Auvik Network Management (ANM) Reviews

My use case for Auvik Network Management (ANM) has been network management, as the company I was with at the time had a lot of networks and networks that they didn't even know existed. They hadn't had IT in 10 years, so we had to do a little bit of network management and I had to find all their switches, IPs, and things like that. 

Auvik Network Management (ANM) was an excellent tool for that. Being able to hone in on networks by just putting it on the DC server and sending out those pings really allowed me to build a network. I

appreciate the ability to log in to different switches with the click of a button, using the SNMP map and having that login information there, because it allows you to skip going through each IP individually and trying to log in manually.

The interface of Auvik Network Management (ANM) is by far the easiest to use. I've worked with ThousandEyes, I've worked with ELK, and Auvik Network Management (ANM) was the better option, easily. The interface is straight and dry, and I appreciate the fact that when I started using it, I got a chance to see that physical, visual mapping of all my switches and what they're connected to. The dashboard of Auvik Network Management (ANM) gives me full network visibility without needing other software; I didn't have too many problems with the dashboard overall, and it was quite good. 

The network visibility provided by Auvik Network Management (ANM) is very important for my company because we want to be able to detect and address issues efficiently. One thing that ThousandEyes has over Auvik Network Management (ANM) is that it can detect bottlenecks faster, identifying what causes network space to clutter. Auvik Network Management (ANM) does something similar, but not as in-depth as ThousandEyes.

I had thought about requesting an AI interface for Auvik Network Management (ANM), but I think they already have that now. The only issue I see is that the pricing was a bit much for our needs; if they could break it down into specific pricing points to be more affordable for larger companies, that would help, as getting that through the budget team was challenging.

I have been using Auvik Network Management (ANM) for about a year and a half in my career.

I haven't seen any problems with stability using Auvik Network Management (ANM), such as lagging, crashing, or downtime.

The scalability of Auvik Network Management (ANM) is excellent, rating at the highest level possible.

I did have to contact customer support for Auvik Network Management (ANM), and it was difficult to try to get in touch with the sales representatives. They have a general number along with personal numbers that some of them call from. One representative, Josh, was really good and fantastic; I just didn't have his number. I had to call regular support, which was challenging to get to the specific representative I wanted. However, when I did reach him, he was great.

The deployment process and installation of Auvik Network Management (ANM) were great. The fact that they walk you through a demo on how to set it up was amazing. It was straightforward; you just install it on your DC server, and it sends out all the pings to different servers or switches and routers to gather information. As long as you have the correct login, you're good.

When comparing Auvik Network Management (ANM) and ThousandEyes, I prefer Auvik Network Management (ANM) because I prefer the interface. The interface is easier to understand and use—there aren't many extra tidbits to go through. You can just get straight to the data, click on a device, and configure it if needed. I found ThousandEyes more difficult to use.

I was managing one plant on the East Coast with Auvik Network Management (ANM) and I managed to possibly get one in another state, without any significant issues. It can be cluttered if you manage around 700 sites, but for smaller scale, it works perfectly. 

It took me about a day to fully understand how to use Auvik Network Management (ANM), so the learning curve was quite manageable. 

For maintenance as an end user, there are no updates required on their end, but it does inform me when I need to update and configure policies on switches and routers. I actually had to do that on a firewall as well. 

I would rate Auvik Network Management (ANM) overall as 20 out of 10.

My main use case for Auvik Network Management (ANM) is primarily for network management and network monitoring, which represents the major requirement.

I configure Auvik Network Management (ANM) on all network equipment, including Cisco routers, switches, and Fortinet firewalls to monitor the ports and their usage, memory, and all system status, whether it is going up and down. Everything is monitored through Auvik Network Management (ANM).

The tool also provides visibility into how the network is connected, which is where Auvik Network Management (ANM) helps significantly. Additionally, the latest firmware and firmware upgradation cycle are monitored through Auvik Network Management (ANM).

