We performed a comparison between Infraon IMS and VMware vCenter based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Server Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The feature that I like the most and the best part is the customization."
"The backup, restore, and comparison features are all good."
"Our response time is within 30 minutes for any support. This solution provides alerts immediately, so we are within our SLA, giving efficiency to our support."
"It is a stable product. After the initial configuration, you don't have to tweak it much. All systems of Everest IMS work perfectly."
"The most valuable feature is alerting. We get email alerts when a link is down that tell us which device is having a problem."
"The role-based dashboards provide data points and charts and topology diagrams in a single window. It's like a spider web, where the application, connectivity, and everything is defined for each user of those applications."
"Their discovery is very quick and they have a CSV file upload mechanism that allows you to onboard five thousand devices a day."
"We use the solution to automatically trigger processes to help us resolve issues. The whole IT process has been automated, such as trying to map all the users and the escalation process. So, if any issue happens, we get an SMS and WhatsApp of the report. If there is a critical issue this has to be sorted out, like the entire data center being down, then there is an alarm."
"VMware vCenter has significantly improved our infrastructure management by enabling virtualization. We can virtualize our infrastructure, eliminating the need to access servers physically. Everything can be managed remotely."
"We manage practically everything using the solution."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The product is scalable."
"The integration of vCenter server with any software, whether from VMware or a third party, is smooth and straightforward."
"The most valuable features of VMware vCenter for our organization include its centralized management capabilities and the ability to handle virtual machines across multiple ESXi hosts efficiently."
"It is easier to manage a larger number of nodes per cluster. Currently, if we are managing a minimum of 64 nodes in a single cluster, that capacity can be increased."
"The platform is very effective for managing virtual infrastructure. It has improved our virtual infrastructure and virtual machine deployment in several ways."
"The graphical view of the topology does not show us all of the connectivity in our network, which is something that could be improved."
"The GUI is in need of improvement. It is not drag-and-drop or easy to use."
"I would like to have the option to add a new device or meet with the next release. Right now, it needs to be done from the backend which results in a heavy reliance on R&D."
"This solution is available in SaaS. The reason why we have not gone to SaaS is they do not have a country-specific separation of assets. There are GDPR and other requirements that might require country-specific sensitive information to be filtered as well as other things that need to be taken care of. Normally, if we need to do any compliance, like ISO27000 compliance, they don't have such a report within their system. This kind of report is missing from their SaaS. That is one of the reasons that we have gone to the on-prem version, where I am assured that my data is secure."
"There might be some features in other products that are currently not there in Everest IMS and can be included. I have not yet compared it with any other product."
"I would like to see an integrated view of Infraon IMS and Infraon Desk. It would be very helpful if that were integrated into the solution."
"We have enquired if there are any possibilities of monitoring non-IPBS devices."
"Email support is a bit slow. Once you drop an email, it takes time."
"Areas for improvement with vCenter include changes in licensing models."
"We have to buy more VMware products to leverage the centralized management."
"The web interface is not convenient."
"The product's technical support services could be better."
"The technical support team could respond faster."
"The monitoring features are limited."
"VMware vCenter does not have a centralized security dashboard, and it is pretty tedious to configure."
"The product's technical support services need improvement."
Infraon IMS is ranked 26th in Server Monitoring while VMware vCenter is ranked 8th in Server Monitoring with 22 reviews. Infraon IMS is rated 8.4, while VMware vCenter is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Infraon IMS writes "Provides data accuracy for availability and policy harmonization". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware vCenter writes "Offers highly valuable centralized features and has significantly simplified VM deployment and management processes". Infraon IMS is most compared with Zabbix and Microsoft Configuration Manager, whereas VMware vCenter is most compared with . See our Infraon IMS vs. VMware vCenter report.
See our list of best Server Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all Server Monitoring 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.
