We performed a comparison between Kaseya Traverse and NetApp Cloud Insights based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Monitoring Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Everything is running seamlessly on the solution, to the point where you don't see any gap."
"Most of the features are pretty good and the solution is user friendly."
"The remote support and data collection features are great."
"It's a simple and humble tool."
"Kaseya Traverse is a very stable solution and very sustainable in terms of what the market wants, what is out there, price-wise and functionality features. They're quite competitive and they are always innovating."
"It is a pretty stable solution...It is a pretty stable solution."
"We have found the solution to be very flexible to our requirements. We have been able to configure it on-premise effectively when we were using less of the cloud."
"The visibility and assistance with security vulnerabilities are valuable."
"All our production clusters are in Cloud Insight. It provides a single pane of glass, giving us visibility into the environment, which allows us to understand if any issues are going on across any of our clusters."
"Cloud Secure is definitely the most valuable feature and being able to see file level activity. It gives real-time alerting on possible ransomware attacks and provides file security review. It helps us to see if something abnormal is happening on the system before it's too late."
"Among the most valuable features are the queries and reporting that allow us to look at the utilization of resources, at how well the storage is performing, and to report on which resources are being used by which business units. We can track usage across the entire environment, across applications, business units, cost centers, etc."
"NetApp Cloud Insights helps with login monitoring and troubleshooting. Previously, if we had performance concerns or needed to interface with other groups and their products, a task that should require only one or two people turned into a six-person job."
"The solution is 98 percent stable."
"It is good for giving an overview of the systems and for tracking long-term trends. It is handy for root cause analysis, e.g. it can eliminate whether storage is the cause of an issue."
"The solution is easy to deploy."
"Reporting is tedious and not organized in the way customers expect."
"Kaseya Traverse can improve by adding a Service Map to help us create a configuration management database (CMDB), this would be helpful for us."
"Dashboards and Central Protection were an issue. Also, database monitoring was not there. Even though they said that it was there at an additional cost, that tool was very basic. We couldn't have device configuration backup also."
"We've noticed a few bugs as of late. However, this seems to only be in the reporting part of the product."
"Reporting is a bit difficult."
"In terms of what could be improved, we are innovating all the time, as well as having a look at different avenues so that the strategy follows the structure. I think the software is still a little bit too new to actually fully asses what it has."
"The tool needs to have some AI capabilities, which it lacks currently."
"There is room for improving the creating and managing or modifying of reports. That is still a difficult task to do and requires knowledge beyond the storage itself. I would love to see reporting improved so that we can create reports by dragging and dropping pieces into a report form and publish a report that way."
"In a perfect world we would have something built, right out-of-the-box, that can identify what we call "noise," and reduce the amount of data. You're presented with so much data when you first start the data collectors. For example, it brings back a lot of change rates that happen just because of standard computing, like profile changes and that sort of thing. Being able to identify things like that and categorize them and strip it down—and it probably can do that, I just haven't gotten there yet—would be very beneficial."
"The IP-based monitoring could be added in a future release."
"The visualization needs some improvement because there are occasional delays while the system queries information."
"Ease of reporting is one thing that they're trying to tackle. If you have a specific set of data you want from Cloud Insights, you can ask NetApp to help you build the reports from the ground up. The dashboards are intuitive, but finding the report you want is sometimes a challenge. If you don't have the report already loaded, pulling it in and letting it build its data can be cumbersome."
"The support is not very quick."
"When I did need support because I was having problems with the solution, the first or the second line just didn't understand it. They were providing this only on a software as a service basis. So, they were asking all the wrong questions."
"The first level of NetApp's technical support could be improved."
Kaseya Traverse is ranked 37th in Cloud Monitoring Software with 7 reviews while NetApp Cloud Insights is ranked 22nd in Cloud Monitoring Software with 12 reviews. Kaseya Traverse is rated 6.6, while NetApp Cloud Insights is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Kaseya Traverse writes "A stable network monitoring tool requiring an easy initial setup phase". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp Cloud Insights writes "It helps with login monitoring and troubleshooting". Kaseya Traverse is most compared with LogicMonitor, Auvik Network Management (ANM) and PRTG Network Monitor, whereas NetApp Cloud Insights is most compared with Dell CloudIQ, Datadog, Zabbix, IBM Turbonomic and ServiceNow IT Operations Management. See our Kaseya Traverse vs. NetApp Cloud Insights report.
See our list of best Cloud Monitoring Software vendors.
We monitor all Cloud 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.
