NETSCOUT nGeniusONE Reviews

The main strengths of nGeniusONE are its simplicity and the availability of its service. I learned how to use it without any training, and I have been using it for two to three years without any problems.

nGeniusONE could be improved by reducing the number of bare metal servers required to run it. Currently, you need a separate bare metal server for each of the following: Xfinity, ISNG, nGeniusONE, and CFS. It would be more cost-effective and less complex if all of these functionalities could be combined into a single bare metal server.

nGeniusONE is not promoted enough because it has a lot of competitors, such as Huawei and Cisco. The larger companies tend to rely on their own well-known server or server solutions.

So, this product is not promoted enough. 

There are problems with integration as well. In most of our projects, we put that in our scope and limitations. It will not allow admin third-party apps.

In future releases, if they could switch up to the cloud services, that would be better.

I have been using it for several years. nGeniusONE is a very underrated product. It is not as well-known as some of the other traffic visibility solutions, but it is very useful, and I would recommend it.

I am satisfied with the performance of nGeniusONE.

It is a scalable product.

The customer service and support are good. 

Positive

The initial setup of nGeniusONE can be complex depending on the customer's network, location, and size. However, NETSCOUT provides its own standard setup procedures to help simplify the process.

It could improve it more by being more efficient and using less bare metal servers.

Make sure you know the basics. Make sure you read up on the user guide. There are some settings that you just gotta look it up. It is easy to figure out. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

Troubleshooting is our primary use case for the solution.

We get increased visibility from nGenius while conducting an IT deployment. If the deployment has issues then we can always go back, look at the logs, and figure out what may be happening.

A lot of times people blame the network, and since I'm responsible for the network, people call me. Through troubleshooting using the tool, I verify that it's not our issue, and I also use the tool to help figure out what the issue really is.

It helps us get to root cause quickly. For example, troubleshooting an application issue without the tool would mean we wouldn't have the collection of data to go through to figure out what the problem is. Now that we have X number of hours, maybe even days of data, depending on what we're actually watching, we can look at the data. It's possible that somebody's having an application issue and they come to us figure out what the problem is and we can help them solve their issue a little faster.

We have seen a measurable decrease in mean time to know and mean time to repair. It's a little hard to say how much because it depends on what you're troubleshooting, but I would estimate it at 25 percent, or even less, of what it would normally be. And our overall troubleshooting time, in most cases, is down to a day, as opposed to multiple days. Without the data, it's almost impossible to figure out what a problem may have been.

The packet capture is the most valuable feature for us. It gathers data from the device. In case somebody has a problem, I can go back X amount of time - days, hours - and get the data to do real troubleshooting.

In terms of the single pane of glass view, it's good, but trying to set up dashboards is hard to figure out at times, if you don't do it every day. It's not really intuitive to set them all up. Other than that, it's a good dashboard. A lot of people are using it.

If there were a wizard to take us through, step-by-step, creating dashboards and the like, that would be really helpful.

It's very stable. Every once in a great while we'll have to reboot the nGeniusONE server. That may be server-related and not application related.

We haven't really scaled it very much. We're not a really big shop. We've got five InfiniStreams collecting into our nGeniusONE. It's supposed to scale pretty well, but I don't really have much comment on it because we're pretty small as it is.

Technical support is very good.

We didn't have a previous solution at all, other than Wireshark to capture packets when we needed them. We knew we needed something better than that.

The initial setup was a little complex, only because it was the first time we were getting into such a tool. We didn't know much about it. We had to learn while going along. It was complex, but quite doable.

We did it ourselves.

I don't see the numbers, because I'm a technical guy. But I would imagine there probably is a return on investment because we're fixing these applications faster, causing less of an outage. I would say we're actually saving money, or at least not losing as much money when these applications are down. It's a big help there.

I would show someone who is looking into this type of product what I know about the product, how I use it, and help them make a decision on whether it's the right product for them.

The product has a lot of capabilities and we're just using a small fraction of it. So, right now, I would call the solution a nine out of ten, because we only use a small portion of it. But for what we do, it helps us out tremendously.

The primary use case is network monitoring for telecoms.

Everybody is using the same tool set. Therefore, we are speaking the same language.

Network faults are easily and quickly identified through dashboards and drill down.

It has versatility to correlate different traffic types and performance management statistics.

The single pane of glass view is very simple and good. For my users, having all the applications in one place is the aim.

We would like more encryption of customer data, because we have a very security conscious company. We have a lot of regulation coming in which requires us to make customer data private.

There is a lot more integration work that needs to be finalized for simpler tool set. The integration of many products into a much simpler single pane of glass is where we want to be.