Auvik Network Management (ANM) offers the main tool for monitoring network devices and alerting.

The inventory management and alerting feature of Auvik Network Management (ANM) stands out, where if any port, interface, or device goes down, an alert is sent, which brings us into action to mitigate the issue before users contact us about what is down.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) serves as a backbone for monitoring and proactive and reactive responses, which is faster than before. Previously, monitoring was lacking and proactive or reactive time was very delayed because timely alerts were not being received. Now, before a user contacts us, we know what is down and we are trying to mitigate the issue or we are in the process of mitigating the issue.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) saves time because it has a monitoring and alerting feature, which was required for time-saving, and it saves many ticket creations, therefore saving considerable time.

In Auvik Network Management (ANM), there is one problem observed. Devices need to be unmanaged and managed when changes are desired, rather than applying changes on the live system and getting them applied immediately once changed.

I have been using the solution for approximately six to eight months.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) is very stable and there have been no issues with Auvik Network Management (ANM) cloud-based tool at any time.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) is able to handle scalability as the network grows.

There have been one or two interactions with Auvik Network Management (ANM) support team, and those interactions went well.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) is not costly, but pricing is based on how many licenses are taken, and that can be improved.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) is a good product to choose because it has good options, is easy to adapt, and easy to integrate into the current network architecture. The overall review rating for this product is 8 out of 10.

My main use case for Auvik Network Management (ANM) is network monitoring. I will install a collector on our customer's network that monitors SNMP traffic and syslog to give us information about the current status of equipment or throughput issues. It allows us to monitor and troubleshoot and know about issues before the customer really even becomes aware of them sometimes.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) offers monitoring and alerting on potential issues as its best features. The ability to tune the alerts to receive only the ones I am interested in stands out to me.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) is very easy to set up and is quick to get set up and integrated.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) has positively impacted my organization by giving us one place to look to get a full picture of a customer's network environment without having to jump to multiple dashboards. I cannot give a specific number, but Auvik Network Management (ANM) is very helpful when we have newer technicians that do not know the individual dashboards for separate components, but they can go to Auvik Network Management (ANM) and see everything.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) could be improved with a little more proactive tuning of alerts. Right now, getting them tuned in is a manual process, so automating that a little more would be beneficial.

I have been using Auvik Network Management (ANM) for about eight months.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) is stable.

We have had no issues deploying Auvik Network Management (ANM) for any customer, regardless of size, that we have attempted, and we have used it for both small and some of our larger customers.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) customer support is very good, very responsive, and very helpful.

Positive

We did not use a solution previously.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) is very easy to set up and is quick to get set up and integrated.

We do not have a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer.

We have not really been using Auvik Network Management (ANM) long enough to give a hard metric on return on investment.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) licensing is very simple, and I feel the pricing was appropriate to the service they provide.

We did not evaluate other options before choosing Auvik Network Management (ANM).

Auvik Network Management (ANM) helps me catch issues probably once or twice a month, but it also gives us valuable information when we are working with the customer to troubleshoot other issues. I have rated this review as a nine out of ten.

I used to work with an organization supporting multiple clients. We implemented Auvik Network Management for some of them, not all of them. 

It was interesting how fast Auvik Network Management could discover the network, how it kept monitoring it and updating us with alerts of any spikes in the traffic, and everything else. It was amazing.

Auvik Network Management reduced the downtime and sped up the recovery.

Auvik Network Management helped our entry-level technicians to solve more tickets on their own because it simplifies the process. It lets you find where the problems are faster. It gives you a clearer view of the situation, where you can see the complete network in front of you graphically. You can see all the devices and where the problem is. When you highlight one of them, you can see all the details.

Auvik Network Management decreased issues because it allowed us to monitor the entire network, all the devices, and check the alerts in a timely manner. We could deal with issues quickly.

The best feature of Auvik Network Management is simplicity. It is friendly to use. 

The dashboard is good. It gives a clear vision for all the aspects of the services that Auvik Network Management provides. We can go to different places and monitor, check, configure, and analyze traffic.

