We performed a comparison between Checkmk and Cisco DNA Center 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."
"I really like the auto-discovery feature."
"The most valuable features of Checkmk are its resource monitoring, infra monitoring, and log factor configuration."
"The initial setup of Checkmk was easy...It is a very stable solution."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it has a lot of different pieces, and they all work together...It is a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"We can monitor multiple sites using the product."
"It's versatile, scalable, and easier to use compared to other solutions like Nagios and OMD."
"It is a stable solution."
"The solution helps in user microsegmentation."
"Cisco is a leading network company."
"I think that their LAN automation is a very good feature."
"Cisco DNA Center provides operational support, compliance support, security vulnerability detection, and automatic scheduling."
"I like the visibility, instant build, network, policies, and the ability to control access. I also like that you can visualize your whole network."
"It gives us automation capabilities for pushing out the configuration to branch networks. It also provides visibility into the health of user network devices."
"The solution has the capability to scale."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"Sometimes we receive alerts, and it can become annoying when you acknowledge an alert. It is very clunky when you acknowledge the alert. The process is not very intuitive, and there are instances where it feels a bit cumbersome to acknowledge an alert."
"In Checkmk, the documentation can probably be improved a bit more."
"It is easy for tech-savvy people, but newcomers might find it intimidating."
"If an alert is generated for a specific pattern in the log, and if Checkmk catches that log, it will stay there even after the alert is resolved."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"I think that the integration and the exporting of the data collected are areas where Checkmk lacks but should try to improve the most."
"They can improve the network visibility. Licensing and its maintenance are also needed."
"The solution's technical support is an area with which my company's clients have a problem. Cisco doesn't provide good technical support unless a user has a big account that Cisco wants to retain."
"The solution’s security side could be improved."
"The features of Cisco DNA Center and Cisco Prime could have more parity."
"The solution's integration feature can be better."
"The tool's IoT integration should be better."
"As a user, it would be good if I could plug in controllers, suites, and devices from other vendors to Cisco DNA Center."
"Integration with analytic tools and API integrations would be ideal."
Checkmk is ranked 21st in Network Monitoring Software with 6 reviews while Cisco DNA Center is ranked 25th in Network Monitoring Software with 36 reviews. Checkmk is rated 8.6, while Cisco DNA Center is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Checkmk writes "A reasonably priced tool for system and application monitoring". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco DNA Center writes "Practical implementation of VXLAN is good and provides centralized control". Checkmk is most compared with Zabbix, Icinga, Netdata, Centreon and Nagios XI, whereas Cisco DNA Center is most compared with Cisco Prime, Aruba Airwave, SolarWinds Network Configuration Manager, Huawei eSight and Juniper Mist Wired Assurance. See our Checkmk vs. Cisco DNA Center 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.