The stability is good. We haven't had a major failure for years. Apart from the hardware's age, the software is pretty robust.

The current solution is not easy to scale, because it is an appliance-based solution. So, you have to swap everything out.

The technical support is OK. While it is not outstanding, we don't have any complaints.

We did not have another solution previously.

The initial setup is relatively straightforward, as any network integration can be. The complexity comes when you are trying to tune it.

We used a reseller for the deployment. They were very good. We have a good working relationship with them.

We have seen some ROI with the root cause analysis. It is quicker to root cause analysis. We are seeing increased network uptime, because if we're spotting, and if we're getting root cause analysis quicker, then we know what comes up quicker.

From my user community, I am getting the impression that something which use to take days has now gone to hours for troubleshooting.

We use the solution when our customers have problems with their databases or communications. We use it to look at packages and packets and verify the behaviour of the NOC, the server, and the traffic, looking for a pattern that might identify the issue and what's happening now.

We started using the product because our customers had some problems with the network. We made changes to the network and made it stable. However, the customer told us there were still some errors. Then the people from the database told us the problem was the network, not the database. The only way to verify it was the database and not the network was by putting a sniffer in it. And that's why we use NETSCOUT.

The new version of the solution is like a grid, onto which we can put traffic and graph its behaviour for a certain amount of time. We can then use the behaviour, from one or two hours or maybe seven days, or 30 days. Looking at the results, allows us to verify whether anything is wrong. 

There is a big issue with the special way they use InfiniStream to store data. The InfiniStream has a certain capacity. So our customer centre asks why we don't store all the information that uses InfiniStream in Vblock or something like that. And NETSCOUT says that we need to store those data in a special way. And we use a special appliance called InfiniStream. So this kind of storage is not so big. For example, our customer has saved all the data, restored all the information, and backed it up elsewhere. For example, if something happened in the past month, we can see the package because the storage is a kind of FIFO. So we have a very limited space to see the previous days.

We've been using this solution for about six years.

The product is very good. We have very few problems. And if we do have any issues,  NETSCOUT gives us very good support. They have the right engineers that know the issues. And if anything is wrong with a device, you get an RMA. 

The solution is as scalable as we or our customer wish. But we don't plan to increase the usage for the moment because of the expense.

We have six people using the solution. 

We currently need three guys to deploy the solution and one to maintain it.

Tech support is good. We don't have any problem with that. I opened one case, and they solved it.

Positive

The initial setup was complex because we needed to know the package's source and destination when we tried to monitor certain conversations. So when we are tracing something or trying to fix one issue or error, we need to know precisely how the communication is, where the sources and the destinations are, etc. So we need to talk with the person that develops the applications, the database, and the network. , we need to know specifically the part of the network the package is going through. With all this information and with NETSCOUT, we can very easily solve the issue or try to find the error, but for specific communication.

When we started with the customer, NETSCOUT directly supported us with the implementation. And after that, we were all on our own. 

It took us six months to deploy the product.

I don't know exactly how the licencing works. I think it's about the ports from InfiniStream. For example, if you have five InfiniStreams, each InfiniStream has four ports, so I think you need to acquire a licence for 20 nodes.

We can get everything in a bundle. But the price is different if you acquire virtual InfiniStream or vSTREAM. But in the end, the price is only for acquisition; it's not a licence. The license is for the ports, one per InfiniStream.

I advise anyone wanting to use the solution to have one completely dedicated engineer. Here in Mexico, we have one engineer who's essential in many things. When a company acquires NETSCOUT, they need specific people responsible only for that and not involved with anything else.

On a scale of one to 10, I would give NETSCOUT nGeniusONE nine.

We use it for our network capacity performance, for the entire ICM backbone core.

In addition, our company uses the solution for unified communication application performance. While it's not my team, there is another team responsible for capacity performance for video and they are using the same NETSCOUT toolset for wireless, wire line, and video.

I manage the entire building, so I have the responsibility for extending network capacity if we hit a limitation. It gives us the possibility of increasing the capacity wherever it is required. We have over 55,000 employees across Canada, from the Atlantic to Vancouver, so I use the tool on a daily basis to do my analysis.

It helps us get to root cause quickly. When we have a problem or people are reporting latency on their network, my guys are, of course, checking for the dates, specific times, and IP. We can get all the information that we are looking for, in detail. While my guys are not responsible for finding root cause, the solution is quite helpful in finding it.

In addition, it has cut our overall troubleshooting time for my network guys, when there's a real network problem. It has increased our network uptime as well.

The valuable features include 

• packet analysis
• packet capture
• it's easy to use. 

