"The fault management is perfect."
"Scalability is a highly rated feature of this solution. It is better than some of the other tools that I've used in terms of scalability. We scaled it to tens of thousands of devices."
"The most valuable feature is the event correlation mechanism."
"It's a good tool. It's simple to do the configuration."
"This product provides good visibility into applications at the backend."
"The granular access control that it provided so that you could only see devices that were related to what you were working on was great. I couldn't see the entire inventory of devices. I could only see the ones that were related to my work. It has got a very granular access control component."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to put health checks in place not only for the infrastructure but for some of the services that are on top of the infrastructure."
"Some of the most valuable features are it's highly scalable, the carrier is great, and if something has SNMP, it can monitor it. It's a great network fault management solution."
"I liked Network Configuration Manager. They had some pretty decent features there, and they also had pretty good monitoring and alerts."
"You can put all of your work on there, they'll send you an email or send you a text. That functionality as a network engineer is the one I like the most. I do like the fact that we can schedule reports. That works too because that's a lot fewer spreadsheets that I have to create."
"Monitoring is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"We have found the solution to be stable."
"Some of the useful features are NetFlow and analytics."
"It is easy to use and deploy."
"This is a good general monitoring system that has all the features we require and they constantly update with new capabilities."
"Some of the most valuable features are the accessibility of the solution and the fact that it is simpler than other products. For example, discovering devices in the network is very simple, making it user-friendly."
"Event correlation only works on one server, rather than on all of the servers in the same cluster environment."
"For my use case, incident coordination was an area of improvement. The internal software engine for coordinating outages could use improvement because sometimes, we used to get false alerts for unrelated devices. They did a really good job of trying to make sure that you got one major alert and any of the subsequent devices downstream were just additions to that, but occasionally, the engine wouldn't properly catch the right things, and we used to get a flood of alerts."
"Integration with some other tools, and integration with some Network Packet Broker, need some improvement."
"Technical support for this product is not so good. It needs improvement."
"It's not a great performance management tool. Its reporting capabilities are not very good at all."
"I would suggest improving the web GUI to improve the device monitor configuration and to improve or to integrate the new tool for reporting."
"Huawei devices are not properly supported, and there are incompatibility issues related to certain protocols."
"Its visualization can be improved. It doesn't have a very advanced GUI. It is very basic and simple, but it does work."
"I would like to see more enhancements made to the product."
"We have been facing an issue since last year when a lot of our users started to work from home through their mobiles or computers. We are having trouble reaching these devices. We are now planning to publish our instance to the cloud so that we can reach these devices. Its performance should be improved in terms of the discovery of the devices. I would like to feel confident with the discovery that this solution does. For example, on my dashboard, I would like to be able to view a list of all devices seen on a specific server. At present, it is difficult to find such information. This would be an excellent feature to have."
"There are certain things that are not possible to do with Op Manager. It's a solution that still needs time to develop."
"We would like link monitoring included. At times we need to monitor those specific links closely."
"OpManager is slow but that just might be the server we have it on. I don't think that's the problem but I don't do the server. But it is slow. When you're interacting with it, it could be more nimble and could be faster."
"The only problem with it is that the setup isn't very intuitive. I know that they just upgraded the product to make it a little bit easier to use, but compared to some of the other platforms, it is not easy to configure it, set it up, and get it running. However, once you have set it up and got it running, it runs great."
"There needs to be improvements to make the solution capable of supporting more devices, and it would be good to see an option for automatic deployment."
"This product is little bit slow sometimes. It may be that we need to change the configuration to improve performance."
DX Spectrum is ranked 11th in Network Monitoring Software with 14 reviews while ManageEngine OpManager is ranked 16th in Network Monitoring Software with 8 reviews. DX Spectrum is rated 8.4, while ManageEngine OpManager is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of DX Spectrum writes "Provides granular access control, highly scalable, and helpful for monitoring the entire network infrastructure". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ManageEngine OpManager writes "This product discovers unusual behaviors and alerts the IT so problems are avoided". DX Spectrum is most compared with SolarWinds NPM, DX NetOps, Zabbix, Zenoss Service Dynamics and Splunk, whereas ManageEngine OpManager is most compared with SolarWinds NPM, Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor, Nagios XI and SCOM. See our DX Spectrum vs. ManageEngine OpManager 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.