I did not have the chance to go through all the aspects or services that Auvik Network Management provides, but what I dealt with was good, and there was not much to complain about. However, its pricing was a little bit higher. 

I used Auvik Network Management for a couple of months. It was implemented in 2024.

It was stable.

We dealt with different clients, from small to large ones. We used Auvik Network Management on all of them. It was capable of handling all those clients perfectly.

We used their customer service directly. We did not rely much on the documentation. Whenever we had any issues, we used to call their support centers and book a meeting with them.

We had a couple of meetings with them. They introduced the product to us and explained how to deal with it. They had their own support, and we relied on them.

Positive

We used N-able previously. Auvik Network Management was implemented to replace N-able in a certain phase. N-able is similar to Auvik Network Management without the graphics, but it has alerting, monitoring, controlling, updating, and patching capabilities.

N-able is an old product. It is not as modern as Auvik Network Management. Auvik Network Management is easier to deal with and faster to get results from.

It was easy. Auvik Network Management was very easy to set up. It does everything by itself.

It was a matter of minutes to set it up. It did not take a long time to start gathering information. After we installed it on one of our machines, it started gathering information and drawing the network. It is very reliable.

The pricing was a little bit higher. They can work on that as everybody wants to save money.

I would rate Auvik Network Management a nine out of ten.

The use case of my experience with Auvik Network Management (ANM) was an upgrade for my network monitoring tool and the management of the network. It served as an upgrade for my company network and monitoring.

I appreciate the automatization of the dashboard monitoring, the automatic mapping of the network, and the easy deployment of the service. The interactive dashboard of Auvik Network Management (ANM) makes the work more productive and functions automatically. It is easier to work with the dashboard of Auvik Network Management (ANM). It is a significant advantage of Auvik Network Management (ANM) monitoring. I appreciate the personalization of alerts for the network, such as discovering traffic and the software for traffic analyzation. Auvik makes it easier to work with the network and makes my team more productive.

It would be beneficial if Auvik Network Management (ANM) made it possible to change or manipulate the interface, specifically the network interface of desktop devices.

I have less than a year of experience with Auvik Network Management (ANM), just a few weeks.

They have very good support for any trouble that I could have.

Positive

SolarWinds is provided to us from another provider's network service, a third party. The third party did not give us good SolarWinds service monitoring. We searched for a similar service and found Auvik Network Management (ANM), and after reviewing all their software and systems, we considered Auvik Network Management (ANM) to be much better than SolarWinds. However, the problem might be from the third party and not from SolarWinds. We are using SolarWinds for the moment but are considering Auvik Network Management (ANM) for a change. Because a third party gave us the SolarWinds monitoring, we cannot configure or maintain the service. We can only see the dashboard without any other options. I have used SolarWinds for five or six years.

The service is a bit expensive, but they can negotiate with us to make a better price for us.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) is not implemented in my company for now, but we had a demo. We do not have much experience with Auvik Network Management (ANM), but our first impression was very good. It is pretty easy to use the mapping tools. Everything is automatic, which is very comfortable for the work experience. I rate Auvik Network Management (ANM) eight out of ten.

We used Auvik Network Management (ANM) for network monitoring until I was no longer with the institution.

It expedited processes by allowing us to graphically see where issues were occurring and track them in real-time, which improved our efficiency. It also empowered entry-level technicians by enabling them to respond to incidents without direction.

The ability to view configurations in plain text and gather all device configurations was very handy. We appreciated the dashboard statistics for identifying problem areas and found the logical topology maps to be helpful. Auvik Core's ease of use also enhanced troubleshooting speed and efficiency.

We were unable to integrate Auvik with a geographical map, which limited our ability to track issues to specific buildings on campus. Compared to other products like SolarWinds, Auvik needs a similar feature. Additionally, the cost was high.

I was involved with Auvik for just under two years.

The quality and speed of Auvik's customer support were excellent. They were knowledgeable and responded quickly with accurate and useful information.

