We performed a comparison between Avada Software Infrared360 and BMC TrueSight Operations Management 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."We have easily created use case testing harnesses for specific flows that incorporate various message types."
"Monitoring that ties into our incident management system"
"The administration piece makes it very easy to do MQ administration. It gives us a lot more flexibility and capabilities."
"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."
"It's what we use for monitoring our MQ system, so the features that they provide are just really, really good."
"It is very helpful to be able to apply rule-based routing to alerts."
"Signature baselines, which have allowed us to fine tune many of our events and significantly reduce the number of events generated."
"The solution has a very good business event manager tool."
"It is a stable solution."
"It has provided us with a single location to host all events to be viewed/monitored by our NOC. This has greatly helped them to streamline their processes."
"BMC TrueSight Operations Management is easily scalable."
"I like the deep-dive detail and end-user metrics data. The synthetic monitor is the best one. The best point of the new one is that there's no need for configuration. You can inject the Java script and start to change major developments in the application. This is a good approach, and we received all the data using this."
"Helix Innovation Studio is a very good feature. It allows us to develop our own enterprise applications and make them available for the customers."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"We desire a dashboard that could accumulate BOQ lengths per tenant on one screen for all tenants."
"The user interface could be sexier and more ergonomic. The competing products have similar problems."
"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."
"I would really like to see out-of-the-box support for monitoring uninterruptible power supplies."
"BMC's online documentation is often incorrect or incomplete."
"I would like them to improve the deep-dive details, tracing, and data agents in this product. We have EUEM, an end-user experience monitoring appliance. This one's quicker than the current one, and reporting side and filtration side are very bad. There are many details we look at and explain what we receive information in the current one, but we cannot have historical data like we do with EUEM. We cannot have a powerful point to look for specific traffic from a specific application and a specific browser. We don't have it in the new one. The current BMC also needs to add the thing that control versions."
"I think the ease of deployment needs to be looked at. It would be great if the deployment was faster and easier."
"We have a unique use case because BMC typically sells this solution into enterprises that are deploying it within their IT, versus to a managed services provider like us where we're supporting thousands of customers. Multi-tenancy and the scalability have been challenges along the way, as we've grown... If anything could have gone better as we were ramping this up and adding a lot of volume to it, I would say it's the scalability. That would be one thing that could be improved."
"In a large company of our size, we need multiple people in our company trained. So, I have to take the training classes. Then, I have to go and train the rest of my organization. I would prefer to say to the other people on my team, "Go to this link and..." Or, "Here's a list of training sessions that you can go to which are online and that are free." I think it would help the adoption of their product in the marketplace, personally."
"This solution is lacking in application monitoring features. Technical support for this solution also needs improvement, particularly in product knowledge and response time."
"The dashboard and performance graphs should include a way to automatically schedule and export reports."
More BMC TrueSight Operations Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Avada Software Infrared360 is ranked 71st in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability while BMC TrueSight Operations Management is ranked 17th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 48 reviews. Avada Software Infrared360 is rated 8.8, while BMC TrueSight Operations Management is rated 8.2. 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. ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of BMC TrueSight Operations Management writes "The product is reasonably priced, but the solution is a little obsolete because it is deployed on-premise". Avada Software Infrared360 is most compared with IBM MQ and Dynatrace, whereas BMC TrueSight Operations Management is most compared with BMC Helix Monitor, Dynatrace, ServiceNow IT Operations Management, Zabbix and New Relic. See our Avada Software Infrared360 vs. BMC TrueSight Operations Management 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.