We performed a comparison between Catchpoint and Kaseya Traverse 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 single dashboard is a valuable feature."
"Catchpoint provides a great amount of information."
"We really need the API monitoring, as well as client side session monitoring, the global synthetic monitoring, to track the availability of the systems from the customer side."
"The solution offers three different ways of slicing data to look for abnormalities."
"The drill-down feature of this product was very good. It allowed us to identify the exact page or area of the site that was causing our customers an issue."
"Catchpoint is very flexible and also provides logs for troubleshooting purposes. It helps us fix issues within the SLAs signed with the end users. The tool is easy to learn."
"The thing I like most is the tech support in this company, because they have 24/7 chat support. We can chat immediately and ask them about an issue and they keep responding. They create tickets on our behalf and respond."
"The most valuable features of Catchpoint are basically the transaction monitors on the API and UI."
"Catchpoint helped us establish that something is in a provider network, so we could tell our customers to check their internet provider because the traffic is not getting to us. You need to be gentle when you tell them that, but the fact that we could do it was crucial."
"Everything is running seamlessly on the solution, to the point where you don't see any gap."
"The remote support and data collection features are great."
"It is a pretty stable solution...It is a pretty stable solution."
"Kaseya Traverse is a very stable solution and very sustainable in terms of what the market wants, what is out there, price-wise and functionality features. They're quite competitive and they are always innovating."
"Most of the features are pretty good and the solution is user friendly."
"It's a simple and humble tool."
"We have found the solution to be very flexible to our requirements. We have been able to configure it on-premise effectively when we were using less of the cloud."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"The technical support needs improvement."
"There are essentially a lot of quotas. Nobody wants to sit and manually create monitors for someone who uses synthetic monitoring."
"The old user version was better, it was more user-friendly."
"Trending needs improvement. Currently, out-of-the-box, they provide only seven days availability. So, we have to do queries and we have to go into a separate analysis module, we have to run lot of queries to long-term trends."
"It would be great if Catchpoint could incorporate its alerting system instead of relying on separate tools like ServiceNow."
"Catchpoint can be improved by focusing solely on network monitoring."
"There's still too much manual involvement in getting customized test configurations out there. It's good, but it still takes a lot of effort. In other words, it's when you need to configure it to collect a specific variable and that kind of thing."
"A large selection of nodes are available but it is a challenge to test reliably in China and the Middle East."
"A room for improvement in Catchpoint is that it lacks an automated page updating feature. My company receives all the alerts and notifications it needs, but the page doesn't update automatically. You need to manually refresh the page, so every five minutes you need to refresh it to see the most updated information. If there's an automated page refresh feature, that would help my company. It's a feature that Grafana has. The page auto-refreshes in Grafana, so you don't have to manually refresh the page. If that feature is implemented in Catchpoint, it'll be useful for the users. Another area for improvement in the tool is you have to do a manual task, for example, when you have a notification for a market, you get a zip code that the user could have entered, but if the zip code is incorrect, you have to manually go into Catchpoint and update that parameter, so that manual step is another area in the tool that needs improvement."
"Reporting is tedious and not organized in the way customers expect."
"Reporting is a bit difficult."
"We've noticed a few bugs as of late. However, this seems to only be in the reporting part of the product."
"Dashboards and Central Protection were an issue. Also, database monitoring was not there. Even though they said that it was there at an additional cost, that tool was very basic. We couldn't have device configuration backup also."
"The tool needs to have some AI capabilities, which it lacks currently."
"Kaseya Traverse can improve by adding a Service Map to help us create a configuration management database (CMDB), this would be helpful for us."
"In terms of what could be improved, we are innovating all the time, as well as having a look at different avenues so that the strategy follows the structure. I think the software is still a little bit too new to actually fully asses what it has."
More Juniper Mist Premium Analytics Pricing and Cost Advice →
Catchpoint is ranked 31st in Network Monitoring Software with 12 reviews while Kaseya Traverse is ranked 67th in Network Monitoring Software with 7 reviews. Catchpoint is rated 8.2, while Kaseya Traverse is rated 6.6. The top reviewer of Catchpoint writes "The UI is well designed, so it's easy to get the visibility you want". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kaseya Traverse writes "A stable network monitoring tool requiring an easy initial setup phase". Catchpoint is most compared with Dynatrace, ThousandEyes, Datadog, Splunk Enterprise Security and AppDynamics, whereas Kaseya Traverse is most compared with LogicMonitor, Auvik Network Management (ANM), PRTG Network Monitor and SolarWinds NPM. See our Catchpoint vs. Kaseya Traverse 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.
