We performed a comparison between Azure Network Watcher and DX Unified Infrastructure Management based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Monitoring Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Network Watcher is the cloud-native application firewall. It is helpful for securing databases."
"It provides good visibility."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Network Watcher is using the gateways with the connections. The monitoring is useful for the logs and application insights into the data. The traffic filtering issues when it comes to deploying those applications are helpful."
"We use the solution to monitor network services. It helps to capture any network issues."
"The solution is good for monitoring device behavior."
"The solution is stable."
"I like the visibility."
"The most valuable features I have found are typology, visualization, and capture."
"What I like about DX Unified Infrastructure Management is that it's a very good product. The feature I found most valuable in the solution is the MCS feature, which is the automatic deployment of the objects you want to monitor. You can set up a system, for example, if it's a Windows machine and I want to test specific devices on it, I could do that through DX Unified Infrastructure Management. That type of deployment is very good because it means you won't miss any monitoring aspect on any server."
"The feature that we've found to be very helpful is the way the solution categorizes the devices to identify groups, groups of devices and clusters. This allows us to be aware of their position within the topology."
"It is easy to implement."
"It is reliable when it comes to monitoring."
"Monitors the infrastructure asset and also monitors as an IT service."
"Probe packages and probe deployment."
"Great out-of-the-box capability."
"Technical support is great."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"Azure is good, however, the Fortinet GUI is more intuitive and I like it more than anything else."
"Azure Network Watcher needs to have better documentation and it needs to capture information accurately."
"Azure Network Watcher could improve by having other built-in applications. For example, an application to log activities for in and outbound traffic."
"Lacks sufficient security features."
"I would like to see in the future if we can troubleshoot as a firewall because it is equipment as a network player and some diagnostics."
"The solution could improve by limiting the need to clarify the logs. When the clarification is minimized, it is better for everyone involved."
"I still use Wireshark and Azure Network Watcher to get the required data. My team captures the traffic from Azure Network Watcher, downloads it, then imports that traffic into Wireshark to get more details on the number of hits and replies, for example. If you can do that on Azure Network Watcher and have Wireshark built-in, that would make Azure Network Watcher better. If Azure Network Watcher has that functionality where you won't need a third-party tool to get what you need, that would be helpful. I'm also expecting more from Azure Network Watcher. It's more complex than knowing how the IP flows from its source to the destination. The tool also needs more open-source features, such as having some built-in Wireshark that improves monitoring for customers. Sometimes, you encounter a VPN tunnel, network, or routing issue, but finding out more about the blockage is challenging. Is it one hundred percent an Azure issue? Is it a peer issue? You don't get complete information from Azure Network Watcher, so you must use other tools and depend on your strategies to resolve a specific issue. If more features could be added in the next release of Azure Network Watcher, specifically ones you can find on open-source tools, then that would be a plus point for the tool."
"The initial setup and deployment could be improved to be simplified."
"It is a little complex to use versus other softwares."
"DX UIM's reporting and customization need to be improved."
"There should be wider coverage of storage infrastructure."
"How we can get more native information from CA's solutions."
"The dashboards need to be improved."
"The company has not kept pace with developments."
"We had to do some work to make what was more of a business class solution work at an enterprise level."
"They need to continue to advance the filter capabilities, and provide more input fields."
More DX Unified Infrastructure Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Network Watcher is ranked 34th in Network Monitoring Software with 9 reviews while DX Unified Infrastructure Management is ranked 37th in Network Monitoring Software with 120 reviews. Azure Network Watcher is rated 7.8, while DX Unified Infrastructure Management is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Azure Network Watcher writes "Helpful database security, good support, and beneficial cloud-native application firewall". On the other hand, the top reviewer of DX Unified Infrastructure Management writes "Easy to set up, simple to use, and offers great technical support". Azure Network Watcher is most compared with Microsoft Network Monitor, Nmap, PRTG Network Monitor, SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer and ThousandEyes, whereas DX Unified Infrastructure Management is most compared with DX SaaS, DX Spectrum, SCOM, ManageEngine OpManager and SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor. See our Azure Network Watcher vs. DX Unified Infrastructure Management report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors.
We monitor all Network Monitoring Software 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.
