No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

CA Unified Communications Monitor vs Evanios comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 9, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

CA Unified Communications M...
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
61st
Average Rating
6.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Unified Communications Monitoring (3rd), Network Monitoring Software (88th)
Evanios
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
65th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Event Monitoring (16th), IT Operations Analytics (17th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the IT Infrastructure Monitoring category, the mindshare of CA Unified Communications Monitor is 0.6%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Evanios is 0.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
IT Infrastructure Monitoring Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
CA Unified Communications Monitor0.6%
Evanios0.5%
Other98.9%
IT Infrastructure Monitoring
 

Featured Reviews

itarchit489981 - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Architect at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees
Good end-to-end voice quality monitoring and offers valuable features
The solution should have automatic baseline detection. On the per hour, per base, per week. That's usually the best. And on a per individual CI level. I know that they're working on it and when that's available then we will definitely implement it because it will reduce the effort we need to maintain all the products. Right now we have to set thresholds for every location, and it needs to be actually dynamic so if we have better thresholding, we'll have faster alarms across all our locations. We won't have to expend effort on it by resetting or checking them on a regular basis.
DM
Director at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
Customizable solution that provides the ability to ingest alerts from different systems
The price could be cheaper. That was one reason why we switched to PagerDuty. We wanted to switch to something that provided the same features but at a lower cost. We also switched because PagerDuty provided other features like integration with ServiceNow and the scheduling of engineers. Evanios was only for event integration. Evanios created too much noise. For every alert, it would create an incident. We received too many alerts and incidents from monitoring. It wasn't able to intelligently ingest alerts. It created 4,000 incident tickets in a month, which didn't reflect what was happening. If we received an alert, the synthetic monitoring and volume drop would give us the same alert. Evanios should include alert ingestion and de-duplication of alerts and noise reduction. We couldn't have people resolving each and every incident. PagerDuty gives us reports on how many alerts are being ingested, how many are noise, how many have bigger incidents, and which of the alerts are creating noise. It would be helpful if Evanios had metrics on the amount of alerts and types of the alerts to show which ones were serious incidents and which ones were just noise.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"For us, it's very key to know the voice quality of the total solution, which is based on many components across many domains."
"We use the solution to meet the needs of the customer."
"Good end-to-end monitoring"
"Creation of incidents was previously a manual process with lots of copy and paste, swivel chair, mistakes, and missed events, and everything is now automated with events correlated and deduplicated, as well as crosschecks against scheduled change outages."
"The ability to manipulate events via JavaScript getting the exact data that we want."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with various alert-generating systems because you might have synthetic alerts or monitoring alerts for volume drops."
"Evanios has helped us reduce our incident count by about 60% in just three months into implementation and we are seeing great ROI right from the first month."
"Evanios has in some areas provided up to a 90% noise reduction in some our noisy monitoring tools."
"Incredible ROI: As soon as we switched to Evanios, we started seeing events that were being unknowingly suppressed in our previous solution."
"So far, the amount of IT hours to maintain and support has dropped dramatically."
 

Cons

"All the features and functions of the solution can be improved, specifically the user experience."
"The solution should have automatic baseline detection."
"Evanios created too much noise. For every alert, it would create an incident."
"System information and status (easy to read for all levels of IT) Clearer instructions on setting up alert notifications to support staff in the event of an issue with product: There are some instructions on their support site but I'm looking for something a little more detailed to understand the flow of events (expected compared to unexpected)."
"More complex correlation rules would be nice. The ability to clearly define a parent event in a correlation and nested correlations, specifically."
"There were initially some minor issues around domain separation in ServiceNow."
"We would like the ability to have an "exit" option for events when they are being processed."
"The price could be cheaper."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions are best for your needs.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Also Known As

CA UC Monitor
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

BBVA Compass
Greenville Health System, Land O’Lakes, AstraZeneca
Find out what your peers are saying about CA Unified Communications Monitor vs. Evanios and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.