Statseeker Reviews

We use this solution for monitoring the status of all network devices.

We monitor links, bandwidth utilization, and device CPU and memory utilization. We generate reports of the top ten utilization links, which are helpful for acting proactively.

The Statseeker polling engine is very efficient and it does not miss any outage.

Device grouping is very easy, and you can discover thousands of devices in a few minutes.

Other valuable options are efficiency, availability, and vendor support.

This solution is very user-friendly.

Building a server is very easy and in the case where it crashes, it can be made ready in a couple of minutes. Restoring data is very fast and simple.

I very much like the outages and statistics report, as it is helping to be proactive.

I would like to see the addition of a network configuration management feature. It would take online backup configurations, deploy configurations to active nodes, compare configuration changes,  provide detailed hardware reports, and generate the configuration compliance reports. 

The inclusion of configuration management features and SIP links would improve this solution.

A single server can handle hundreds of thousands of interfaces.

We did use another solution prior to this one, but we switched because Statseeker is very efficient and very user-friendly.

The cost, pricing, and licensing are better compared to other solutions.

Our primary use case for Statseeker is for network monitoring.

It is quicker and faster responding to troubleshooting.

The solution reduces the complexity of our network monitoring because it can make my engineers do their jobs faster. The solution also reduces troubleshooting time for network administrators to pinpoint issues quicker.

In terms of network availability, we have a faster response to outages and thus, faster remediations in uptime.

It's fast and easy.

The solution's network visibility is very in-depth and granular. I can look at one-minute data points and it does not roll data up over time.

There is a little bit of room to improve in the alerting section to give some more options there. It's all I can think of right now off the top of my head.

The solution also has very good stability.

The solution has very good scalability.

Their technical support is very good. They solved every issue we've had.

We didn't really have a previous solution. It was kind of a home-grown solution, so Statseeker was easy. It was inexpensive. It fit the need and was very fast to get implemented.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We may not have a solidified ROI, but my engineers' time to troubleshoot was reduced so they can focus on other, more important issues.

The licensing cost is yearly and it's $5,000 to $8,000, I think.

We didn't really have a short list. It was just one or two. I think the other company doesn't exist anymore. We chose Statseeker because of the ease use, fast deployments, and simple interface.

It's a great product and if you're looking for network monitoring, I would highly recommend it.

The biggest lesson I learned is that having one-minute granularity that doesn't roll up over time is incredibly important if we want to do any historical troubleshooting.

I would rate Statseeker as nine out of ten, not a ten only because it wasn't free.

Our primary use case is for polling and interface utilization. The solution helped us to monitor our network availability. Now we're more alert to what's going on. 

It's used by our network operations center to identity down interfaces.

It also allows us to predict capacity on WAN circuits to plan when we'll need the next upgrade. The solution has made things more visible for the network admin, so this solution has been good for them. It has also helped with monitoring so that we're alert to what's going on. 

The most valuable feature is the historical data that it offers. The solution's granularity in terms of network visibility is good. 

That user interface for selecting things needs to be a little more intuitive. 

The stability of the solution has been great.

The scalability is good. 

I haven't had to deal with customer support personally. One of my counterparts has. It sounds like it's been good.

My counterpart was familiar with Statseeker from a former job. He brought it in.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We did the setup ourselves directly.

The next company on our shortlist was SolarWinds.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this solution a seven and a half. It's been solid and reliable. I love the historical data and the fact that it doesn't average it when it saves it.

I like the fact that I can aggregate multiple interfaces into a single graph. It allows me to quickly get the summary of traffic for multiple devices which is helpful. 

Our primary use for this solution was to monitor devices. I was the Statseeker administrator before we switched to a new solution. I do, however, still go back and use it.

This solution allowed us to monitor bandwidth usage within the data center.

The most valuable feature is alerting.

I like the dashboard because it is simple and fast. The granularity is really good. I’m impressed.

It would be nice if they had twenty-four-hour technical support because we contact Australia and we have to wait for them to open.

Technical support for this solution is pretty good. The group we called was based out of Australia.

The initial setup for this solution was straight forward. They have good technical support and a good website that is clear.

We had some assistance from the National Statseeker team.

We did see ROI while we were using the solution.

Statseeker is pretty cheap.

We evaluated PRTG by Paessler AG before settling on this solution. We have since adopted a new solution, although I do still use Statseeker.

I like this product and would recommend it to a colleague at another company. It is fast, simple to use, pretty cheap, and they give you support.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use this solution for educational content.

This solution allows us to have fewer employees.

It reduces the complexity of our network monitoring. We are better able to manage all of our components.

We make use of Cisco ACI support, we do this to make quotas.

It has affected the workload of our network admin team. It is awesome. We have fewer employees.

Our network availability is increasing and it does reduce costs, but I do not know by how much.

The most valuable features are scalability and reliability. Network visibility is good. 

