Kaseya Traverse vs Pico Corvil Analytics comparison

Kaseya and PICO are both solutions in the Network Monitoring Software category. Kaseya is ranked #59 with an average rating of 8.0, while PICO is ranked #71. Kaseya holds a 0.3% mindshare in NMS, compared to PICO’s 0.5% mindshare. Additionally, 83% of Kaseya users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of PICO users who would recommend it.

Kaseya Traverse

Read 8 Kaseya Traverse reviews

617 Views
506 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

Pico Corvil Analytics

Read 9 Pico Corvil Analytics reviews

1,247 Views
1,060 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Kaseya Traverse

Pico Corvil Analytics

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 10, 2024

Pico Corvil Analytics and Kaseya Traverse compete in network performance and monitoring. Pico Corvil Analytics has the upper hand by offering advanced data analytics capabilities and real-time visibility essential for in-depth diagnostic analysis, while Kaseya Traverse offers robust infrastructure monitoring features.

Features: Pico Corvil Analytics offers advanced network data capture, analysis, and latency measurement, providing detailed insights into network behavior. Kaseya Traverse offers comprehensive monitoring of infrastructure, supporting cloud and hybrid environments, along with threshold-based alerts.

Room for Improvement: Pico Corvil Analytics could improve by simplifying its deployment process, enhancing user-friendliness, and expanding support options for less complex needs. Kaseya Traverse might benefit from improved technical support, more in-depth analytics features, and enhanced network timing analysis.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Pico Corvil Analytics requires more complex deployment needing specialized expertise but offers comprehensive training and support. Kaseya Traverse has an easier setup with a user-friendly interface, but its technical support often needs improvement.

Pricing and ROI: Pico Corvil Analytics involves higher setup costs, with significant ROI potential through enhanced network performance insights. Kaseya Traverse has a lower initial cost, providing good ROI through efficient infrastructure monitoring.

To learn more, read our detailed Kaseya Traverse vs. Pico Corvil Analytics Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Kaseya Traverse vs. Pico Corvil Analytics

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 868,706 peers since 2012

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

59th

Average Rating

6.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Cloud Monitoring Software (32nd)

Pico Corvil Analytics

Ranking in Network Monitoring Software

71st

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of Kaseya Traverse is 0.3%, down from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Pico Corvil Analytics is 0.5%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Network Monitoring Software Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Kaseya Traverse	0.3%
Pico Corvil Analytics	0.5%
Other	99.2%

Network Monitoring Software

Featured Reviews

AMMAR HUMAIDY HUSIN

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.

Read full review

Ted Hruzd

Founder at AI Fit LLC

Helpful support agents, beneficial issue detection, and high availability

The creation of charts and real-time windows was somewhat cumbersome. The vendor's website had an application called App Agent that required improvement. This API was designed to track message rates between microservers ingested into a microservice memory map. It allowed users to monitor the number of transactions that occurred at specific points within the application, and it was quite impressive. However, it had some limitations, and it mainly served as a tool for basic tracking. The protocols it employed could reveal the type of server-to-server communication and the specific order types, but it was not able to provide a more in-depth analysis of the application. The vendor has the potential to integrate application metrics more extensively into their product suite. The product suite could benefit from more out-of-the-box predictive analytics capabilities, such as projecting market or symbol movements. However, it is unclear whether the vendor currently provides this functionality. Users may need to adjust their software to perform such analysis independently.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"If I want to automate the management and maintenance of my server automatically, this product is a good use case for that."

"Everything is running seamlessly on the solution, to the point where you don't see any gap."

"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."

"Most of the features are pretty good and the solution is user friendly."

"The remote support and data collection features are great."

"It is a pretty stable solution...It is a pretty stable solution."

"Automating processes is crucial for me, so the automation part stands out."

More Kaseya Traverse pros

"The analytics features of Corvil are really good... As long as you know what the field is in the message, you can build your metrics based on that field... It means you can do the analytics that you actually care for. You can customize it..."

"What is most valuable is the ability to troubleshoot when a client complains of spikes in latencies. It gives us the ability to go granular, all the way down to looking at the network packets and analyze them."

"It has all the decoders so it's capturing every network packet and it's decoding in real-time and it's giving us latency information in real-time... It's the real-time decoding and getting the latency information statistics that we find the most useful."

"We're able to quickly drill down and find answers to events that are happening in real-time, using Corvil's analytics tools. That's the feature which is most in the spotlight..."

"It allows us to trace the flow. The logic is built sufficiently for us to be able to break down clients' orders, underlying child orders, and execution. Thus, it's a good way for us to trace client flow through a myriad of different internal systems."

"The performance metrics are pretty good. We've got everything from the network layer to the actual application layer. We can see what's going on with things like sending time and batching."

"We like the dashboards because they essentially organize all the sessions into one viewpoint."

"We use the data to analyze how much time we spend within the applications. Then, based on that, we are doing multiple analyses and types of investigations to work on reducing the amount of time spent on the latency, which helps our applications."

More Pico Corvil Analytics pros

Cons

"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."

"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."

"Reporting is tedious and not organized in the way customers expect."

"Reporting is a bit difficult."

"Improvement is needed in making it cheaper."

"Kaseya Traverse can improve by adding a Service Map to help us create a configuration management database (CMDB), this would be helpful for us."

