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

Auvik Network Management (ANM) vs Kaseya Traverse comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 10, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Auvik Network Management (ANM)
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
2nd
Ranking in Cloud Monitoring Software
3rd
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
186
Ranking in other categories
IT Infrastructure Monitoring (3rd), Network Troubleshooting (2nd), Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) (2nd)
Kaseya Traverse
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
67th
Ranking in Cloud Monitoring Software
37th
Average Rating
6.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of Auvik Network Management (ANM) is 0.9%, down from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Kaseya Traverse is 0.3%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Monitoring Software
 

Featured Reviews

Jeremy Campbell - PeerSpot reviewer
Enables us to get on top of issues before they become an outage
When I change IP addresses on a device or on a server, I have to wait for Auvik to figure out that change. It will tell me the device is offline until Auvik scans the whole subnet again and finds it. If I change 25 devices, I'll get 50 emails in a short time because they've gone offline. I'd love the ability to change that where I can update that device with the IP address without it going offline. That goes against the idea of a system that dynamically scans. It's information overload sometimes when you need to change a bunch of factors. You get inundated with emails. I would almost love a button whenever you first log in that says maintenance window, and then it would maybe take some of those alerts away. It's fairly intuitive but sometimes you have to search for things because it's hidden in the user interface, so I think that could be improved a little bit. The search could be better because they have these strange search terms. Instead of being able to look for what you want, you have to lay out the query in a specific way to get results. We've also been dealing with some weird bugs lately. We get alerts on miscellaneous items that go offline and online all the time. I've reached out to support, and they said that they've got a fix that they rolled out. However, we're still experiencing the issue, so I've got to work with them to fix that. They seem to be on top of the support.
AMMAR HUMAIDY HUSIN - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation increases efficiency, but pricing needs to be more competitive
Improvement is needed in making it cheaper, of course. I am not emphasizing making it cheaper, however, it should be more competitive with other products. The product itself is very good and helpful for me as a customer. The issue always is the price, as we cannot beat most of our competitors on pricing alone. If a product is just nice to have, not essential like an antivirus, if it's not really competitive with pricing, we cannot sell it.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"One of the most valuable features is the remote monitoring. It monitors the egress and ingress bandwidth and you can add custom rules to monitor if something is wrong. You can also add your own metrics if needed."
"The automation of alerts and ticketing has saved us about 30% to 40% of our time."
"The monitoring and alerting are the most valuable features."
"It is useful for configuration management and automated backup. It is one of my favorite features because it is low-hanging fruit, and it is easy to accomplish, but on a network where we've got infrastructure devices in hundreds, it is an arduous task to keep on top of. Auvik does it all automatically, so that's probably one of my favorites because it is important, and it just does it automatically. I don't even have to think about it."
"I don't worry about the scalability of the solution because it is quite a broad, scalable, modern platform."
"It also automatically updates network topology. Once it discovers something new, and we allow it, it will update it within the interface. Then, when you log in to the cloud, it shows it. It's kinds of neat. It shows you exactly where things connect. We can see and connect the dots."
"The best feature is the ease of setup. Auvik immediately scans and finds everything. It automatically connects to multiple devices with a single set of credentials."
"It's easy to get the information I need. I don't need to hunt for it or run queries to get it."
"It's a simple and humble tool."
"Kaseya Traverse is a very stable solution and very sustainable in terms of what the market wants, what is out there, price-wise and functionality features. They're quite competitive and they are always innovating."
"If I want to automate the management and maintenance of my server automatically, this product is a good use case for that."
"The remote support and data collection features are great."
"Automating processes is crucial for me, so the automation part stands out."
"It is a pretty stable solution...It is a pretty stable solution."
"Most of the features are pretty good and the solution is user friendly."
"We have found the solution to be very flexible to our requirements. We have been able to configure it on-premise effectively when we were using less of the cloud."
 

