Auvik Network Management (ANM) Reviews

The solution monitors my equipment. I can see everything that's online. It alerts me when things are offline, which is great. It also tells me if there's some firmware aspect to it, which I think is cool. That way, I know if my monitored equipment needs an update.

I like that I can see if the switches are online. I can get alerted when something is offline.

The interface is okay. I like the network map and dashboard overall. It gives me a real-time picture and visually represents my network so I can see what's going on.

I get pretty much full network visibility.

A little bit of time passed before we saw the benefits of Auvik. I first noticed its benefits when I was first alerted to something that was offline. At that point, I thought: "Yeah, this is exactly what I wanted it for."

Some parts of the interface are a little hard to navigate.

It's not the most intuitive dashboard. That said, it works. It's technical. If you know what you are doing, it's fine. 

There could be a button to skip two-factor authentication for 30 days or so.

I'd like the option to turn off the mask at the top. It takes up a large portion of the screen. 

I've used the solution for around a month so far. 

I've never had an issue with stability. 

The solution appears to be scalable, although I am not currently scaling. 

Technical support was okay. 

Neutral

We previously handled the tasks Auvik covers manually.

I wasn't directly involved in the setup. There are not any maintenance requirements. 

The pricing generally makes sense. They are charging me based on the devices. 

I did look at a few other solutions before choosing Auvik.

I'm a customer and end-user. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

As an IT company, we rely on Auvik, a network monitoring tool, to support our many clients. We install an Auvik agent on their networks, which then provides real-time monitoring. This allows us to be alerted of any issues, like a downed server, so we can promptly investigate and resolve the problem.

The interface is straightforward.

After familiarizing myself with Auvik, I could see the many benefits it offered.

Auvik empowered our entry-level technicians to resolve more tickets independently. It complements our existing internal monitoring tool. While the existing tool might initially flag issues like a server outage, Auvik provides additional insights for our technicians, helping them verify the information and identify potential false positives. This allows them to tackle problems more effectively without needing to escalate to senior staff.

Auvik allows us to spend less time on setup, maintenance, and issue resolution.

The most valuable feature is the alerting system. This ensures we're notified immediately of critical events, such as a server failure, allowing for a swift response and minimizing downtime.

I find the network map confusing and believe it could be improved by simplifying its layout or using clearer visuals.

The quality of technical support varies greatly. Some representatives are very helpful, while others are less so.

I have been using Auvik Network Management for three years.

There have been one or two instances where the Auvik website or portal seemed to be unavailable, but the actual appliances themselves seemed to be functioning normally. Overall, Auvik has been stable.

Auvik Network Management is scalable.

The technical support experience can be inconsistent. Sometimes we connect with fantastic technicians who solve our problems quickly. The customer service representatives are always friendly and supportive. However, occasionally we encounter technicians who suggest basic troubleshooting steps I've already attempted, like restarting or pinging. In these situations, I prefer immediate escalation. Thankfully, the escalation process through chat is usually swift, and the escalated representatives are very effective.

Neutral

While the initial deployment is straightforward, the overall deployment time will vary depending on our chosen option. On Windows machines, the process takes just five minutes, while Linux machines require approximately 20 minutes.

I start with a pre-configured Auvik collector packaged as an OVA file. I upload this file to VMware to deploy the collector. Once deployed, I SSH into the Linux machine and execute the necessary commands to update its firmware to the latest version. This completes the deployment process.

The implementation is completed in-house.

I would rate Auvik Network Management eight out of ten.

No maintenance is required.

I recommend spending some time familiarizing yourself with the portal. Once you're inside, you'll find it to be quite intuitive.

We are a small MSP and we use Auvik Network Management to monitor the networks of our clients.

The network map is essential – without it, we'd be lost quickly. Fortunately, it provides us with a convenient and near real-time view of the system, allowing for optimal monitoring.

The Auvik network map offers complete visibility of all devices where we have established credentials.

We started to see the benefits of Auvik as soon as we added an Auvik specialist to our team.

Auvik has helped reduce our mean time to resolution. It is now almost immediate. When a cluster goes down, we receive an alert almost immediately.