Technical support needs improvement.

Stability is excellent.

The scalability of this solution is good.

Technical support for this solution is bad, as is everything with Cisco support.

The initial setup of this solution is complex.

We had assistance in implementing this solution.

We only evaluated Cisco and HP when researching this solution.

This solution is not perfect.

Always try to minimize the effort by the support teams to keep the solution alive.

I would rate it a seven out of ten.

We use this solution to control bandwidth congestion, and also for the recovery of unused data network ports.

It has somewhat helped the workload of our network admin team. The recovery reports have streamlined our process, and diagnosing certain congestions is easier.

This solution provides a deeper investigation into certain circuit congestions. It’s a much quicker way to drive into troubleshooting congestion issues.

The most valuable feature is the recovery of the unused data ports. We're able to recover more expensive ports on our access line devices. For example, we can run a report that dynamically pulls out all of the ports that haven't been used in ninety days. We can then recover those for new and upcoming projects. We don't have to buy additional hardware in order to expand. There are a few other companies that do this, but Statseeker and AKIPS are probably the two that do it the best.

This tool is fairly easy to use.

Network visibility is fantastic. Statseeker has worked out really well for us.

If it had more detailed NetFlow information then it would be far better. This would allow us to find the top talkers and congestion situations. It would be helpful to be able to drill down quickly and identify a top talker to pull them off and streamline a congested circuit.

A lower cost, overall, would be fantastic.

The reporting functionality can be cleaned up a little bit. Some of the reporting operations happen on the right side of the pane, where you move from right to left, which is less intuitive than it should be. A top-down approach would be much more simple. Right to left is less natural because in English we read from top-down, left to right.

This solution is stable.

The scalability is adequate.

Technical support for this solution is adequate.

We have used several different solutions.

The SolarWinds solution is probably the most encompassing and probably the closest thing that we can get to a single pane of glass. However, they do not have unused ninety-day reports or circuit utilization. Also, their NetFlow is a tad bit lacking.

The initial setup is straightforward. It's a fairly intuitive tool to set up, and adding a network device is pretty simple.

We deployed the solution ourselves.

We're able to recover ports from our system and defer costs and new hardware, which has been somewhat beneficial, but how much cost avoidance has actually helped us streamline is not something that we can capture really well.

This tool would probably be priced well if it had deeper NetFlow capabilities, but for our use case, in particular, we're only recovering ports after ninety days and looking at circuit congestion, it's pretty pricey.

AKIPS offers pretty much an exact feature set to Statseeker but is significantly less expensive.

This product provides some good functionality. However, the reporting is right to left, which is less than ideal, the cost is significantly high, and the NetFlow capabilities are lacking.

My advice is to go with AKIPS, rather than this solution.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Our primary and only use for this product is for network monitoring.

The product does what we need it to do, and definitely gives us heads-up on results and issues we are having in a timely manner.

The most valuable feature — and the value of the product — lie in its delivery of day-to-day, real-time information.

The user interface could be more friendly. When I say user-friendly I mean additional windows with information on additional day-to-day statistics.

It could also benefit the user more if it had additional features for reporting.

It's really stable. We haven't had any problems with stability at all.

It's a very scalable solution. We've used it with most of our network equipment monitoring and we haven't had any performance issues or any other problems.

We previously had WhatsUp Gold which is a really cheap solution. We needed something with better analytical abilities, better reporting, generally better information, and a better interface.

It is straightforward to set up.

I have not seen a measured return on investment. It's a great product. I definitely haven't had any negative experiences with it. I definitely think it helps with day to day operations. That could be a return on investment but it would be hard to measure.

I would give this solution about an eight out of ten. It's not perfect, but it's still a good product. We definitely enjoyed using it. It's fairly simple and easy to use, and it's pretty straightforward. It gives us a lot of information that we need.

Our primary use for this solution is historical traffic wrapping.

This solution only handles a very small slice of what we actually need to monitor, so it is just another product in a set of products we use.

This solution helps in terms of troubleshooting, and you can do capacity planning with it.

The single pane of glass simplifies management because I don’t have to spend time supporting eight different products. I only have to support one.

The most valuable features are the tracking of trends and the presenting of graphs.

The granularity is not the best and it's not the worst. It’s fine

The user interface needs a great deal of improvement.

The stability of this solution is fine.

Scalability is horrible. The more stuff we add to Statseeker the more we have to sift through with a horrible interface. It doesn't scale well.

I am not the person that deals with technical support.

Switching had to do with the cost of supporting multiple products. If there is just one product that does it all then it's cheaper, in the long run, to maintain and manage.

I was not the one who deployed this solution, so I do not know.

We evaluated StableNet from Infosim, and we went with them because they had the most functionality of all of the different products that we use.

The interface for this solution is terrible and can be improved in literally any way.

I would rate this solution a three out of ten.