NETSCOUT nGeniusONE vs Tenable SecurityCenter Continuous View [EOL] comparison

"It catches bigger issues on a weekly basis. That's how often we find something big enough that the only reason we know about it is because of the nGeniusONE. The bigger issues are mostly security-type issues: Odd traffic leaving our network or coming into it, that has found its way past a firewall."

"Deep packet inspection is a very useful tool as it works in real time and uses serial packet-level analysis."

"It is an easy-to-scale platform."

"It is the ability to collect data and analyze it, especially key performance indicators. This is before a customer would call to the service center to complain that they have had bad coverage or a dropped call."

"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."

"From the standpoint of VoLTE and related things, it's providing visibility into the network and how it operates."

"It is a scalable solution."

"When we have any type of outage, and we dig into it, we are able to tell what the root cause is instead of having to go through Wireshark, etc."

"Through porting, we can see how the improvement is happening over a period of time. We can see the overall scenario from the last year, where were we were and where we currently stand."

"We can manage everything with only a single console on the Tenable SecurityCenter. We can pull and define the policy. We can perform every task on the Tenable SecurityCenter."

"The scanning itself is really the core of the tool, and it's what we're most interested in."

"The first of the valuable features is how easy it is to access all of the information that's gathered from the assessments... With a lot of other technologies, like Rapid7, if you're using Nexpose you effectively have to be a DBA to get some of the lower-level results from the scans. And Qualys wasn't very intuitive."

"The next big one is supportability. In a large enterprise, we have many types of technologies. The technology we previously had didn't even support authentication to a lot of those technologies."

"nGeniusONE could be improved by reducing the number of bare metal servers required to run it. Currently, you need a separate bare metal server for each of the following: Xfinity, ISNG, nGeniusONE, and CFS. It would be more cost-effective and less complex if all of these functionalities could be combined into a single bare metal server."

"NG1 has been stable for a while in our environment - at least we have what we needed. But with nBA, there's a lot of room for improvement."

"Datadog is more stable than NETSCOUT nGeniusONE, being a SaaS-based solution compared to on-prem solutions like NETSCOUT."

"For individual subscriber tracings, sometimes it does not capture all the messages. There is a little bit of room for improvement there."

"NETSCOUT nGeniusONE is a complex product since it deals in areas like network packet brokers and packet analysis, making the tool complicated for end users."

"The initial deployment is tedious and requires a lot of build, deployment and configuration time. Experience is key to a successful deployment."

"The product is a little complicated."

"Its initial setup process is complicated."

"One area which is missing is cloud security because there are a lot of configurations. Rapid7 has a product called a DV cloud. I would like to have a similar kind of solution and feature."

"When it comes to... dynamic application scanning, I think they are lagging behind the curve. They have a lackluster solution, to the point where I think they need to determine, as a company, whether or not that's a space they even want to play in."

"There are certain circumstances where they may have found a vulnerable service and they just removed the service completely from the device because nobody was using it. There's no way to go into SecurityCenter and mark it, to say, "This is no longer an issue. It doesn't exist anymore." Or, "The risk was accepted for one year, so let's not report it as 'high' until that one year period is done." The handling of operational flow around vulnerability management could be improved."

"In terms of what could be improved, some customers have a problem with SecurityCenter's ticket system. If I want them to assign one of the issues, they may want to assign someone to it or to assign it somewhere else and I may want to break up the ticket."

"The biggest problem we have with this product is the expense."

"The license becomes cost prohibitive very quickly."

"Licensing is flexible, it's not tied to anything else. We can easily switch up the licensing piece... Obviously, NETSCOUT is a little bit in the higher range, but it gives you value for money. You get what you pay for."

"The product is too expensive compared to other products."

"It is a little overall pricey and expensive, but you get what you pay for."

"We have a premium customized contract for the solution."

"The platform is expensive."

"Cost is probably the biggest drawback. Compared to some of the newer vendors that have popped up in the space, it's definitely more on the expensive side... [But] it's been able to keep its value, even in the face of the cheaper competition."

"Pricing-wise, it's fine. It's not an expensive product. That's not an issue."

"We did a three-year deal where the cost is amortized over the three years. The Elite Support was an additional cost to the standard licensing fees... If you use Security Center, most of the time it is on-premise, so you're going to have some sort of infrastructure to build out and there's going to be a cost associated with that."