Cons

"The automation side needs improvement... A really important one was about a SonicWall firewall that needs to be rebooted every single month. You can do that in the SonicWall GUI, but you can't do it in Auvik. Hundreds of people have endorsed the idea of having an automated command line interface command run on any device that supports it."
"It's not the most intuitive dashboard."
"The Auvik network map and dashboard are not reliable enough to provide a real-time view of our network."
"If there was a way to do some sort of remote desktop control for endpoints from Auvik, that would be an interesting feature because we have another product that we use for endpoint control to remote into somebody's computer. If Auvik had that, we might move from the other tool into the product that Auvik would offer."
"There is room for improvement in the reporting aspect."
"The one thing that I need more help with is the networking of virtualization hosts. I need more information on those hosts and which virtual networks are attached to what, the virtual switches that are in there, and how they function. None of that exists currently."
"The price shouldn't be an issue for a larger organization, but a smaller organization or an MSP might struggle because the billing is per device. You're paying for your firewalls and devices that appear on the network. If you have a smaller organization with an extensive network, your revenue won't be able to support that cost. That's probably the biggest downside for me."
"The search could be slightly more intelligent. If I type in "Dell" and put an extra "L," Auvik doesn't give a suggestion, "Did you mean 'Dell?'" I have to fix that."
"We've noticed a few bugs as of late. However, this seems to only be in the reporting part of the product."
"In terms of what could be improved, we are innovating all the time, as well as having a look at different avenues so that the strategy follows the structure. I think the software is still a little bit too new to actually fully asses what it has."
"Reporting is a bit difficult."
"However, the issue lies in the adequacy of the responses to my questions, which are usually not up to par."
"Kaseya Traverse can improve by adding a Service Map to help us create a configuration management database (CMDB), this would be helpful for us."
"Reporting is tedious and not organized in the way customers expect."
"Improvement is needed in making it cheaper."
"The tool needs to have some AI capabilities, which it lacks currently."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Its pricing is very reasonable. We had looked at other solutions where you pay based on the amount of traffic that was filtered through and analyzed. With Auvik, we pay by a billable device. We're not paying based on every single device we have. For one of the locations I have, one network element would likely be a billable device. So, every billable device has a network element, but not every network element is a billable device. If I have a location that has 50 network elements, then maybe 30 of them are billable devices. PCs, VoIP phones, and access points are monitored at no charge."
"I can't speak to the cost; I'm an engineer. Auvik has a subscription-based pricing option, and the other solution we evaluated had high upfront costs."
"The price is a little high, and the product could be more cost-friendly. We work with many small and medium-sized businesses, so the cost can be hard to justify. We try to work around that, but it would be nice if Auvik were more cost-effective. Most enterprise-level businesses we work with have their own internal monitoring solutions, whether Nagios or SolarWinds."
"The pricing is pretty reasonable for what we get. It's billed by certain, core network devices that it monitors, but I'm not billed for all the devices it monitors. For example, wireless access points and small things like that, throughout the network, are not billed."
"Auvik is fairly priced. The cost is what we expected considering network management. The benefits outweigh the cost for us."
"Auvik is a good product and worth the premium price tag for a lot of people."
"Auvik tends to be on the pricier side."
"The pricing is favorable."
"The price depends on whether you are monitoring different applications, especially in bulk, and depends on what you're doing. If you're monitoring one endpoint, it will cost you 150 ZAR."
"The solution is not cheap, but it is not too expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Computer Software Company
31%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
9%
Non Profit
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Auvik?
The most valuable feature for us in Auvik is the network topology.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Auvik?
Auvik is pricey, and we were paying a lot for it, especially when compared to SolarWinds.
What needs improvement with Auvik?
The network maps can be confusing due to the wide scope of the network, making it difficult to find specific details. Improvements in the network exclusions part would be helpful, as well as enhanc...
What do you like most about Kaseya Traverse?
The remote support and data collection features are great.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Kaseya Traverse?
The solution is not cheap, but it is not too expensive. We pay an annual license fee. There are no additional fees associated with the product.
What needs improvement with Kaseya Traverse?
Improvement is needed in making it cheaper, of course. I am not emphasizing making it cheaper, however, it should be more competitive with other products. The product itself is very good and helpfu...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
UltiSat, Clear Concepts, nVidia, United States Postal Service, Cisco, Redbox, Spark Digital, People's Bank & Trust
Find out what your peers are saying about Auvik Network Management (ANM) vs. Kaseya Traverse and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.