."
"It is more robust than other solutions. So, the stability is good."
"I can deploy something in my 50-odd servers all in one go, in parallel, whereas if I was to do that individually, it could be a nightmare."
"Currently, with Auvik's support, I'm troubleshooting some of the information gathered on Cisco devices through SNMP V3. Auvik is not able to pull some of the important information that it uses to draw the map, which is kind of shocking because it is Auvik. So, it is their platform, and it is monitoring Cisco devices, which are obviously very prevalent in the world. Auvik is having a hard time gathering such important information over SNMP V3, which is a networking standard, and on super popular device brand and model. They're actively working with me on that piece. It seems that network device management using SNMP V3 could use a little tuning."
"Its interface is very sluggish, and that's probably its biggest impediment."
"Auvik doesn't communicate very well with Ubiquiti devices and will incorrectly flag facets as down. Compatibility with Ubiquiti is my biggest pain point with Auvik."
"I've had some issues where the solution repeatedly discovers a device I don't want to manage and alerts me about it. This is probably me not using the tool correctly, or it could be Auvik recognizing the device in different ways."
"They can definitely build more alerts."
"It is amazing in keeping device inventories up-to-date. It mostly keeps them up to date as things change. There were a couple of hiccups where a device would get replaced and the mapping would break, and we'd have to go in and fix the mapping. It was with devices that Auvik couldn't fully discover or devices that would change frequently, such as cell phones or other devices on the network that are dynamic and change all the time. The integration would just show up with an IP address and a MAC address. There was no other information in them, which wasn't very helpful. They were the devices that Auvik wasn't able to discover fully. If they had full SNMP or SSH credentials and Auvik knew what the device was and it was matched correctly in Auvik, then Auvik could push it through."
"More capabilities in terms of default OIDs, so we can leverage more of the information from SNMP would be good to see. It's been a while since I messed with the OIDs, but the last time I was trying to get additional information from printers, such as the model number. I was able to find that information, but it took a good amount of research to figure out how. I want to see more default capability regarding what information gets spit out from SNMP."
"I would like to see some recommendations in terms of steps that could be taken to assess the alerts. A platform that I have used is Darktrace, which does security testing, and it let us know what was going on, what may have caused it, and what could be done... if Auvik could recommend common ways to go about doing what needs to be done to resolve an alert, that would be helpful."
"The pricing can be better."
"Cisco UCS Manager should have a simplified deployment in the sense of not having multiple machines, demilitarized zones, and on-premise options."
"Cisco UCS Manager is not a scalable solution because once you have 160 blades, it cannot be expanded more."
"Upgrading the firmware is a difficult procedure."
"Its user interface can be improved. It can be more user-friendly."
"The installation and upgrade sytems need to be improved."
"The integration with other solutions could be better. I think Cisco can only integrate using Intersight. There is a second interface available as a SaaS platform, in the cloud, or on-premise. It's based on the Redfish protocol, which is standard for all the B-series servers in the market. We can integrate other solutions using API."
"What's lacking in Cisco UCS Manager is the performance dashboard. If a blade has any performance issues, you should be able to create a dashboard on Cisco UCS Manager. Currently, this feature isn't present."
More Auvik Network Management (ANM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Auvik Network Management (ANM) is ranked 3rd in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 131 reviews while Cisco UCS Manager is ranked 30th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 21 reviews. Auvik Network Management (ANM) is rated 8.8, while Cisco UCS Manager is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Auvik Network Management (ANM) writes "Enables us to get on top of issues before they become an outage". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco UCS Manager writes "Stable and resilient, but slightly more complicated to deploy". Auvik Network Management (ANM) is most compared with PRTG Network Monitor, LogicMonitor, Meraki Dashboard, SolarWinds NPM and Zabbix, whereas Cisco UCS Manager is most compared with Cisco Intersight, Nutanix Prism, HPE OneView, Zabbix and Datadog. See our Auvik Network Management (ANM) vs. Cisco UCS Manager report.
See our list of best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all IT Infrastructure Monitoring reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.