The most valuable feature of Auvik is the comprehensive network management it provides. While we initially had someone install it for our client, it wasn't set up correctly. Thankfully, our new Auvik specialist came in, cleaned everything up, and configured it properly. Now, we have clear visibility into our network, including breakdowns of VLANs, device locations, and communication paths. We even discovered a built-in GUI traceroute tool that helps us pinpoint network bottlenecks with ease.

The interface could be more user-friendly for getting to our clients. While the overall experience is positive, there's room for improvement. The main client pages load slowly, but interestingly, navigating through drop-down menus before reaching the main page is faster. Scheduling maintenance would be much easier if there was a dedicated section readily visible on each client's main page.

I have been using Auvik Network Management for one and a half years.

Auvik Network Management is stable.

Auvik Network Management is scalable.

We transitioned from SolarWinds Orion to Auvik Network Management due to its wider range of features. Beyond core functionalities, Auvik provides backup and restore options for configurations, and to our delight, we recently discovered the ability to remotely manage firewalls directly through the platform, eliminating the need for on-site VPN access.

I would rate Auvik Network Management eight out of ten.

We maintain the server we host Auvik on.

I recommend Auvik Network Management. Once you get to know the solution, you'll be able to utilize its full potential.

We use it for managing our inventory of assets and for receiving timely alerts from our servers.

Auvik's user interface, interactivity, and ease of use are at an average level.

Its network map and dashboard offer a real-time representation of our network. However, it tends to be quite cluttered.

It enables us to reduce the time spent on setup, maintenance, and issue resolution.

The most valuable features include the inventory management and alerting capabilities.

There is room for improvement in the reporting aspect. Specifically, we would like to receive notifications when individual drives reach full capacity. However, the current system aggregates information for all drives on a server, making it challenging for us. Obtaining comprehensive hardware information from both PCs and servers is also proving to be difficult.

I have been using it for a year and a half.

I would rate its stability capabilities eight out of ten

I would rate its scalability abilities seven out of ten.

Their technical support has been effective, with readily available assistance and help to address issues. Occasionally, the drawback lies in the response that certain features may not be available at the moment, with assurances that they are actively working on it. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Positive

We used Datadog for reporting in the past. We transitioned to Auvik because it provides both functionalities we require at a cost-effective price, combining two essential features into one product. 

Configuring Datadog is more challenging, yet it yields superior reports. On the contrary, Auvik is easier to set up, but its reports are not as comprehensive.

The initial setup was fairly simple.

The deployment time was approximately three or four hours, with assistance from an Auvik representative during the process. Solely, I handled the responsibility from our end. It doesn't necessitate much maintenance.

We recognized its value almost immediately upon deploying it.

The pricing is favorable.

I recommend others have a clearer vision of their goals and assess how well it aligns with their intentions before opting for it. I've spent some time exploring the reporting features, and it falls short of providing all the necessary reports and alerts. Additionally, there are numerous configurations spread across various places, which can be challenging to manage. Overall, I would rate it five out of ten.

I use Auvik for managing my two most complex networks with multiple locations and diverse routing.

Initially, I implemented Auvik to address routing and switching issues. It helped pinpoint and solve those problems. Over time, its bigger value became evident in its ability to efficiently document and discover every device on the network. Auvik has significantly reduced my mean time to resolution. 

It provides crucial visibility into complex switching setups, allowing me to quickly identify which devices are connected to specific switch ports - a task that was challenging with other tools.

In terms of improvement, Auvik could include more customization options and the ability to efficiently manage additional features like printer monitoring.

I have been using Auvik for three years.

Auvik is fairly stable.

Auvik has been scalable in my experience with simple networks, I haven't encountered any limitations. My use cases haven't tested its full capabilities.

Before Auvik, I briefly used Kaseya's Network Glue, which I considered a less sophisticated option. However, Auvik stood out as the best-in-class solution when I compared alternatives. I had known about Auvik for several years before using it and recognized its value in network mapping and documentation, and later appreciating its real-time monitoring and discovery features.

