System Admin at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Jan 9, 2023
Based on the use case for Device42, I found the solution a bit expensive. However, when you look at the support and the industry standards, Device42 was on par with the industry. Device42 is a little more affordable than ServiceNow and BMC, but in my opinion, Device42 has a bit more diminished functionality in terms of all-inclusive CMDB. Even when Device42 can display all items for you, for my company's purposes, I wouldn't say I liked the interface as much as the Jira interface. Interface-wise, you can customize Jira better based on how my management team wants to view the information. Functionality-wise, Device42 is on par with industry standards, but price-wise, the solution is expensive. I'm rating the pricing for the solution as eight out of ten.
Cloud Engineer at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Nov 18, 2022
It's in the top-three most expensive solutions in terms of cost, but it has all the features that are needed. The pricing is okay. It may be a little bit expensive for other companies, but we had the budget. That kind of pricing is normal because the product has a lot of functionalities.
Technical Officer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Jul 26, 2021
I'm a reseller. I'm more on the technical side and don't really handle billing and payments. Therefore, I don't have any details on licensing or costs. That said, my understanding is that it is cheaper than other enterprise products on the market. This solution would work best for organizations with 1,000 to 2,000 devices. However, large organizations, that may have 10,000 or 20,000 devices may not be best suited to this product.
Security Engineer at a tech vendor with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
Mar 15, 2020
At Device42 they were really kind. We were working through the licensing agreements this year and they said, "Hey, we'll open this up for you if you'll give us your feedback." They're willing to make something work, and they are working on a solution that will work better for people who are using Kubernetes. We follow the Kubernetes lifecycle. Every quarter they release a new one, and then end-of-life every six months. Our development is a little bit ahead of that, so we're testing things, bringing them up, spinning them down, for QA. And that uses quite a bit of address space, so the licensing thing is my only, "Hey, guys, you're not super-hot on the licensing."
Sr. System Engineer at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
Consultant
Mar 15, 2020
On a yearly basis, our licensing is $10,000. However, our license is now nearly full with devices. We need the next bigger license with 5,000 devices, which will cost us $19,000. We pay for a set of licenses, a maximum number of devices, and a maximum number of IP addresses. We have the smallest amount of features, which is enough for us at this time. E.g., we don't need application discovery, but possibly in the future, it will be a good thing.
For our budget it's okay. It's not an expensive tool, although we are not used to paying for software because we are using a lot of open-source software. But within our networking budget, we needed an IPAM and it was easy for us to justify this kind of tool, given its cost.
Corporate Information Technology Manager at SupplyPoint
Real User
Feb 18, 2020
Their pricing model is very poor. For instance, software licensing, at one point in the distant past, was a standard feature. At some point they broke it out as a separate, paid license upgrade. That was kind of rotten. Right now I'm looking at my license page and all of the add-ons are disabled because we didn't pay for any of them. The solution is helpful and it is useful, but it makes adding on any of the extra applications or any of the extra components cost-prohibitive, for us at least.
Device42 is a powerful asset management tool for inventory, asset discovery, and CMDB purposes. It can be deployed on-premises or on the cloud and is praised for its ease of use, coordination, and reasonable pricing.
The tool's most valuable features include agentless discovery, service discovery, business application mapping, import/export for bulk operations, reporting, insights+, REST API abilities, auto-discovery, topology layout, and data center infrastructure management. Device42...
Based on the use case for Device42, I found the solution a bit expensive. However, when you look at the support and the industry standards, Device42 was on par with the industry. Device42 is a little more affordable than ServiceNow and BMC, but in my opinion, Device42 has a bit more diminished functionality in terms of all-inclusive CMDB. Even when Device42 can display all items for you, for my company's purposes, I wouldn't say I liked the interface as much as the Jira interface. Interface-wise, you can customize Jira better based on how my management team wants to view the information. Functionality-wise, Device42 is on par with industry standards, but price-wise, the solution is expensive. I'm rating the pricing for the solution as eight out of ten.
Device42 is cheap compared to other solutions, and we get many benefits from using it. It's worth what we paid for it.
It's in the top-three most expensive solutions in terms of cost, but it has all the features that are needed. The pricing is okay. It may be a little bit expensive for other companies, but we had the budget. That kind of pricing is normal because the product has a lot of functionalities.
I'm a reseller. I'm more on the technical side and don't really handle billing and payments. Therefore, I don't have any details on licensing or costs. That said, my understanding is that it is cheaper than other enterprise products on the market. This solution would work best for organizations with 1,000 to 2,000 devices. However, large organizations, that may have 10,000 or 20,000 devices may not be best suited to this product.
At Device42 they were really kind. We were working through the licensing agreements this year and they said, "Hey, we'll open this up for you if you'll give us your feedback." They're willing to make something work, and they are working on a solution that will work better for people who are using Kubernetes. We follow the Kubernetes lifecycle. Every quarter they release a new one, and then end-of-life every six months. Our development is a little bit ahead of that, so we're testing things, bringing them up, spinning them down, for QA. And that uses quite a bit of address space, so the licensing thing is my only, "Hey, guys, you're not super-hot on the licensing."
On a yearly basis, our licensing is $10,000. However, our license is now nearly full with devices. We need the next bigger license with 5,000 devices, which will cost us $19,000. We pay for a set of licenses, a maximum number of devices, and a maximum number of IP addresses. We have the smallest amount of features, which is enough for us at this time. E.g., we don't need application discovery, but possibly in the future, it will be a good thing.
We pay $100,000 per year. There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.
We have a yearly license.
For our budget it's okay. It's not an expensive tool, although we are not used to paying for software because we are using a lot of open-source software. But within our networking budget, we needed an IPAM and it was easy for us to justify this kind of tool, given its cost.
The product cost is low. It is quite cheap.
We pay annually for our licenses, which includes core, the Application Dependency module, and software discovery.
Our licensing costs are on a yearly basis.
Their pricing model is very poor. For instance, software licensing, at one point in the distant past, was a standard feature. At some point they broke it out as a separate, paid license upgrade. That was kind of rotten. Right now I'm looking at my license page and all of the add-ons are disabled because we didn't pay for any of them. The solution is helpful and it is useful, but it makes adding on any of the extra applications or any of the extra components cost-prohibitive, for us at least.