Positive

We have used SolarWinds. The main difference is Auvik provides a high-level network topology by default and has a better graphical interface. However, SolarWinds has a comparable dashboard at a high level.

The initial setup involved placing the collector on a server and sending it up to the cloud. It was straightforward.

Two people were required to implement Auvik.

Auvik is pricey, and we were paying a lot for it, especially when compared to SolarWinds.

We considered SolarWinds as it has comparable features.

Auvik offers free training to become an Auvik Certified Professional, which is highly recommended.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use the solution pretty much for what it was designed for. We use it for network monitoring and its dashboards. 

We were trying to solve for visibility more than anything else. The monitoring we do is more preventative than remedial. In the time we've used it, we've migrated a lot. It's helping us more on the understanding and project management side rather than monitoring. 

The ease of setup is one of its most valuable aspects. 

The visibility and topology diagrams are great. The dashboarding is quite useful.

Its integration with ConnectWise has been the most beneficial for managing our network performance. 

Auvik is a bit of a capturing tool. For us, we can highlight the high-level elements and problems. Our network is relatively secure, so we haven't actually used it for alerting. However, it is there as a preventative and monitoring measure more than anything else. 

The interface is great once the configuration is done. 

We do get a real-time picture of our network. The visibility we get is around 95%, with the remaining 5% our fault, based on the way we're set up.

The solution has helped decrease our mean time to resolution. However, it varies, depending upon the severity, for example. It's reducing any networking tickets time to resolution somewhat. For example, we are moving some clients from one subnet to another, and in those circumstances, it's taking half the time for us to do that in a process way. 

If it's purely network monitoring, it's absolutely brilliant. It shows ups and downs, and provides a lot more information than you generally need. However, since we know it provides a lot more information, we use it for lots of different things.

It reduced our mean time to resolution by 20% to 30% across the board. 

For our second line, third line, our network teams, it has increased productivity and reduced time source solutions by about 10% to 15%. 

As with all SMP's monitoring tools, it's a little difficult to get exactly where it needs to be until you've completed your desktop.

We're a bit complicated as a use case as we've got data centers and clients. We're mixed management with multiple subnets. If the network was simpler, it would work perfectly. There are a couple of overlaps. Things could be clearer.

Things are easily confused if there are multiple data feeds. So, if we have a server with three of our network clouds, it won't necessarily get the hierarchy accurate. Being able to drag and influence them in the network map would make a lot more sense. Therefore, being able to influence the map manually and overwrite it or customize it would make a lot of sense.

I've been using the solution for about a year and a half. 

We have the solution in multiple locations, for example, in data centers, client sites, and offices. We don't have a huge amount of endpoints. We do have a cloud platform and use it to monitor that. Our clients are largely SMBs.

We've had no requirement to be in touch with support just yet. 

The only instance of reaching out was when we raised a query during the first time installation. It was a deployment query, and it resolved almost instantly. If we understood the solution a bit more, we could have solved the issue ourselves. 

There is good technical support documentation. There are elements that need to be kept up-to-date, however. They could refresh it a bit more. That said, it's not really a problem or enough to complain about. There are too many changes happening in the industry for any documentation to be perfect. 

Positive

We've used all kinds of solutions. We do have SolarWinds instances, for example, however, we don't tend to use them much. We've also used PRTG. Auvik is faster to set up.

The deployment was simple. We implemented it in half an hour. 

We did have a vendor assist us with the deployment process. 

While I couldn't quantify it at this time, we have definitely seen an ROI. 

It certainly helped out with one of the projects that we're involved with. Whilst we've had it for 18 months, we've really only embraced it over the last six and we won't really see figures from it until the end of next quarter.

We've likely saved five to six hours a week so far.

The solution is a little on the expensive side. That may be skewed for us since we use it more as a monitoring and preventative tool, and largely it's meant to be a remediation tool. While it is expensive, it's not so much so that it makes me want to switch.