While Auvik offers an intuitive interface, there is a slight learning curve during setup. Once you are familiar with the process, it becomes easier to navigate and manage network issues. Getting started with Auvik requires a fair amount of setup, especially in new environments. Setting up SNMP credentials for each device is time-consuming, particularly in networks with varied configurations. Auvik has a hybrid deployment model, utilizing an on-premise detector. I was involved in the initial deployment, and it was a gradual process over several weeks, addressing switches, routers, servers, printers, and other devices with SNMP.  Maintenance for Auvik is minimal. The main task involves adding new devices, like printers, and ensuring SNMP settings are configured correctly. It becomes more challenging in co-managed IT situations when changes are made independently by the customer.

It is hard to measure the return on investment for Auvik regarding direct revenue. However, it significantly benefits me by speeding up problem resolution and enhancing efficiency.

The pricing of Auvik seems reasonable, especially for setups with complex networks. In cases where networks are more straightforward, it may not be necessary. However, considering the growing importance of compliance standards like PCI and CMMC, having Auvik everywhere could become essential for comprehensive network discovery and cybersecurity.

Auvik provides a network map and dashboard for a real-time view of my network. However, due to the complexity of my setup, the map becomes cluttered and less useful. While it looks nice, the intelligent scaling makes it impractical for anything beyond simple networks. 

Auvik's network map and dashboard attempt full visibility, but they cram too much into a small space. It becomes impractical and buries useful information in the noise. It is unnecessary for simple setups. 

Auvik doesn't charge for monitoring critical devices like printers, servers, and access points. Its primary value lies in monitoring and managing switches and routers, the devices for which they charge. For other devices, redundant monitoring systems are already in place.

Overall, I would rate Auvik as a nine out of ten.

We install the product on all of our customer's endpoints. As an IT services consultant and provider, we depend on it to help us monitor the SaaS applications in use in customer environments. This includes monitoring for shadow IT, but equally important is being able to monitor license usage of approved apps and report that usage back to our customers.

Our customers' environments range from a handful of users to hundreds. Most of them are heavy SaaS users, and most work in at least hybrid environments, if not completely remote. Many of our customers are highly regulated or work with highly regulated customers themselves. All of them have intellectual property they're concerned about safeguarding, as well as customer information. 

This solution is one of a set of tools we use to control and protect these environments. It's one of the most important. Knowing about and stopping data from being stored or otherwise transmitted to unapproved SaaS applications is a primary concern for our customers, as it can cause regulatory violations or data loss and exposure - of both their customers' data and their own IP. It works quickly and proactively, allowing us to prevent these problems.

The product provides important insights into application usage for our customers and for us. Many of our customers are in highly regulated industries, and all of them have concerns about security. Our customers are also concerned about the proliferation of subscriptions they are signed up for. The solution allows us to monitor all of these things. We can provide reporting for audits and as part of our monthly reviews. We can detect and respond quickly to people using unapproved applications. 

We find that it is incredibly easy to install. Early in our use of the product, we worked with the development team and were able to work out a simple process for us to remotely install the tool through our RMM. Doing so is now a routine and fast part of our onboarding process. Management is zero effort on our part.

Overall, the solution gives our customers significant piece of mind, helps them save money, and removes a complication from their business. For us, it's a breeze to use and very dependable.

Reporting is critical for us and our customers. Many need to present documentation of their efforts to protect their data and their IT environment during audits. We can periodically generate reports from the product and store these in a convenient location. These are then at hand during audits, so our customers don't have to scramble to prepare.

Shadow IT monitoring is huge for us since so many of our customers are highly regulated. Being able to quickly detect and respond to Shadow IT usage is incredibly valuable for stopping potential regulatory violations.

Integrating some LLM/AI capabilities into the product that would enable us to use natural language to query the tool and get sensible answers back would be great. Being able to integrate that with Slack or Teams would be even better.

We are always looking for ways to shave time from operations tasks. Even without LLM/AI, being able to integrate some degree of real-time query from a tool like Slack would be very useful. That would eliminate some of the need for us to check the portal and various customer tenants to get the information we need.

We've used the solution almost since it was first developed. It's been part of our toolbox for several years.

We've never run into any issues. The software works and doesn't interfere.

The product is very scalable. We deploy it to thousands of endpoints.

The solution always provides strong customer support.

Positive

We didn't use a different solution previously. We adopted the product early in development, and there weren't many competing products available. Since then, competitors have come out, yet we've stayed with this solution not only due to what it does but due to the quality of the team and company (Auvik).

