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

Cisco Provider Connectivity Assurance vs Mezmo comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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 Provider Connectivity...
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
41st
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
Network Monitoring Software (47th)
Mezmo
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
77th
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Log Management (57th), Observability Pipeline Software (8th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of Cisco Provider Connectivity Assurance is 0.9%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Mezmo is 0.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cisco Provider Connectivity Assurance0.9%
Mezmo0.5%
Other98.6%
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
 

Featured Reviews

Pifu Lin - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior System Engineer at DYNASAFE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.
Addresses connectivity issues with real-time monitoring while offering good local support
I had prepared for COC and the client. I work as a vendor for a client using Flow Mount for network performance monitoring. I focus on resolving client-side issues related to Packy Performance and quality use. This involves addressing network device issues, specifically Cisco network devices One…
TO
President and Founder at STILLWATER SUPERCOMPUTING INC
It consolidates all logs into one place and provides required features and functionalities
Every once in a while, our IBM cloud operational implementation gets behind. Sometimes, when we have a customer event, we do not get access to the latest logs for about 30 minutes, particularly for the sites that are heavily utilized. This is clearly not good. It is impossible to do RCA when you can't look at the logs that pertain to the time period in which the event occurred. It could be more of an operational problem than a feature problem. I don't have visibility about whether it is a LogDNA issue or just an operational issue.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Capturing traffic [is very interesting]. Currently, with our configuration, we don't capture the payload of the packets, just the header. But when we want the body, the payload of the packets, we can do a PCAP, and then analyze it within Wireshark."
"It is very stable, has reduced downtime and migration time, and with Skylight we never forget anything."
"Ease of use; can literally diagnose an issue in about four clicks."
"The response times, with the performance, are really interesting too, where you can see the packet loss."
"When a remote contact complains about a slow application, we can immediately pinpoint the cause of concern."
"We heavily use the "network analysis" section to dissect and analyze flows."
"We have found this to be a very valuable toolset, and has paid for itself several times over."
"I like this product because it is easy to use and it allows us to have a realistic vision of what is going on at the heart of our network."
"LogDNA consolidates all logs into one place, which is super valuable."
"The solution aggregates all event streams, so that if there are any issues, it's all in the same interface."
"We haven't had anything yet that we couldn't do through LogDNA."
"With LogDNA, which brings all the logs together in an interleaved stream, it allows us to take a transaction and relate it to other contextual events making the gathering of evidence for auditors and our internal RCA much more productive."
 

Cons

"The licensing of the virtual pollers is problematic because they are attached to the physical ESX on which they are installed."
"I would like to see some improvements in parts of their synthetic transactions, which includes all the latency, jitter, and throughput. I would like to see some Layer 7 analytics in there. I want to be able to do a DNS request, HTTP GET request, or even SIP call point-to-point or via registration."
"We have encountered problems with the license that is connected to the hypervisor on which the virtual appliance is deployed."
"Human resource costs can be high when dealing with connection issues."
"If you want a new version, you go to the website. The hardest part is finding the link, where is that .bin file? Sometimes it's pretty hidden in a document... it's hidden in the release notes or in another file somewhere. And it's usually not on the first page either."
"It needs the possibility to export data because it is not easy to see larger data sets, e.g., for one month. It would be interesting to export data into a PDF or dashboard to keep a history of the situation."
"The Accedian Skylight user interface still has room for improvement."
"There should be an option to update and upgrade the solution to the new version without having to re-buy it. I have clients switching to other solutions. The old solution is great, but if you change your license to a new one, you have to almost re-buy it completely."
"Every once in a while, our IBM cloud operational implementation gets behind. Sometimes, when we have a customer event, we do not get access to the latest logs for about 30 minutes, particularly for the sites that are heavily utilized. This is clearly not good. It is impossible to RCA when you can't look at the logs that pertain to the time period in which the event occurred. It could be more of an operational problem than a feature problem. I don't have visibility about whether it is a LogDNA issue or just an operational issue."
"Scalability could be improved; we are using it through the IBM cloud deployment and on some of the data centers that are very heavily used, there is a significant lag in the event stream, sometimes 10, 15 minutes behind, which makes the RCA impossible."
"No ability to encapsulate a query or a filter, and communicate or share that among the team."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's not for free, clearly. But on the other hand, it offers very interesting functionality. We pay around €100,000."
"If you look into Riverbed, it's a licensing nightmare. You need to pay for every type of analysis... If you don't look into licensing, Riverbed and SolarWinds are pretty comparable. But if you look into licensing it would not be smart to go for either of them. On the pure, bare-metal basis, it's the same. But when you get the bare metal and a few basic licenses, then you need all those other licenses just to be sure that there's no issue... One of the great things about Skylight is you have them all, and you actually need them all."
"The solution was previously well-regarded, but after being acquired by Accedian, the prices have significantly increased. This has made it challenging to sell the product due to its high cost. It is an expensive solution."
"Pricing is a little bit expensive."
"The pricing of Accedian Skylight is really good. The sensors are low cost. Their model to analytics for sensors is by license, endpoint, or session. With the probes for their analytics, if they get deployed virtually, they are free. The licensing is only based on flows. So, you can effectively deploy probes everywhere in your network. Then, if you want to look at a specific type of traffic, you can enter into it with a very low cost license. You can just use things like spam ports, mirrors, TAPs, and aggregators to optimize what sort of traffic you send to these analysis tools. Then, if you want to start looking at more, you can up your licensed as you go. You are not getting forced into expensive appliances or subscription models."
"The price is competitive overall, depending on the type of customer."
"The pricing is cheaper than other competing products, which is better for our budgets."
"We understand there's a significant cost difference, but have yet to investigate fully."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions are best for your needs.
909,948 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
13%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Transportation Company
16%
Construction Company
15%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Financial Services Firm
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise9
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Accedian Skylight?
Human resource costs can be high when dealing with connection issues. I require more tools to file and resolve these issues efficiently.
What is your primary use case for Accedian Skylight?
I had prepared for COC and the client. I work as a vendor for a client using Flow Mount for network performance monitoring. I focus on resolving client-side issues related to Packy Performance and ...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Accedian Skylight, Accedian SkyLIGHT PVX, SkyLIGHT PVX, SecurActive, Performance Vision
LogDNA
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

T-Systems, Thomson Reuters, Bordeaux Metropole, CGI, Citadelle Regional Hospital Center, Lorraine Institute of Oncology, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Groupe BPCE, Group S, Splitpoint, Horus-Net, Audatex, Indexis, Province de Liège, EASI, Spie Batignolles, Faymonville
Instacart, Asics, Lime, Salesforce
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Provider Connectivity Assurance vs. Mezmo and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
909,948 professionals have used our research since 2012.