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

Cisco DNA Center vs StableNet 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
13th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
41
Ranking in other categories
Network Management Applications (1st), Network Automation (2nd)
StableNet
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
65th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of Cisco DNA Center is 1.4%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of StableNet is 0.2%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Monitoring Software
 

Featured Reviews

AvrahamSonenthal - PeerSpot reviewer
Efficiently manages our wireless network and provides valuable monitoring features
The platform's biggest benefit has been in managing our wireless network. Having a single pane of glass to control all wireless controllers and access points and to monitor activity has been a significant advantage. We're a small federal agency with around 300 network devices, so automation is a minor focus. It's more relevant for larger networks. The main benefits we've seen are in inventory management and the potential for configuration automation. However, I recommend using the DNA Centre only for larger networks with over a thousand devices; otherwise, it may not be cost-effective. Before proceeding, ensure that your devices are compatible with DNA Center, as not all Cisco devices are supported. Also, investing in proper training is different from plug-and-play. I rate it an eight.
ShahzadAziz - PeerSpot reviewer
A highly scalable and stable solution that provides excellent features and can be integrated with any product
The support team is more into R&D. They're not focused on support. The vendor lets the partners provide support for the solution. Partners must have StableNet-certified engineers. Complex problems arise for complex installations. When a problem is deep, it takes a lot of time to resolve it. It goes to the R&D and development teams. They do solve it, but the time taken could be reduced.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"The product's most valuable feature is the visual representation of the switch's front panel."
"It gives us automation capabilities for pushing out the configuration to branch networks. It also provides visibility into the health of user network devices."
"We have many people from the team who manage a lot of devices. By using Cisco DNA Center, it has taken some of that burden away, we are impressed with it. We did the investment in CAPEX, but in the OPEX was very low."
"People like to use the dashboards to get an overview of their network."
"Cisco DNA Center provides operational support, compliance support, security vulnerability detection, and automatic scheduling."
"The most valuable feature of Cisco DNA Center is the AI (Artificial Intelligence) that provides us with valuable information."
"It offers automation, security enforcement, analytics, and integration with other Cisco technologies, making it a key driver for efficient network operations and compliance with security protocols."
"The best features are the reporting, utilization, and network graph."
"We can integrate any tool with StableNet."
"The solution is stable."
 

Cons

"What could be improved is the licensing cost of Cisco DNA Center. It's a little bit expensive."
"The product has many features that do not work properly."
"The solution can be quite pricey."
"Integration with analytic tools and API integrations would be ideal."
"The features of Cisco DNA Center and Cisco Prime could have more parity."
"The solution needs to improve the dashboard."
"The solution's integration feature can be better."
"It seems to be a little bit more centered toward wireless than wired. You've got more options you can do wirelessly than you can with the wired switches, but it works for what we need it to do. We would like to see a little bit more about the traffic, and we're looking at what's out there to see about that. We are looking at something that might give us a bit more insight into the actual traffic. If they had the full functionality on the wired side, as they do on the wireless side in terms of being able to view traffic and everything, it would be good."
"The dashboard has a lot of room for improvement."
"The existing dashboard capability is there, but it is not user-friendly."
"The solution is expensive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing for Cisco DNA Center is a little bit expensive, just like any Cisco solution. Its cost could still be improved."
"Cisco DNA Center is a licensed product with multiple levels of licensing available such as basic, advanced, and essential. I don't have the exact figure, but Cisco DNA Center is costly. For example, the box has information about the essential license and costs a considerable amount of money. You need to pay extra to use advanced features in Cisco DNA Center. My company sees Cisco DNA Center as a solution that's worth the money, which is why it invested in the solution. If you want centralized management for your network, especially when upgrading it, Cisco DNA Center is perfect, but it's more suitable for a large-scale rather than a small-scale network."
"The price could be better. It's a very expensive tool."
"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, with ten being expensive."
"The licensing cost for Cisco DNA Center is not more than that of other solutions."
"The solution is a little bit expensive but depends a lot on the customer's usage. If you use it in the right place, you can easily pay for it."
"I do know that Cisco does offer some really good promotions for DNA Center to bring the costs down."
"The product is very costly."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
850,236 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Government
21%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
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 needs improvement with Cisco DNA Center?
The system is working fine for me currently.
What is the best network monitoring software for large enterprises?
In my opinion Infosim, StableNet Enterprise is the best as it is a third-generation highly automated network management system. It enables IT departments to unify the management requirements of the...
What do you like most about StableNet?
We can integrate any tool with StableNet.
What needs improvement with StableNet?
The dashboard has a lot of room for improvement. The product must have the plug-ins ready for standard integrations.
 

Also Known As

DNA Center
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Athenahealth, Barratt, Nocsult, Nucleus Connect, SCC
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco DNA Center vs. StableNet and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,236 professionals have used our research since 2012.