The initial setup is very straightforward. We've completely automated the installation. The Auvik team is great at helping with this.

There's significant ROI to our customers, both in avoiding the downsides of Shadow IT and in managing their SaaS licensing. Our ROI comes in that we are adding value to our customers' IT and security operations while not incurring significant costs or time to do so.

We feel that the solution is incredibly affordable and fits well into our portfolio of tools. Setup is very easy and has been easy for us to automate. 

There wasn't much else available at the time we started using a solution of this nature. We have looked at other solutions since. However, we prefer to stay with Auvik.

Shadow IT monitoring and SaaS license management used to be uncommon thing. In just a few years, it's become table stakes. Any company not doing this is missing an important part of what IT needs to perform to secure the enterprise and manage costs. This solution provides an easy-to-use and affordable way to do this. I recommend it very highly.

We use it for network monitoring. We don't do a lot of systems monitoring with it. We predominantly use it for core switches, external network adapters, and other similar things but not for the endpoints or server hardware.

We are currently not using any of the automation functions.

It definitely assists with visibility into our remote and distributed networks. We don't necessarily use the Windows side of things, but we do have a couple of systems that are monitored. It is almost like a ping test or just a sanity check. From that perspective, it definitely helps. This visibility is 100% critical.

It helps keep device inventories up-to-date. It has saved us time because we have pretty much everything at a glance. It does allow us to prioritize what needs to be replaced or anything that would be necessitated by the device inventory, such as software updates or vulnerability patches. It definitely helps, especially with the end-of-life hardware. We're able to determine that and apply a device lifecycle to it.

In terms of helping our teams focus on high-value tasks and delegating low-level tasks to junior staff, in our network team, we do everything. There are all types of tasks that would be normally assigned to juniors. It definitely provides a lot more visibility and helps in delegating specific things. For example, when an interface is flapping or a port is shut down, it is a lot easier to delegate such a task. We're an MSP staff that doesn't necessarily deal with high-end network equipment. Turning a port back on is something most of us can do as long as we can log into a command prompt. Even the server admins can do some network tasks if need be. Within that, it does allow us to prioritize and state, "Okay, a senior network admin can figure out why this entire site is down," versus, "We need to update a switch."

Our mean time to resolution has reduced due to the alerting system.

We are seeing that the monitoring is very accurate. We are seeing that in terms of problems and solutions, there is a lot of functionality to it, such as APIs. So, you can dig down. You can dig deep into it. It does provide very useful metrics, and it has improved a large portion of our day-to-day operations.

The network monitoring portion of it has pretty sane defaults, and it is fairly good as a product. It is probably one of the better ones that I've used.

The visibility on the site itself is a bit of a problem. We do have the alerts panel, but there is no central monitoring. When we had requested how we would do this to place it up in the NOC and how we would view it and everything else, their answer was to use a third-party tool, such as Power BI. That was the response that we got. A front-end component to show the actual NOC operations at a glance is not present. That would be a major con in my opinion, especially for what we do as a data center. 

The actual adding of networks, systems, and everything like that is fairly easy, but the problem that I have is getting the metrics out. Specifically, if you go to the Auvik webpage, sign in, and go through the alerts and everything else, they don't offer any plasma display with a red light, green light, or stop light indicating this device is in an error state, down, etc. To get around this, we have to use their API. I had to code an entire interface to work around that lack of information. 

One of my major concerns or my major problems is the API hasn't always been super reliable. Sometimes things get broken. Sometimes it is down for a little bit. It doesn't seem to have the same reliability as their primary service, the actual web page itself. The API reliability is problematic when you apply a user account. I have a super admin account, and I have an API user that is a super admin as well. I create a new site as a super admin, and you'd expect everything to fall through, where the top level is the super admin and the subsites don't have access. We have network admins that create sites and DCOM sites and everything else all the time. When that happens, it breaks the alerts API and gives a 403, forbidden error, and that's across everything. If it can't access the top-level tenant, it just breaks the site. There are ways of counteracting that, and we're aware of the pitfalls there. 

