Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

NinjaOne vs TruView 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

NinjaOne
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
31st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
Server Monitoring (7th), IT Service Management (ITSM) (9th), Remote Access (20th), Vulnerability Management (26th), Mobile Device Management (MDM) (5th), IT Alerting and Incident Management (11th), Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) (1st), Patch Management (8th), MSP Backup (3rd), Unified Endpoint Management (UEM) (8th)
TruView
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
70th
Average Rating
9.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of NinjaOne is 0.5%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of TruView is 0.2%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Monitoring Software Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
NinjaOne0.5%
TruView0.2%
Other99.3%
Network Monitoring Software
 

Featured Reviews

Jörg Köhler - PeerSpot reviewer
Enhances remote access and integration with third-party tools
I use NinjaOne for managing smaller clients, specifically their devices and software, for small to medium businesses. I provide remote management services through NinjaOne. It allows clients to use NinjaOne for remote access to their computers for home office purposes. This feature is highly…
MM
Monitors traffic, analyzes flows, tracks packets, and measures bandwidth across our network
We use TruView primarily for network performance analysis and monitoring. It helps us track traffic, flows, packets, and bandwidth to understand our network's condition and detect any anomalies or attacks. However, the product's age limits its advanced features for performance analysis. The main advantage lies in its low cost and reliable functionality, as we have a permanent license and do not require support. Real-time monitoring in TruView is somewhat limited, as there is a delay of about five minutes in data updates, making it less effective for immediate insights.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"NinjaOne has a feature where we can create custom scripts that we can run on devices remotely."
"The solution's most valuable feature is related to its remote access...I know that NinjaOne's technical support is good."
"The policies are probably the most valuable features. They're similar in function to Microsoft group policies where we can have it monitor certain things or push out software on a schedule. I would rate the policies eight out of 10. They're robust, I could monitor most of the things that Windows Performance Monitoring keeps tabs on."
"NinjaOne's best feature is its monitoring."
"Good at managing updates and for remote support."
"The most valuable features of NinjaOne include remote desktop management, support and assistive tools, and screen sharing."
"The most relevant feature is the monitoring, which provides built-in tools for sending commands."
"The most important aspect of this tool is the security it provides our company."
"We use TruView primarily for network performance analysis and monitoring. It helps us track traffic, flows, packets, and bandwidth to understand our network's condition and detect any anomalies or attacks. However, the product's age limits its advanced features for performance analysis. The main advantage lies in its low cost and reliable functionality, as we have a permanent license and do not require support. Real-time monitoring in TruView is somewhat limited, as there is a delay of about five minutes in data updates, making it less effective for immediate insights."
"The most valuable feature for us was the ability to monitor sites and get a nice overview of all the data in a single view."
 

Cons

"The solution could improve by optimizing the internet connection being used."
"Lacks sufficient integrations with other PSAs."
"The graphical user interface could be improved."
"NinjaOne's pricing and user interface needs improvement."
"NinjaOne's reporting module is cumbersome."
"The NinjaOne distribution server is highly dependent on an active directory."
"The inclusion of XENServer and Proxmox as virtual platforms in NinjaOne is currently missing."
"NinjaOne's dashboard could be easier to use."
"We have faced delays in data retrieval and the lack of support due to the product being out of service."
"One area that could be improved is the reporting features. In the version transformation from ten to eleven, the platform changed from a Windows-based platform to a Linux-based platform. As a result, the previous reporting feature using Crystal Reports was no longer available. Instead, we had to generate PDF dashboard reports, which were not as flexible."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the solution’s pricing a five out of ten, where one is the lowest and ten is the most expensive."
"The product's pricing depends on the number of PCs or devices."
"NinjaOne is a little expensive but is still cheaper than competitors like Acronis or Veeam."
"NinjaOne's price is fine since my workplace is an educational institution, so we get the product at a really good price considering that we do not pay taxes, making the prices very fair and worth the product."
"It roughly costs $400 a month. It provides a good value because of the number of tools that you get in the solution. I would rate it a four out of five in terms of pricing. There are no additional costs other than the standard licensing fees."
"We got a pretty good deal. It was fairly affordable."
"The pricing is reasonable and cheaper than ConnectWise."
"Its pricing is great."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
869,771 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
8%
Retailer
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business16
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise1
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise7
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about NinjaOne?
NinjaOne helps us view the status of software patching, whether the PC is locked or unlocked.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for NinjaOne?
The price or licensing of NinjaOne is a little bit high.
What needs improvement with NinjaOne?
The network monitoring needs to be improved.
What needs improvement with TruView?
We have faced delays in data retrieval and the lack of support due to the product being out of service.
What is your primary use case for TruView?
We use TruView to monitor traffic, analyze flows, track packets, and measure bandwidth across our network. This helps us gain insights into our network's performance, detect any anomalies or attack...
What advice do you have for others considering TruView?
Overall, I would rate TruView a nine out of ten. I would recommend it for mid-sized organizations, particularly those with fewer than two thousand people, as it offers flexible licensing without de...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Status Pros, Mitchell and Company
FloraHolland, Miami-Dade Public Library System, Southeastern Freight Lines, Valdosta State University, Everett Clinic, Bioreference, Key Information Systems, ACER, Odeabank A.S.
Find out what your peers are saying about NinjaOne vs. TruView and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,771 professionals have used our research since 2012.