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

Cisco DNA Center vs Netrounds 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

Cisco DNA Center
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
19th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
Network Management Applications (1st), Network Automation (2nd)
Netrounds
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
96th
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Network Diagnostics (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of Cisco DNA Center is 0.9%, down from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Netrounds is 0.4%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Monitoring Software Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cisco DNA Center0.9%
Netrounds0.4%
Other98.7%
Network Monitoring Software
 

Featured Reviews

Mahir Öztürk - PeerSpot reviewer
Network Engineer at NGN Bilgi ve İletişim Hizmetleri
Client history has helped resolve past network issues more efficiently
I mostly use the client history feature of Cisco DNA Center. I didn't use the real-time monitoring capability of Cisco DNA Center because I primarily used it for client history regarding issues and problems. I don't use it for real-time monitoring. If there is a problem, I can inspect the situation and see what is happening, which is beneficial.
it_user738366 - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Network Operations at a tech company with 51-200 employees
​Fast and easy notification of problems on the network
Network quality monitoring of multicast TV channels and other network monitorings. This product gives us a good historical overview over the network and quick alarms for problems Fast and easy notification of problems on the network. The web GUI Grouping of jobs Making your own dashboards…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The monitoring is very valuable to me."
"DNA Center is scalable."
"Has a good processing feature with a high level of accuracy."
"The most valuable features include AI-driven insights which make troubleshooting much easier."
"It gives us automation capabilities for pushing out a configuration to branch networks, and it also provides visibility into the health of user network devices."
"The advice I would give to other people who want to use Cisco DNA Center is to go for it, particularly if they have Cisco infrastructure, though these days integration could be an issue."
"Cisco DNA Center is something that I recommend."
"It is very versatile in terms of analytics."
"The live packet capture feature enables quicker troubleshooting and better network monitoring."
"Network quality monitoring of multicast TV channels and other network monitorings."
 

Cons

"It's a very good product, however, it comes with a very high price."
"I would like is to have a small information pointer available. It could be a plus feature that I want to implement. When I hover my mouse over the user interface, it should provide a brief explanation. It would be helpful to have it incorporated into the UI."
"The features of Cisco DNA Center and Cisco Prime could have more parity."
"Cisco could improve the security side of their solutions."
"The solution's setup process needs enhancement."
"One area that needs improvement is the upgrade process."
"The product doesn’t have good monitoring capabilities."
"An area that needs improvement is the integration with other vendors."
"The web interface is ok, but I would like to see if it was possible to group jobs better and to create our own dashboards."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Cisco DNA Center is expensive."
"The partnership price is notably high, but it ultimately depends on the chosen business model."
"Affordability is a problem because it's created for large enterprises only. So, some customers, even if their engineers want the solution, might have problems with budget limitations."
"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, with ten being expensive."
"The product is very costly."
"I do know that Cisco does offer some really good promotions for DNA Center to bring the costs down."
"It is an expensive solution."
"The price could be better. It's a very expensive tool."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
885,376 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
13%
Government
10%
Computer Software Company
7%
Healthcare Company
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise25
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cisco DNA Center?
The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it gives some kind of ease in operations, especially since our company is moving from CLI to GUI-based configuration.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco DNA Center?
After evaluating other solutions, we will provide feedback.
What needs improvement with Cisco DNA Center?
In my opinion, the client history in Cisco DNA Center can be longer than 10 days, perhaps extending to 15 or 20 days. I am using it in a huge factory in Turkey, and sometimes I need to see what occ...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

DNA Center
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Telenor, Sappa, Clas Ohlson, Netnordic, Kabelnoord, Lunet
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco DNA Center vs. Netrounds and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
885,376 professionals have used our research since 2012.