No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Cisco Provider Connectivity Assurance vs Mezmo comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Cisco Provider Connectivity...
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
39th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
Network Monitoring Software (44th)
Mezmo
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
74th
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Log Management (57th), Observability Pipeline Software (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of Cisco Provider Connectivity Assurance is 0.9%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Mezmo is 0.5%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cisco Provider Connectivity Assurance0.9%
Mezmo0.5%
Other98.6%
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
 

Featured Reviews

Pifu Lin - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior System Engineer at DYNASAFE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.
Addresses connectivity issues with real-time monitoring while offering good local support
I had prepared for COC and the client. I work as a vendor for a client using Flow Mount for network performance monitoring. I focus on resolving client-side issues related to Packy Performance and quality use. This involves addressing network device issues, specifically Cisco network devices One…
TO
President and Founder at STILLWATER SUPERCOMPUTING INC
It consolidates all logs into one place and provides required features and functionalities
Every once in a while, our IBM cloud operational implementation gets behind. Sometimes, when we have a customer event, we do not get access to the latest logs for about 30 minutes, particularly for the sites that are heavily utilized. This is clearly not good. It is impossible to do RCA when you can't look at the logs that pertain to the time period in which the event occurred. It could be more of an operational problem than a feature problem. I don't have visibility about whether it is a LogDNA issue or just an operational issue.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"If [the problem] is something related to HTTP or VoIP, then I can have a quick look into the protocols, a process which gives me some good ideas..."
"It has clearly saved us money."
"It is about finding operational problems. When sites go down, we try to determine who is at fault. While there is not much finger-pointing, the solution is just trying to analyse when there is an outage and where do we start looking to fix it. The very nature of why organization chooses to use the solution is to accelerate the meantime to resolution and find where problems lie to get them rectified as quickly as possible."
"The performance of Accedian Skylight is better than other vendors."
"When a remote contact complains about a slow application, we can immediately pinpoint the cause of concern."
"We heavily use the "network analysis" section to dissect and analyze flows."
"Network control when experiencing problems indicating "the network is slow"."
"My customer also likes the interface, the GUI, because it's easy to operate."
"LogDNA consolidates all logs into one place, which is super valuable."
"The solution aggregates all event streams, so that if there are any issues, it's all in the same interface."
"With LogDNA, which brings all the logs together in an interleaved stream, it allows us to take a transaction and relate it to other contextual events making the gathering of evidence for auditors and our internal RCA much more productive."
"We haven't had anything yet that we couldn't do through LogDNA."
 

Cons

"Support for more VoIP systems, Avaya, etc."
"The Accedian Skylight user interface still has room for improvement."
"Combination with Avaya switches pose some problems."
"Some of the Skylight applications are a little newer, and they're still moving through initial revs. There are certain bugs, but nothing is insurmountable... It will just take a little bit of time for their user interface to get a little bit better."
"I would like to see some improvements in parts of their synthetic transactions, which includes all the latency, jitter, and throughput. I would like to see some Layer 7 analytics in there. I want to be able to do a DNS request, HTTP GET request, or even SIP call point-to-point or via registration."
"Because of the policies in Vietnam, we cannot connect the system to the Accedian cloud. It would be good if Accedian could provide a local cloud."
"For the PVX, they are in the process of getting the results to export to cloud and SaaS for analytics. Right now, for the most part, I create that data myself."
"It needs the possibility to export data because it is not easy to see larger data sets, e.g., for one month."
"Every once in a while, our IBM cloud operational implementation gets behind. Sometimes, when we have a customer event, we do not get access to the latest logs for about 30 minutes, particularly for the sites that are heavily utilized."
"Every once in a while, our IBM cloud operational implementation gets behind. Sometimes, when we have a customer event, we do not get access to the latest logs for about 30 minutes, particularly for the sites that are heavily utilized. This is clearly not good. It is impossible to RCA when you can't look at the logs that pertain to the time period in which the event occurred. It could be more of an operational problem than a feature problem. I don't have visibility about whether it is a LogDNA issue or just an operational issue."
"Scalability could be improved; we are using it through the IBM cloud deployment and on some of the data centers that are very heavily used, there is a significant lag in the event stream, sometimes 10, 15 minutes behind, which makes the RCA impossible."
"No ability to encapsulate a query or a filter, and communicate or share that among the team."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"If you look into Riverbed, it's a licensing nightmare. You need to pay for every type of analysis... If you don't look into licensing, Riverbed and SolarWinds are pretty comparable. But if you look into licensing it would not be smart to go for either of them. On the pure, bare-metal basis, it's the same. But when you get the bare metal and a few basic licenses, then you need all those other licenses just to be sure that there's no issue... One of the great things about Skylight is you have them all, and you actually need them all."
"It provides value and the cost is not huge."
"The price is competitive overall, depending on the type of customer."
"It's not for free, clearly. But on the other hand, it offers very interesting functionality. We pay around €100,000."
"The pricing of Accedian Skylight is really good. The sensors are low cost. Their model to analytics for sensors is by license, endpoint, or session. With the probes for their analytics, if they get deployed virtually, they are free. The licensing is only based on flows. So, you can effectively deploy probes everywhere in your network. Then, if you want to look at a specific type of traffic, you can enter into it with a very low cost license. You can just use things like spam ports, mirrors, TAPs, and aggregators to optimize what sort of traffic you send to these analysis tools. Then, if you want to start looking at more, you can up your licensed as you go. You are not getting forced into expensive appliances or subscription models."
"The solution was previously well-regarded, but after being acquired by Accedian, the prices have significantly increased. This has made it challenging to sell the product due to its high cost. It is an expensive solution."
"The pricing is cheaper than other competing products, which is better for our budgets."
"We understand there's a significant cost difference, but have yet to investigate fully."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions are best for your needs.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
9%
Transportation Company
18%
Construction Company
17%
Comms Service Provider
12%
Outsourcing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise9
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Accedian Skylight?
Human resource costs can be high when dealing with connection issues. I require more tools to file and resolve these issues efficiently.
What is your primary use case for Accedian Skylight?
I had prepared for COC and the client. I work as a vendor for a client using Flow Mount for network performance monitoring. I focus on resolving client-side issues related to Packy Performance and ...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Accedian Skylight, Accedian SkyLIGHT PVX, SkyLIGHT PVX, SecurActive, Performance Vision
LogDNA
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

T-Systems, Thomson Reuters, Bordeaux Metropole, CGI, Citadelle Regional Hospital Center, Lorraine Institute of Oncology, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Groupe BPCE, Group S, Splitpoint, Horus-Net, Audatex, Indexis, Province de Liège, EASI, Spie Batignolles, Faymonville
Instacart, Asics, Lime, Salesforce
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Provider Connectivity Assurance vs. Mezmo and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.