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

Cygna Diamond IP Platform vs Device42 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

Cygna Diamond IP Platform
Ranking in IP Address Management (IPAM) Tools
7th
Average Rating
6.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.6
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Device42
Ranking in IP Address Management (IPAM) Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
34
Ranking in other categories
IT Asset Management (5th), Configuration Management Databases (2nd), Data Center Infrastructure Management (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the IP Address Management (IPAM) Tools category, the mindshare of Cygna Diamond IP Platform is 10.3%, up from 4.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Device42 is 7.6%, down from 8.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
IP Address Management (IPAM) Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Device427.6%
Cygna Diamond IP Platform10.3%
Other82.1%
IP Address Management (IPAM) Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Ajmal Abbas - PeerSpot reviewer
System Consultant DDI Lead at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Useful for DNS/DHCP management but needs a better GUI
The initial setup is a little difficult. I haven't ever built any good environment as-is. However, I have tried to develop some labs for my testing; and found that it was really difficult for me to spin up. Setting up everything correctly is the one thing. The deployment itself can be done in half an hour. That said, this is not going to be just one appliance, this is going to be a distributed environment, like hundreds of appliances all together work as a single unit, and that's how the solution is provided. I haven't done any cold deployments. That said, for my testing, I could do it by myself in my lab. Otherwise, to be frank, I don't know how many people would be needed to do a deployment in a well-deployed organization, a running organization. If you have to implement the solution, you're definitely going to be doing it as a shared effort with network security and everyone else.
Manmohan Rao - PeerSpot reviewer
Associate Vice President at Hitachi Systems India Private Limited
Granular discovery has ensured confident workload migration and optimized cloud move group planning
Device42 offers the best features for workload assessment, particularly useful for cloud-to-cloud workload or on-premise data center workload, especially when planning for workload migration to the public cloud. For application and infrastructure discovery, Device42 has enabled me to know the number of machines running in the on-premise environment and has managed to capture complete utilization metrics or trends of their utilization. This has benefited me in right-sizing systems for my public cloud total cost of ownership (TCO) planning, providing me granularity to right-size these systems while planning a migration to the public cloud. Device42 has positively impacted my organization by providing granularity toward application discovery compared to other assessment tools, which is a differentiator since none of the other tools provide such granularity, leading to better decision-making for my migration to the public cloud. Device42 has improved my migration projects by providing granularity around system dependencies that gave me confidence knowing which systems communicate with each other parked in a particular move group. My move group planning became so robust that I am not leaving any system behind in the on-premise data center from my planning, which saves a lot of time and effort, leading to cost optimization—a value addition.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The DNS/DHCP side of the product is quite useful."
"Previously, our company had a lot of issues keeping track of all the data centers and the inventory, as well as the purchase orders, and the good thing about Device42 is that it can be used for all this together so we don't need to spend time checking many other tools and files."
"It has agentless discovery; you don't need to put agents on your servers. You can open one or two ports to discover all your infrastructure."
"The topology layout is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature was the ability to look up the different assets and see the different attributes that each one has, as well as being able to compare them to other assets."
"Device42 has positively impacted our organization by helping us become one of the best companies for asset management and inventory for the enterprise businesses we work with."
"Device42 is a source of trust for many things in our company, like IP addresses."
"It has generally been a really solid and useful tool."
"Before Device42, the company didn't have any kind of asset management software at all, but now that we have Device42, we're integrating every single office into it so we know exactly what's where, which is a huge improvement that has probably halved the time it takes to do the management side of our IT assets."
 

Cons

"It's an older product. The GUI and everything is a little outdated."
"The breadth and depth of the solution's discovery of IT asset information means the system does most of the work, but they need to work on improving the database discovery part, especially for Oracle Exadata."
"Since I was focused on deploying connectors and getting all the servers to be scanned, one of the biggest pains was when a job would fail, then the output (logging) was poor."
"Device42 is a main part of our processes. We need reliability, not only in terms of the data but with the solution itself. It's really difficult when we have 10 minutes of Device42 downtime because none of our teams can work for those 10 minutes, and it's more time lost if there is longer downtime. An improvement would be to have a cluster implementation of Device42 to have high-availability and ensure that we don't have downtime in case of failure."
"Their pricing model is very poor. For instance, software licensing, at one point in the distant past, was a standard feature."
"Device42 is a main part of our processes. We need reliability, not only in terms of the data but with the solution itself."
"The only thing which I have noticed so far that is not good is that we had an issue with some reporting from the tool, reporting we had to export."
"Device42 can improve in the area of updates."
"The architecture is a bit old-fashioned. Device42 is on one server, appliance, virtual machine, or guest. We are loading more into Device42 than it can hold. Overloading Device42 with REST API calls or tasks will directly impact every aspect because the server will be too busy to answer requests."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The product cost is low. It is quite cheap."
"Functionality-wise, Device42 is on par with industry standards, but price-wise, the solution is expensive. I'm rating the pricing for the solution as eight out of ten."
"I am not involved in its pricing, but I have seen their plans during a discussion with the customer. For 500 servers, they were asking 50,000 USD. The cost of BMC Discovery was less than half. For the same thing, they were charging only 10,000 USD. Its pricing needs to be improved. As compared to other discovery tools, such as BMC Discovery and ServiceNow Discovery, its price is a little bit higher."
"On a yearly basis, our licensing is $10,000. However, our license is now nearly full with devices. We need the next bigger license with 5,000 devices, which will cost us $19,000. We pay for a set of licenses, a maximum number of devices, and a maximum number of IP addresses. We have the smallest amount of features, which is enough for us at this time."
"It's in the top-three most expensive solutions in terms of cost, but it has all the features that are needed."
"Our licensing costs are on a yearly basis."
"We pay $100,000 per year."
"The problem with using other vendor, like BMC, is the pricing. The price is so horrible and nobody wants to pay this money."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which IP Address Management (IPAM) Tools solutions are best for your needs.
892,943 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
25%
Government
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Insurance Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Healthcare Company
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise20
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Device42?
The pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Device42 are relatively cost-effective and affordable. I do not know if a small organization would be able to afford it, but I presume it would also be co...
What needs improvement with Device42?
I think Device42 can be improved by adding more features around the CMDB aspect and lifecycle management. I do not think many people use it for that functionality, but if they were to expand the su...
What is your primary use case for Device42?
My main use case for Device42 is that we use it as a CMDB and affinity map to check out network topology or determine when we need to decom something in a life cycle. We use it for many different p...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Constant Contact Inc., Rogers Communications
Computershare, Concur, Doosan, Fitch Ratings Inc., Fujitsu, HomeAway, Jasper Wireless, Mercedes-Benz, Square, Twitch, UCSB, Zayo Group Inc.
Find out what your peers are saying about BlueCat, Infoblox, Device42 and others in IP Address Management (IPAM) Tools. Updated: April 2026.
892,943 professionals have used our research since 2012.