We have had the API function in erratic ways where we do filtration based on various criteria, for example, if a ticket has been dismissed, if it is in maintenance, or if it is critical. We have filters for all the metrics. Sometimes, we had a couple of tickets where it doesn't acknowledge those filtrations or the filters, which causes a little bit of a problem, and we have to do a little bit of a sanity check within our code itself. It almost seems a little bit like they do focus on the front end and making it visible, but it seems like the API is almost a second-class citizen.

We've been using Auvik for about two years.

Because the API is what we use frequently, we've had various issues. It could use some work, but in the front-end portion of it, where I'm assuming most of the customers would be looking, we haven't had any downtime that hasn't been pre-planned and reported to us in advance.

Its scalability seems to be fairly good. We're not having any real problems. With the way we're doing things now, it seems to be fairly scalable, and I don't think we'll have any problems.

In terms of our environment, we have operations predominantly in New York. Specifically, there are a few in Manhattan. We have a few in Queens and Suffolk County. We do have one location that is in Singapore, which is one of the smaller operations that we have, but it is predominantly located in the New York, Long Island region.

They were very friendly. They were very good. Generally, if there was a problem, I was able to talk to an engineer on their side relatively quickly, which was a good thing. I was able to very easily prove the point that I had with the calls and everything else, and it worked flawlessly. After I was able to show them the output and everything else, they were able to resolve the problem. I believe they were able to resolve it after six hours or eight hours of having the call with them. That was a pretty good response time in my opinion.

I would definitely rate them a 9 out of 10. Getting a 10 is almost unheard of. All things considered, support is one of the better parts of Auvik in my opinion.

Positive

We have been using OpsRamp. We got Auvik because one of our larger customers used OpsRamp and then changed to Auvik. In our case, my boss said, "Well, why don't we use it too? They seem to be really enthused by it." However, that customer doesn't use it with the same use case. They monitored a lesser number of sites and locations. Their use case is slightly different and their monitoring is not the same, so it works for them, but it doesn't necessarily have the same impact on us. 

In terms of the consolidation of tools, we are still using multiple software types. Auvik is what we use exclusively to monitor network areas. We are currently using OpsRamp with which we are monitoring network hardware as well. We also used Kaseya, which was the worst software for monitoring anything. That was the reason why we immediately binned it as fast as we could, but we also have a couple of other different software. We are using an application manager. We do have Zabbix, and we monitor some things through that as well. That's mostly the ESXi and servers that are on-prem. We are a data center, but we also provide managed services as well. We have a lot of different systems within a lot of different operating systems and environments. Some are PCI. Some are non-PCI. So, we do use other software, and Auvik fulfills some of the same monitoring purposes but for different clients or different hardware.

In terms of time-saving by switching to Auvik, the OpsRamp software has some faults and after the actual interface that I wrote was deployed and started to be used by our NOC, there have been time savings. However, getting to that point took a little bit more frustration in setting up compared to some of the other products that we've used.

We spent substantially less time with Auvik than with our previous solution. The initial setup was relatively straightforward, but my experience level is closer to DevOps than a traditional Systems Administrator. Between my own level of experience and my network team, it was fairly easy to get it deployed.

We were able to deploy it, but then we found that for our monitoring needs, it was a little bit lackluster. I had to code the webpage.

In terms of maintenance, with regard to the API and the coding work, maintenance is required, but it is infrequent.

We did it by ourselves.

There were quite a few options that we looked at. It has been a while, but there was a large selection of software that we've tried, both on-prem and cloud-based. We did monitor or look at NinjaRMM and ScriptLogic. There was Nagios for the on-prem and Applications Manager from ManageEngine. We checked out Enable as well.

When comparing Auvik's cloud-based solution versus the on-prem network monitoring solutions, they serve different use cases, but the cloud-based Auvik has its advantages due to the fact that we don't have to have firewall ports opened. We can very easily monitor various devices and various client sites without having to be concerned about any leakages because we have the accumulator of the agent gateway and whatever the terminology that they use. It definitely has its pros and cons in the sense of firewall access, deployment speed, and monitoring aspects. We can apply a template across all different types of devices, and the scanning works perfectly in that sense.