We're an Auvik customer and partner. 

While the solution has not yet empowered our entry-level technicians to solve more tickets on their own, they will be able to soon. We're just moving across to utilizing more alerting and bespoke alerting. We're telling Auvik some of the things that we want to know and don't want to know. That is now starting to power the help desk. That change has been happening over the last week. So, by the end of this week, it will be.

I'd recommend the solution to others. Its ease of deployment and ability to provide basic information about a network, and monitoring basic information about a network, is actually very good. It puts things on the screen almost immediately. When alerts fire, it points to those alerts, and you can literally click through and find the problem almost instantly. The only negatives are around some things that you would expect. That said, overall, absolutely, I would recommend it. The peace of deployment and ease of information are worth it. It's very, very easy to understand. It's very, very easy to see where your problems are, and it's very, very easy to use that information to remediate the problems. However, for my advanced monitoring, it's a little more difficult to understand exactly where the information is coming from and how it's utilizing the information. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Our network infrastructure is monitored by Auvik Network Management. This includes firewalls and network traffic. By using Auvik, we gain data and analytics that fuel our diagnostics, alarm systems, and overall network environment insights.

We decided to implement Auvik after struggling to find a network monitoring solution that ticked all the boxes. We needed a cost-effective option with a user-friendly interface, backed by a responsive company committed to ongoing product updates. Unfortunately, the market seemed to offer outdated, once-great products or solutions prohibitively expensive for small businesses and MSPs like us. Thankfully, our experience with Auvik has been good. Both our dedicated sales representative and the onboarding technical support team have been phenomenal.

Despite the usual setup time – an hour or two for getting things connected and entering credentials – the platform started pulling data from our devices almost immediately. It was practically instantaneous, aside from the standard management deployment time. Interestingly, the network map took a bit longer to figure itself out compared to the platform itself. The platform started showing me interface details, traffic information, and even automatically identified our WAN connections. We did have to set credentials later, and thankfully, we had backups of our devices ready beforehand, since it seemed like the platform wanted that information before the network map fully visualized everything. Overall, the deployment process was remarkably quick and easy.

Last Sunday, I encountered an issue that the dashboard interface helped resolve quickly. I could easily locate the specific device on the map and clicking on it brought up all relevant information. This allowed us to directly investigate the problematic port, view its traffic status up or down, without the need for a more cumbersome process. Traditionally, we would have had to VPN into the network, log in to the switch using its credentials, and then identify the specific port involved. The dashboard streamlines this process, saving time frequently. While it may not be a massive improvement, it offers a noticeable efficiency gain in our mean time to resolution.

Our company is still in the early stages of adopting Auvik, a monitoring platform that can be used for all of our customers. This means that we will eventually have one platform for all our alerts and for our technicians to access. This will simplify things internally for our company by reducing the number of platforms our technicians need to be familiar with to support our clients. It will also reduce the amount of documentation we need to maintain. With Auvik, our technicians will spend less time on maintenance and troubleshooting because they will only need to learn and use one platform. Currently, our technicians haven't started using Auvik yet, but the plan is to move away from all the various monitoring solutions we've been using for different customers and consolidate everything onto this one platform. Once our technicians are using Auvik, it will make our jobs significantly easier and faster.

Auvik stands out for its ability to combine network and per-port traffic inspection with log aggregation and data flow analysis in a single platform. This comprehensive approach is rare in network monitoring solutions. Even more impressive is that Auvik offers these high-end enterprise features at a cost-effective price. Traditionally, such capabilities are only found in expensive products. The combination of powerful features and affordability made Auvik a very attractive choice for us.

The Auvik interface has a modern look and feel in terms of its color scheme and layout. However, some elements are arranged in a way that I find counterintuitive. As a company with a web and application development team, we have a strong focus on user interface and user experience. For some features in Auvik, the placement of buttons and functionalities doesn't feel optimal. We've had to consult our representative several times on how to find specific options. For example, editing a device requires navigating through the sidebar to a specific category and tab, then selecting the device, line item, and checking a box before finally reaching the edit button. Additionally, the placement of buttons seems inconsistent across different sections, making the overall workflow less intuitive and requiring more training to become proficient.

