Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

CA Unified Communications Monitor vs NETSCOUT InfiniStreamNG comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 10, 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 Network Monitoring Software
95th
Average Rating
6.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Unified Communications Monitoring (5th), IT Infrastructure Monitoring (69th)
NETSCOUT InfiniStreamNG
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
78th
Average Rating
8.4
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of CA Unified Communications Monitor is 0.3%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NETSCOUT InfiniStreamNG is 0.4%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Monitoring Software Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
NETSCOUT InfiniStreamNG0.4%
CA Unified Communications Monitor0.3%
Other99.3%
Network Monitoring Software
 

Featured Reviews

itarchit489981 - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Michael Gideon Genita - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy to set up with good documentation and helpful support
I'm using it for a customer The packet flow switch is the most valuable aspect of the solution.  It's an easy product to set up. We can scale the solution if we need to. It's stable.  The documentation is well-written and quite useful. It's compatible with other products.  Under the pocket flow…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Good end-to-end monitoring"
"We use the solution to meet the needs of the customer."
"The ability to troubleshoot customers' connectivity has been very beneficial."
"It has cut our troubleshooting down by days. Once we have a product in place, we show people examples of how it can streamline their troubleshooting process."
"It helps us get to root cause quickly. With utilization and consumption of bandwidth, we can usually see what application is taking as much as they should (or shouldn't), then account for it accordingly."
"The most valuable feature is utilization."
"The real-time troubleshooting and application segregation that you can do within it."
"The tool has the ability to look back within a month's data. It is very easy to navigate within the tool and troubleshoot the problem, compared to other solutions that we've used in the past."
"It is very rock solid. We hardly have any hardware issues."
"It's an easy product to set up."
 

Cons

"The solution should have automatic baseline detection."
"All the features and functions of the solution can be improved."
"There is a timeout feature that we have been asking for awhile."
"The single pane of glass feed still needs work."
"I'd like them to make the product more user-friendly."
"Only problems that we have had are fiber issues going into the TAPs or vSTREAMs, which are usually local site issues."
"The stability depends on who is using the tool, because you only can get as much out of the tool as you put into it. There are a lot of patches for this particular environment, so you have to keep on them. If you lose track of them, then the product is not useful anymore."
"I would like to see an improved level of stitching between IPs."
"The NetFlow Collectors could handle more flows per minute."
"The technology goes end-of-life on us every year, which is why I am looking forward to vSTREAM. I don't like when devices go end-of-life on us so quickly. If we can get more of an advanced notice of when an end-of-life is brought up, because our certification process within the organization takes a while."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"It can be scalable. It just costs too much. With a company as big as ours, it gets too expensive to accommodate every single site."
"The scalability is good, but it comes at a cost. E.g., if you need 100 InfiniStream because you are sending gigs or terabytes of data to one InfiniStream, then you will have to purchase another InfiniStream, which are not cheap."
"The price is a little high."
"To capture more with the solution that we bought, you have to buy another InfiniStreamNG, and there are only four ports in the back."
"I would like it to be more scalable with less spend."
"This product could be cheaper."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
869,760 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Energy/Utilities Company
11%
Government
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise8
 

Also Known As

CA UC Monitor
InfiniStreamNG, NETSCOUT ISNG, Infinistream
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

BBVA Compass
U.S. Department of Defense
Find out what your peers are saying about CA Unified Communications Monitor vs. NETSCOUT InfiniStreamNG and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,760 professionals have used our research since 2012.