ManageEngine OpManager Reviews

Our primary use case for the solution is monitoring all the infrastructure in our company.

The dashboard, versatility and larger horizon are valuable.

The solution can be improved by keeping information about the processes. For example, I previously used SCOM, and in SCOM, if the CPU gets higher for more than 90%, like 20 minutes, an alert triggers the management, and it can do everything a monitoring tool should do. Hence, the solution can be improved by tracking process information at any time throughout the day when the CPU goes for about 90%, and it should record that process. Additionally, real user and UI monitoring are not practical as management does not have real user monitoring for the application and SAP service for account servers.

We have been using the solution for approximately seven months and are currently using the latest version.

I cannot comment on stability at this time because we have used it for only seven months.

The solution is scalable, and we have over 1,000 users utilizing it. It covers SAP, Linus and others, so I rate it a nine out of ten.

The customer service and support team are good. However, we asked them to provide training to some of our team members, and they have not done that. Therefore, I rate them as seven out of ten.

Neutral

We were previously using SCOM for infrastructure monitoring. However, this solution provides better insight for every CPU than SCOM, and it has a more practical implementation than SCOM. We switched solutions because we sought a holistic tool to manage our networks and models.

The initial setup is not difficult. I rate it an eight out of ten. Deployment takes less than one hour to divide properly with all the configurations and parameters. We had eight people involved in deployment, two from our organization and six from Dynatrace. However, our company is very large, and it has thousands of servers, so it has taken about seven months to deploy.

We implemented it with a vendor team and in-house employees.

We have seen a return on investment but not on time and resources. However, since the tool is working fine and people love it, we do not have any problems.

The price of the license is great. It has posed itself on a very aggressive pricing scale. So I think the pricing is good and in line with the kind of service it is providing, and if they keep it like this, they're going to take over the market. I rate it a five out of ten, with one being cheap and ten being expensive.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten. The solution is good but can be improved by improving documentation about its processes. I recommend the solution to users considering implementing it.

We use the solution for monitoring devices, health checks, performing some level of monitoring tasks, availability management, and capacity management. We also use it for some level of network bandwidth utilization. The technical reports available in ManageEngine OpManager suffice our specific needs.

The solution's most valuable features are reporting, event notifications, and alert management.

I would like to see more capabilities and specific profiles built for the manufacturing sector. Their entire offering has no product to help me monitor something in the ICS/OT environment.

DCS systems and control systems are very specific and extremely critical in nature. If you see the critical manufacturing monitoring event notification, that is where ManageEngine needs to compete with the big players.

I have been using ManageEngine OpManager for more than four years.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

Around 40 users use the solution in our organization.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for scalability.

The solution's technical support team is very responsive and straightforward based on our SLAs.

From a simplistic point of view, ManageEngine OpManager is far better than other complex solutions, which we normally evaluate every eight months or a year. The solution has other competitors available, such as Zabbix. I can build up an entire ecosystem and run it for the price of Zabbix support alone.

The solution's initial setup is very simple, and anyone can do it. The solution's documentation and support are also good.

The solution's deployment time depends on your careful planning. You could deploy it in a few hours or two days if you have planned it well. The deployment time also depends on the landscape or the number of assets we are trying to onboard and apply the configuration.

The solution's pricing is very low compared to other products. Users can opt for an open-source product but would end up paying a hefty amount for support. I would rather prefer to use a product where I get an acceptable level of support with better scalability and less cost.

We are using the solution's fault management feature. Ours is a very legacy environment. Whatever the product is designed for, it is meeting our needs. Integrating the solution with our IT workflow is very easy. Depending on your infrastructure, you can integrate the tool seamlessly.

I tested the solution's AI module, which requires a more careful design. At this point, ManageEngine is taking baby steps with AI. Every organization may have its own set of SLAs and governing principles. There cannot be a single solution to address the need for monitoring and auto-correction of those events.

The solution's AI features are not 100% accurate, but it works between 60% and 70% in those cases. There are areas where it can further improve. I would recommend the solution to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for network and server monitoring. We are using the product for basic functionalities. We use it to monitor and check whether there are any issues in the environment.

The tool is useful for SNMP monitoring.

The product has only basic functionalities. It is not like SolarWinds. The data provided by the tool is not accurate. SolarWinds is more accurate.

