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

Kaseya Traverse vs OpenText Network Operations Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 10, 2024

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

Kaseya Traverse
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
77th
Average Rating
6.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Monitoring Software (50th)
OpenText Network Operations...
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
59th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Network Management Applications (22nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of Kaseya Traverse is 0.6%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Network Operations Management is 0.4%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Monitoring Software Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Network Operations Management0.4%
Kaseya Traverse0.6%
Other99.0%
Network Monitoring Software
 

Featured Reviews

AMMAR HUMAIDY HUSIN - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Consultant at a university with 11-50 employees
Automation increases efficiency, but pricing needs to be more competitive
Improvement is needed in making it cheaper, of course. I am not emphasizing making it cheaper, however, it should be more competitive with other products. The product itself is very good and helpful for me as a customer. The issue always is the price, as we cannot beat most of our competitors on pricing alone. If a product is just nice to have, not essential like an antivirus, if it's not really competitive with pricing, we cannot sell it.
AhmedBahgat - PeerSpot reviewer
Advisor at Saudi Telecom Company
Dynamic discovery and effective network topology make IT monitoring valuable
The solution enables dynamic discovery and incorporates a powerful configuration management database, CMDB, along with a strong correlation engine. It covers the entire span of the infrastructure, including servers and network operations. It also adapts well to different environments, showing network topology effectively, making the network monitoring tool quite valuable.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"In terms of most valuable features, we are happy with everything so far, and maybe in a year's time I'll have a different opinion on what can change, what can be better, but for now it's the perfect solution."
"The remote support and data collection features are great."
"Automating processes is crucial for me, so the automation part stands out."
"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's a simple and humble tool."
"Everything is running seamlessly on the solution, to the point where you don't see any gap."
"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."
"When it comes to customization, Micro Focus is more mature than its competitors."
"The solution enables dynamic discovery and incorporates a powerful configuration management database, CMDB, along with a strong correlation engine."
"We can detect non-compliant devices and automate remediation actions to cover the gap in the configuration standards."
 

Cons

"Kaseya Traverse can improve by adding a Service Map to help us create a configuration management database (CMDB), this would be helpful for us."
"We've noticed a few bugs as of late. However, this seems to only be in the reporting part of the product."
"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."
"Reporting is a bit difficult."
"With my most recent experiences on the solution, I can say that it isn't currently stable; there are a lot of glitches and bugs and the reliability just isn't there right now."
"Improvement is needed in making it cheaper."
"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."
"The tool needs to have some AI capabilities, which it lacks currently."
"The user interface is outdated and needs improvement, especially for service and topology maps."
"Micro Focus Network Management doesn't support end-to-end monitoring of cloud infrastructure. Micro Focus might have different cloud solutions for cloud automation and hybrid cloud management. There are a lot of products that also support automation. That is different, but it should monitor the cloud from an IT operations management perspective."
"It may need a more customizable UI."
"Micro Focus Network Management doesn't support end-to-end monitoring of cloud infrastructure."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price depends on whether you are monitoring different applications, especially in bulk, and depends on what you're doing. If you're monitoring one endpoint, it will cost you 150 ZAR."
"The solution is not cheap, but it is not too expensive."
"Micro Focus' price is on the higher side, but there are other products like CA products and IBM that are more expensive. At the same time, you have to compare the maturity level of the solutions."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
11%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
8%
Construction Company
25%
Comms Service Provider
14%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Large Enterprise7
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Kaseya Traverse?
Improvement is needed in making it cheaper, of course. I am not emphasizing making it cheaper, however, it should be more competitive with other products. The product itself is very good and helpfu...
What is your primary use case for Kaseya Traverse?
If I want to automate the management and maintenance of my server automatically, this product is a good use case for that.
What advice do you have for others considering Kaseya Traverse?
I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. As Kaseya sellers, we always promote Kaseya first. If the price is more competitive, then I think it will be better. It's a main pain point for us as a resel...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Network Operations Management?
The user interface is outdated and needs improvement, especially for service and topology maps. The ease of generating dashboards for different situations by users is critical for my environment. I...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Network Operations Management?
I use the solution as the main vehicle to monitor and alert about events in the IT environment. I use it for IT monitoring.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus Network Operations Management
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

UltiSat, Clear Concepts, nVidia, United States Postal Service, Cisco, Redbox, Spark Digital, People's Bank & Trust
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Kaseya Traverse vs. OpenText Network Operations Management and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.