My ideal real-time network monitoring would involve seeing all my data at once, including connection speeds and throughput. While Auvik's automated network map is visually appealing and generally accurate compared to competitors, it lacks some key features. For example, unlike a competitor's recent feature that shows traffic between trunk connections, Auvik only displays a single color for connection links, indicating wired or wireless status. This doesn't provide vital information like link speed or potential problems. Additionally, connections with momentary issues simply disappear from the map, which is frustrating. Auvik could integrate valuable alerts and insights from other parts of the platform directly onto the map. This would highlight potential issues with specific devices and their connections. While I acknowledge ongoing development efforts, there's still a significant gap in desired features. Another limitation is the lack of manual map editing. For instance, our server has multiple Ethernet connections entering a single switch, but the map erroneously shows them spread throughout the building. With no way to manually adjust this, the map's accuracy suffers. While Auvik's map is aesthetically pleasing, I wouldn't rely on it for complete accuracy.

I've had some trouble using Auvik's device proxy, which allows technicians to connect to network devices through Auvik's platform. The Mac software I need isn't fully functional yet, so I might be doing something wrong, but other products like Domotz work flawlessly. One of the main reasons we chose Auvik was to eliminate the need for VPNs, on-site PCs, or network tunnels for technicians to access devices. This would reduce our equipment costs. While the pricing is fair overall, the jump between plans is significant. For instance, their higher plan offers features like NetFlow statistics and analytics for firewalls, which require more data and rightfully cost more. However, the entire client site is included in that plan, and there's no option to pay extra for specific devices. I'd be happy to pay more for those features on select devices, but the current pricing structure prevents me from getting them. This seems like a missed opportunity for both Auvik and us. Not all my devices need the extensive logging and data collection offered in the higher plan. Network switches and access points, for example, have their own controllers that handle SysLogging, so I wouldn't need Auvik for that. However, I would like to pay extra for those features on our firewalls and routers. In the current situation, neither side benefits. If we pay for the higher plan, our costs increases, which will eventually impact our customers' prices. However, convincing customers to pay for this one additional feature within the entire monitoring platform is difficult.

I have been using Auvik Network Management for one year.

Throughout this process, I've primarily relied on my representative for assistance. While I haven't directly contacted their technical support line, my representative has involved them on my behalf. This may be a slight deviation from the usual procedure, but it has still allowed me to reach the appropriate people.

The technical support team has been very responsive in identifying and resolving any technical issues I've encountered. They were able to quickly understand the situation with minimal questions. Additionally, I appreciate the granular control I have over their access to client data. I can grant them temporary or read-only access, which allows for collaborative troubleshooting without compromising security or hindering our learning experience.

Overall, I've been very impressed with the technical support team's knowledge. We understand they aren't responsible for diagnosing internal network issues; their focus is on supporting their platform and ensuring our connection to network devices. So far, their responsiveness has been excellent.

Prior to implementing Auvik, we experimented with a number of network management solutions. These included PRTG, Domotz, LibreNMS, and the built-in NinjaOne option. We also evaluated SolarWinds. We've explored a wide range of options. Our goal is to find a standardized solution, and we believe Auvik fits the bill. PRTG was expensive so we could only use the free version that only allowed for 1,000 sensors, proving too restrictive for our needs. LibreNMS required a high level of technical expertise for deployment and maintenance, which wasn't feasible for all our technicians. SolarWinds simply didn't meet all our requirements. While NinjaOne is still in active development. We may revisit it in the future. Overall, Auvik strikes the perfect balance between functionality, ease of use, and scalability.

The deployment of Auvik requires installing an agent and some information. The deployment took around one hour. 