I have been using the solution for more than eight years.

The tool is not that stable. I rate the stability a five out of ten.

We are able to scale the product according to our growth. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. We have more than 1000 branches.

The customer support is satisfactory.

Positive

The solution was very easy to install. We were using Microsoft DB. It took some time. We can implement the product in a week. We need one person to deploy the tool.

The pricing was okay. However, it has been increasing a lot lately. The product is not worth the money.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I am satisfied with ManageEngine OpManager's monitoring features. 

I have been working with the product for seven to eight years. 

I rate the solution's stability an eight out of ten. 

My company has two to three users for the product. I rate its scalability a nine out of ten. 

I haven't contacted the solution's support yet. 

The solution's deployment is easy and can be completed in a couple of hours. 

I did ManageEngine OpManager's deployment myself. 

I rate the tool's pricing an eight out of ten. 

I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten. 

We use the product to monitor service equipment. 

The product provides intensive reports. 

You cannot resolve 100 percent of the issues yourself. You would need to reach out to the support. It needs to be cheaper. 

I have been using the product for a couple of months. 

ManageEngine OpManager is stable. I rate it an eight out of ten. 

I rate ManageEngine OpManager's scalability a seven point five out of ten. My company has four users. 

ManageEngine OpManager's deployment and maintenance is easy and takes three days to complete. You need two resources to handle the process. 

The tool's licensing costs are yearly. 

I rate the product an eight out of ten. The choice of equipment and scale depends on your specific needs. For small to medium-sized businesses (SMBs), basic sets of equipment may suffice.

We use OpManager for live monitoring, receiving alerts in real-time, capacity management, and immediate identification of any issues. It automatically raises tickets for the relevant teams to take action. 

We have configured it to cover various areas within our IT department, including applications, networks, databases, and servers.

Overall, all of its features are very useful. The live 3D data center view is impressive. The application manager plugin provides detailed and customizable monitoring options. 

Additionally, the hyper-converged detailed view for servers is a valuable and up-to-date feature.

One thing it could work on is the coloring of the reporting graphs. It uses very fancy, bright colors that don't always represent the data accurately. For example, it may show 100% availability in one criterion, but if the same page uses green somewhere else, it might use red for that 100% availability. It doesn't look good.I mean, certain things should always be green, they can't be red. That way, there's a disconnect from the expected color scheme.

Within the generated reports, there are graphs and columns with data. The colors used are fancy and don't have a specific meaning. They're just used to avoid repeating colors on the same page, so each graph gets a unique color. But in doing so, they neglect the fact that a graph showing good data shouldn't use red color. It can mislead the audience. It can mislead whoever reads the report, especially senior management who quickly glance at the big picture.

I have been working with this solution for three years. We recently upgraded to the latest one.

It is a highly stable solution. I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

It's a highly scalable solution. I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. 

In our organization, we have subscribed for five hundred endpoints. We use it 24/7, round the clock.

Customer service and support have everything. It is quite comprehensive and amazing. 

Positive

We used the SolarWinds suite, which had its own OpManager for monitoring. We also evaluated Splunk and QRadar.

We chose ManageEngine OpManager because of its ease of use and because it had everything we were looking for. It's very user-friendly and requires less time for configurations. It's quite handy.

The initial setup is very easy. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a nine out of ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy. 

We only needed one person who knew the network to work with the deploying engineer. The solution scans the network on its own and starts building up the data for daily operations. It's really quick. The deployment took around three days. 

It does require maintenance. Only one admin is enough for maintenance. 

There is a hundred percent return on investment. 

The pricing is moderate. Considering its capabilities, it's underpriced. So I would rate it as low price, maybe a four out of ten, where one is low and ten is high. 

I would suggest to go for it. Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. It is easy to use, user-friendly, covers all the technology, and has low-management time. We don't have to keep an eye on it; it has a good automation option, which keeps us informed. It gives very less false positives. Overall, a really great product. 

We primarily use the solution for monitoring servers, networks, and security.

We run weekly and monthly reports to provide exceptions. And yeah, it's helped our organization remediate problems proactively.

The integration with the firewall monitoring, the security monitoring, is great.

The setup process is simple. 

It is scalable. 

It is stable and reliable. 

Nothing at this stage needs to be improved. 