My advice would be dependent on how many sites you are monitoring and what you are intending on monitoring. For network equipment, Auvik is very good. For hardware and software, such as Linux, Windows, ESXi, and other similar things, it is very poor in those regards. That would be the major thing. If you are intending on having one tool to rule them all, I would probably steer you toward that limitation because it is quite limited in the endpoint monitoring and server monitoring, but it very well exceeds in network monitoring.

In terms of providing a single integrated platform, the API access to it is good. It does provide that, but the actual OS and software side of things that are not network devices is a little bit lacking.

Overall, I would rate Auvik a 7 out of 10.

My company is a managed services provider managing network infrastructure for multiple clients. We use Auvik to monitor firewalls, routers, or switches. When network devices go offline, get instant email notifications so we can investigate the issue. We also use it to manage devices directly through a web browser remotely.

Auvik makes everything more manageable. The alerts come in overnight, enabling us to look into the issue as soon as possible. We haven't experimented with Auvik's automation features. The primary benefit for our organization is network visualization and monthly reports for our clients. If our clients want to know what happened during the month, we can just gather that information and send it to them.

The network map has all the devices organized by the core, distribution, and access levels. Everything is evenly lined up, so it's easy to look at and it makes everything a little easier on our team.

The device inventories help us on the auditing side. Our customers want to know about changes in interface usage and quantity. For example, if we have some switches that are typically off and others on, we can track the changes in usage and all the inventories we manage. If we have the inventories off the bat, it saves us a few hours because we don't need to count manually. Auvik also reduces our resolution time by about 30 to 60 minutes.

I don't have much experience with on-premises solutions, but the cloud is much easier to use because it's available anywhere, so it takes less time to connect. 

The instant email alerts Auvik sends are valuable because every second counts when a device is down. Everything is in a single pane of glass, so it's easy to use and manageable. 

When everything is centralized, it becomes easier to use and coordinate among team members. There's one panel that can show everything. It's easier to train others to use the platform in terms of managing all the passwords for various microservice accounts. It's all there if we need to check the configuration of files. We don't need to go through multiple levels of access.

The network map is interactive and has all the details, so that's essential. The statistics and reporting features are also crucial. When we create reports, we have all the data, including a graph of network usage, bandwidth, etc. 

Auvik could be better integrated with our ticketing system ConnectWise Manage. We tried integrating Auvik to create tickets, but working to implement a more granular classification system based on priority. The important thing is that we get the alerts, regardless of priority, but that's something that can be improved.

I have used Auvik since I started my current job. It has been about two and a half years.

I can't recall any significant issues with stability.

I'm impressed with Auvik's scalability.

I rate Auvik support eight out of 10. I used their live chat once when we had an issue with a firewall that had two instances. We were doing reporting and needed to get the statistics for that month. Once, it failed over to the second secondary device of that firewall, so we could no longer get the information from the firewall that went offline. Auvik support helped me merge statistics from both into one. They resolved our issue on time. 

Positive

We use other network solutions, depending on client preferences. We have another one called Zabbix that might be used for more granular use cases. It's up to our management to decide. We compare the features of Auvik and Zabbix and pick the one that fits the client's business requirements. 

I wasn't around for the initial setup, but I've installed agents. When we install an agent, we turn off the Linux box and install it, then it's good to go most of the time. Another person on our team is the architect, and I am the person who deploys the agent on each server, switch, router, or firewall. There are various steps, but it doesn't take much time. After deployment, the solution is very low maintenance.

Auvik takes less time to do the reports, respond to alerts, set up the agents, and directly access devices, so its time-to-value is good.

Pricing depends on the client's budget and needs. Is it worth it to pay more to save time setting things up? Zabbix is an open-source solution, but it takes much more time and expertise to set up, whereas you can set up Auvik quickly. 

In terms of results, Auvik lets you see everything in a single pane of glass and the reporting is more accessible, so you save time in the long run. That's what I would tell someone if they're exploring their options for network monitoring.

I rate Auvik eight out of 10 overall. It's low maintenance, provides prompt alerts, and requires less expertise. Everything you need to set Auvik up is in the documentation, including guides for configuring network switches and routers. 

Auvik integrates well with various vendors, including Microsoft, Cisco, etc. It's well-documented. Go with Auvik if you want fewer headaches.