Although Auvik is a cloud-based solution, it requires software installation on a computer or server within our network. This initial process can be cumbersome. In our experience, the provided API key wasn't functional, and creating separate API keys isn't an option. Instead, we need to create full user accounts, which feels unnecessarily complex.

Once the connector is installed, the user interface presents challenges. Management credentials and network scanning configurations are located in separate areas. While the deployment section attempts to consolidate these settings, it becomes irrelevant after the initial setup. Ideally, the interface should streamline the initial configuration process, instead of requiring users to navigate through various menus.

Another concern is the requirement for generic credentials. Instead of specifying credentials for each device, we must provide generic ones that are simply tested for functionality. This raises security concerns. These generic credentials are tested against various devices in our environment, even those for which they are not intended. While we trust our security measures, a compromised device could potentially allow the Auvik connector to expose these credentials to unauthorized devices. Ideally, the system should allow for specifying credentials on a per-device basis, eliminating the need for generic credentials and the associated security risks.

The implementation was completed in-house.

I came to a surprising realization about Auvik's pricing. It turns out they only charge for routers and switches! This means all our access points, security cameras, camera servers, and other infrastructure are monitored for free. While the client understandably wanted the server on-site, most other devices are a bonus. This is a huge advantage – with a typical network, we might have one firewall, three switches, and 60-70 access points. With Auvik, we only pay for the four core devices, bringing the cost down significantly. In my opinion, Auvik could advertise this benefit more clearly. Many other platforms charge for every device, so Auvik's free monitoring for a large portion of the network is a game-changer. It not only helped us make the decision but also benefits non-profits we support. The fact that they're confident enough in their platform to offer this makes Auvik a truly valuable and supportive solution.

In the end, we were deciding between Domotz and Auvik. Auvik's initial pricing structure was a concern. Their tiered system required a minimum number of devices per tier to get a reasonable price. While their desire to be profitable is understandable, this presented a hurdle for us. However, Auvik impressed us with their willingness to work with us. They emphasized that they wouldn't lose a customer solely on price, as long as open communication existed. This flexibility in finding a solution was a major factor in our decision. Another reason we chose Auvik was the user interface and user experience. We found Auvik's interface to be superior to Domotz's. Additionally, Auvik's pricing based on individual devices, rather than NetFlow, was a significant advantage. This meant we wouldn't be penalized for devices with minimal traffic or high port counts. From a business standpoint, this eliminated the need to constantly monitor billing for small variations in device usage. With Auvik, we pay a fixed cost per device and receive all the necessary features, regardless of its size or complexity. Consistent and predictable billing was another key consideration in our choice.

Auvik Network Management gets a solid eight out of ten from me. While the network maps and user interface could be improved, the software delivers exactly what we need out of the box. It connected to our devices seamlessly and provided valuable analytics data and information logging. The setup process was straightforward, and the learning curve wasn't steep.

We're currently in the early stages of implementing Auvik, which means our existing software is still operational. To ensure a smooth transition, we typically allow a three-to-four-month overlap period for new software before fully integrating it into production. While I've been the primary user so far and can provide initial insights, our help desk technicians haven't yet been granted access to Auvik.

There is a minimal amount of maintenance required, primarily for alerts. The default settings include alerts for all devices, but not all of them are relevant to our needs. We simply need to adjust these defaults. Aside from that, the system is truly "set it and forget it." It will notify us of any problems, and as an IT company, we have internal procedures to log in and investigate any alerts. However, there is no ongoing maintenance required after the initial installation.

Setting up Auvik is smoothest when your network devices are already configured for SNMP. If you're unsure about your equipment's SNMP settings or lack a configuration altogether, take some time to familiarize yourself with your devices before proceeding. Having your device credentials readily available will also expedite the process. As long as both SNMP logging and credentials are prepared, Auvik deployment becomes a breeze. However, investing a few minutes to learn the Auvik interface beforehand will pay off in the long run. A grasp of the interface will make Auvik exceptionally user-friendly and position it as a powerful and functional solution for your needs.