The pricing is quite high. In terms of the value, it is expensive.

We had quite a few challenges with customizing many of the monitors. Monitor customization was not that easy. It'd take quite a bit of work.

We had some stability issues at the outset that have since been resolved.

I've been using the solution for two years. 

It was very unstable to start with for about seven months. That said, it was determined that was a memory-related problem. After the memory-related problem was resolved, it became more stable.

The solution can scale well. 

We have 15 people on the solution currently.

We've dealt with support in the past, and they were helpful and responsive.

We had a few challenges where issues went backward and forward a few times. We explained the problem, yet they wouldn't address their problem directly. They would move around the problem. That went on over a period of a month. It took a long time to resolve the problem since it wasn't understood exactly where the issue was.

Positive

I also use SolarWinds. 

We used to use WhatsApp Gold. We switched from that based on the look and feel of the product. The customer preferred the look and feel of ManageEngine to WhatsApp Gold.

In terms of deployment, it's a fairly straightforward initial discovery process.

We had so many modules, including the firewall monitor, et cetera. It was deployed over several months. It took about three months.

It is not difficult to maintain the solution. 

We used third parties and integrators during the installation process.

It is a pricey solution. However, I don't directly deal with pricing. 

We did not evaluate other options before moving to this product. 

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. It's likely the latest update. 

Based on the high cost, I'd rate the solution six out of ten. 

I don't know if I would recommend it. I would be at 50-50 on recommending it. If you're looking for specific features, then I would recommend it. However, I work with a lot of monitoring products, including SolarWinds and WhatsApp Gold, and I would say your functionality and value would be about 50%. It really depends on what you want to use it for. If I were to use it as straight monitoring, then just note up and down, I would say there are much cheaper options. If you want to use some of the functionality with the firewall analyzer, and NetFlow integration, then it might be a bit more valuable to you. Still, as an overall product, you'd probably prefer SolarWinds over ManageEngine.

For us, it's taken a long time to try to get the stability of the product. Now that we've got stability, it's still taking a long time to get the level of reporting out that we require. It's just slow progress around resolving problems, and maybe that's an integrated problem. I'm not sure. The integrator says that some of it is a vendor-related problem. I see value in certain areas, however, overall, there are better solutions.

Our primary use case is securing the appliance. I look after security compliance within my organization.

The reason we are still using it, is that so far, we are happy with the overall solution.

The tool is user-friendly which is the number one thing I love about it. The feedback that I've received from the team, it's user-friendly. The dashboard is very rich and very interactive. The UI is very interactive. It's easy to set up and configure. These are the top three features I liked in this solution. 

When there are so many solutions, with that case improvement, it's extra developing an emerging market.  Sophos is one of the products the team recently experienced. 

Unfortunately, we had a bad experience with Sophos EndPoint Central because the tool did not work as expected. It actually interfered. It hampered our production environment. So, we were not happy with the solution and had to roll back all of the Sophos agents we had installed in our environment.

Because of the security and overall performance issue, the tool did not work as expected. So, there were a lot of complications with the tool.

The main area for improvement for ManageEngine OpManager is its performance. The team is looking for a network monitoring and management solution that is reliable and does not interfere with their production environment.

It has been seven to eight months because we recently procured it. It's a SaaS solution, so it's a cloud-based product.

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. There are over thousand end users using this solution. We use it on a daily basis. 

We have our own solutions, which we use for our in-house and some other third-party solutions.

The setup was easy. When it comes to setup with Sophos, the setup is easy. Quite straightforward. But when it comes to actually managing or monitoring the solution, the policies, so the worst part of the product is Sophos abruptly or suddenly changes its policies. It does a lot of things in the background, and the administrator is not at all aware of it. So, it becomes very difficult for the administrator to troubleshoot the exact issue that probably got caused because of Sophos. So, the management of Sophos is difficult.

The deployment took a couple of days. 

The deployment was done in-house. Only two people are required for the deployment process. They were network admins. 

We have a dedicated team for maintenance. 

I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, where one is low and ten is high price.

It is not really expensive; it is nominal licensing. 

We were looking at the other competitors in the market. Trend Micro is a very strong contender when it comes to endpoint security. So that's the reason our organization decided to proceed with Trend Micro, or we will be proceeding with Trend Micro from next year.

I would recommend using the solution. I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.