We performed a comparison between ManageEngine OpManager and OmniPeek based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Monitoring Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The single dashboard is a valuable feature."
"We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"ManageEngine OpManager is user-friendly and easy to use. Additionally, useful for basic monitoring."
"The solution is easy to deploy. It's also easy to manage and monitor the environment. Instead of being reactive, it's proactive."
"The most valuable feature is the network-related reporting."
"The traffic monitoring and the traffic analysis are great."
"The solution is finely stable."
"The product provides intensive reports."
"Device backups are smooth and managed centrally, with a nice dashboard, so you can quickly see the status."
"I like being able to push configurations to multiple devices. If you have the same configurations for all the branches, it's easier to use ManageEngine OpManager and push configurations at once rather than individually pushing them to each device."
"The most valuable feature is OmniPeek is user-friendly."
"The most valuable features are the voice bot, which checks the quality of service for voice, and the expert view that gives me insight on what and where to troubleshoot."
"I believe the most crucial feature of OmniPeek search is the ability to sniff packets based on channel switching."
"The most valuable feature of OmniPeek is the ability to assign custom color codes to the different packets easily."
"The most valuable feature of OmniPeek was the ability it gave us to see the connection procedure."
"It's a solid piece of software. It's stable."
"The technical support needs improvement."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"They should add more features to URL monitoring."
"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."
"What I'd like ManageEngine OpManager to improve on is artificial intelligence. In particular, the machine learning feature should be integrated with the sensor flow. Doing this will give leverage, especially when you look at other products such as the Cisco DNA Center. When a switch goes down, I should be able to build on the correlation of other physical devices it's connected to so that I can integrate that with my CA CMDB. The ManageEngine OpManager team needs to draw a long-term roadmap where that feature becomes an integral part of the solution because right now, machine learning in ManageEngine OpManager is a long process. The solution doesn't have MLS search and I want to see ML being developed and applied for CA CMDB to greatly reduce the burden of tying everything. For example, if I have a data center switch that goes down now, I should know what server it's connected to, and when that switch goes down at twenty-four ports, I would get twenty-four alerts for different devices plugged in. I should be able to make a correlation that the major problem lies in the switch and not with the twenty-four elements connected to that switch. That is where machine learning should come into play and the ManageEngine OpManager AI should indicate "This is where the root of your problem is." It could be difficult, but this is a feature that should be improved or added to the solution."
"We get a lot of false alerts."
"The integration with various OEM products could be simplified."
"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."
"It would be great if there were some sort of artificial intelligence feature which would help us make improvements in the network once we find an issue, and do it automatically."
"The licensing for this solution is not straightforward and should be improved."
"I don't see a clear roadmap in the future for improving this software."
"The solution's automation has room for improvement."
"I would like to see the tool work in an open environment the same as how it does in a closed environment."
"I am not using OmniPeek for automation, we only do manual testing. Automation testing is tedious to do. The automation should be more user-friendly. I have exposed some APIs but the usage is not user-friendly."
"Making it more clear on how to configure the filters, or really automating them, would be an improvement."
"I would like to see the saving feature improved. We have had issues if you do not save your progress then you have to start from the beginning."
More Juniper Mist Premium Analytics Pricing and Cost Advice →
ManageEngine OpManager is ranked 15th in Network Monitoring Software with 44 reviews while OmniPeek is ranked 40th in Network Monitoring Software with 6 reviews. ManageEngine OpManager is rated 8.0, while OmniPeek is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of ManageEngine OpManager writes "Helps us monitor all the infrastructure in our company but UI monitoring is not practical". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OmniPeek writes "Easy to identify packets, beneficial color assigning, and responsive support". ManageEngine OpManager is most compared with SolarWinds NPM, Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor, SCOM and Nagios XI, whereas OmniPeek is most compared with LiveAction LiveNX, Colasoft Capsa, LogicMonitor, SolarWinds NPM and DX Performance Management. See our ManageEngine OpManager vs. OmniPeek 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.