"However, the issue lies in the adequacy of the responses to my questions, which are usually not up to par."

"The tool needs to have some AI capabilities, which it lacks currently."

More Kaseya Traverse cons

"There is definitely room for improvement in the reporting. We've tried to use the reporting in Corvil but, to me, it feels like a bolt-on, like not a lot of thought has gone into it. The whole interface where you build reports and schedule them is very clunky."

"While the product is scalable, it's not easy to scale. It needs investment hardware and network bandwidth consideration. It's not something you can just do overnight."

"The creation of charts and real-time windows was somewhat cumbersome. The vendor's website had an application called App Agent that required improvement. This API was designed to track message rates between microservers ingested into a microservice memory map. It allowed users to monitor the number of transactions that occurred at specific points within the application, and it was quite impressive. However, it had some limitations, and it mainly served as a tool for basic tracking. The protocols it employed could reveal the type of server-to-server communication and the specific order types, but it was not able to provide a more in-depth analysis of the application. The vendor has the potential to integrate application metrics more extensively into their product suite."

"For FIX protocol, maybe we could have built-in configurations for signatures and decoders. Also, for certain protocols, which are newer, we would like to just add the signatures within the decoders itself."

"Before I got the Corvil training... one thing that was not very efficient was that every time you had to create a new stream or a new session from within Corvil... you had to tell it what protocol the message is going to come through and how to correlate messages, etc... After I went for the training, they had already added these nice features in the 9.4 version where it could do auto-discovery... Based on the traffic that it has already seen, it could create sessions on the fly."

"I have seen errors where the CNE and the CMC haven't synced because of something missing in the CMC, which was there in the CNE. We would get some type of error, but it doesn't actually say what exactly was missing in the CNE."

"Alerting isn't great... you can only put in one email address in. And that's for all kinds of alerting on the box."

"The analytics feature is very nice, but it's mostly software. We are hoping that it could be embedded in ASICs, so it could be faster."

More Pico Corvil Analytics cons

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."

"Pico Corvil Analytics is expensive. There are several competitors in the market. Selling this solution to a trading firm might be challenging as there are several other solutions available that can perform basic similar operations, such as using Wireshark and Python scripts to obtain the required values. However, that does not nearly approach the comprehensive end-2-end automated depth of metrics and their correlations that Pico Corvil Analytics provides."

"I like the way they've decoupled the hardware now... Everything's based on the licensing side now. The way they do the packs is fair. It's very flexible in that we're not charged per decoder, we're charged for a certain pack. Whether we use one decoder or 20 decoders, as long as they're in the same pack, there's no extra charge. Expensive but fair is how I'd summarize it."

"We bought a box from Corvil and it was $200,000 for one big CNE. Then there are obviously the recurring maintenance fees. The licensing is perpetual but the maintenance fees are not."

"It is pricey versus its competitors."

"Corvil has reduced the time it takes us to isolate root causes."

"As I am working more with Corvil, it looks like it is improving diagnostic times."

"The pricing is very expensive. Corvil could work on the pricing."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

868,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

26%

Wholesaler/Distributor

10%

Government

Financial Services Firm

51%

Computer Software Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

Real Estate/Law Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	1
Large Enterprise	7

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	2
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	6

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Kaseya Traverse?

The remote support and data collection features are great.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Kaseya Traverse?

The solution is not cheap, but it is not too expensive. We pay an annual license fee. There are no additional fees associated with the product.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Kaseya Traverse?

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

PRTG Network Monitor vs Kaseya Traverse

Compared 63% of the time

More Kaseya Traverse Competitors

NETSCOUT nGeniusONE vs Pico Corvil Analytics

Compared 23% of the time

ExtraHop Reveal(x) vs Pico Corvil Analytics

Compared 17% of the time

NIKSUN NetVCR vs Pico Corvil Analytics

Compared 16% of the time

Alluvio AppResponse vs Pico Corvil Analytics

Compared 13% of the time

More Pico Corvil Analytics Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Kaseya Traverse

September 2025

Download Kaseya Traverse product report

Buyer's Guide

Pico Corvil Analytics

September 2025

Download Pico Corvil Analytics product report

Also Known As

No data available

Corvil

Overview

Immediately identify impacted IT services using insights based on rich data analytics of events such as SNMP traps, Windows events and Syslogs. Resolve faults quickly via NetFlow enabled root cause analysis across cloud, on-premise, hybrid cloud and virtualized IT environments.

Kaseya

Corvil transforms Network Data with speed and precision into the powerful real-time truth. Corvil captures, decodes, reassembles, and enriches vast amounts of data in motion, adding analytics and making the resulting enriched data and IT Operations Analytics available to humans, machines and other systems.

PICO

Sample Customers

UltiSat, Clear Concepts, nVidia, United States Postal Service, Cisco, Redbox, Spark Digital, People's Bank & Trust

NASDAQ, Commerzbank, Pico Quantitative Trading, CME Group, Interactive Data, Tokyo Stock Exchange Inc.

Buyer's Guide

Kaseya Traverse vs. Pico Corvil Analytics

September 2025

Free Report: Kaseya Traverse vs. Pico Corvil Analytics

Find out what your peers are saying about Kaseya Traverse vs. Pico Corvil Analytics and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

868,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Kaseya Traverse vs. Pico Corvil Analytics 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.