The single pane of glass view is a challenge. I like the graphics, they're easy to understand, but when more digging is required, it's more complicated to get what I'm expecting. Since the challenge for me is the dashboard, I would appreciate having a better view from the dashboard. What I don't know is whether the issue is that our configuration needs work. We probably don't do the mapping and the dependency configuration properly and that may be the reason why my dashboard is not crystal clear.

The solution is pretty stable.

It's also pretty scalable, there is no problem with that. It can be expensive, but if you have a good configuration, based on what you are looking for, it's okay, it's manageable.

The technical support is very good. We are well supported by the team. Even with the PULSE - I am new on this team, I have been here less than a year - they were there all the time, on a regular basis, to provide support on that completely new application for us. We were asking very simple questions and they were always there for us. It's been a great collaboration.

The initial setup would be complex for me, since I don't have that kind of talent, but it was pretty simple for my guys.

On my team, we are doing the implementation. Other teams within the company are using third-parties to do the deployment. But on my side, it's all internal people.

We're losing a thousand per minute when we're down. Being able to know where the problem is more quickly, we're going to save a lot of money.

I'm not a big fan of pushing a particular vendor, but it is a very good product: pretty stable, pretty scalable, with a very good and solid engineering team behind it. They are available and listen to customer needs and are always willing to do more to improve their products. But because I don't like to push a product too much, I prefer that people see and try it to see if they like it, to see if it fits their needs.

The tool itself is just fantastic. We've been using it since 2001 or 2002. We are a big fan of the product.

If we are satisfied with what we have, we don't ask for more. It's always about problem resolution or product improvement. We used to have regular, weekly calls with our NETSCOUT rep and, as soon they had a new product, a new version, new updates, they would share them with us, and we would know if we wanted to go in that direction or not. Today, we are quite happy and satisfied with what we have.

We don't yet use the solution for proactive monitoring of SaaS applications or remote sites. We are working on the deployment of PULSE. I can easily imagine that with that new solution deployed in production, we will be able to do more and more proactively. It's not because it's not available with nGeniusONE, it's just that I have no one to check and be proactive.

We will see a decrease in mean time to know and mean time to repair, more and more in the coming months, with PULSE. It's more about a business impact. With PULSE, we will have that "radar view", a view of the network, the server, and the application. So instead of needing 15 resources on a call at 2 AM, and losing 45 minutes just to get everyone there to find out what the is problem, with the PULSE solution, we are going to decrease that MTTR dramatically.

Because nGeniusONE is pretty stable and scalable, I would say it's a good nine out of ten.

The primary use case is for network monitoring, event management, packet tracing, and forensics.

We have cut back on our troubleshooting, by isolating certain trouble areas. It has brought visibility to what requires replacement in the future.

We had a situation where a client said the network was the problem, because their reports weren't running from an automated server report. After multiple support groups tried to isolate and troubleshoot the situation, the incident came to us. We were able to isolate it with five minute clicks and determine that it was an access issue.

The visual and graphical interfaces in the display that it provides for us to show our senior leadership. We can show them what is actually happening, instead of a spreadsheet.

I like the single pane of glass view. A single pane of glass view of the network will help us address important needs more quickly based on our alarming.

The dependency mapping is very helpful and resourceful.

I would like to see nGeniusPULSE and AED (Arbor Edge Defense) integrated with the solution.

Some help screens would be nice, especially if we bring on new operators. It would be great to see if they have more helpful tips available.

Between the host analysis and session analysis, there is a limitation of one hour. This can hinder us if a situation occurred ten hours ago. Sometimes, you can't open up that window.

It is reliable.

Scalability is great. I am looking forward to seeing more.

The technical support has been very attentive and responsive to our needs when I have called.

The solution was deployed in-house.

We are starting to see ROI.

We have seen a measurable decrease in mean time to know (MTTK) and mean time to repair (MTTR).

This solution has cut our overall troubleshooting time.

The solution has helped us increase our application/network uptime.

Do a proof of concept. Get to know your account manager.

The main use cases are primarily customer experience management for telecom operators. I've been working with telecom operators, mainly in the commercial enterprise sector for the telecom side. 

It's very valuable for a telecom operator for customer experience management to see the network end-to-end to the unit. KPIs reports for network enhancement, network optimization, and the end-user customer experience.

The most valuable feature is that it is in line with the traffic. It already captures the raw traffic itself and then filters it, giving us the correct image. Some other companies may just extract what they think is valuable from the traffic itself. nGeniusONE is in line. So from the probes themselves from NETSCOUT probes, it gets the real data, real chunks of data, and then we have the correct vision about our network.

Maybe the optics cost could be improved. It's not about the product itself, but the optics cost from other companies is very high, which affects the business. When you buy a $1 million product, you shouldn't be expected to pay $500,000 for support. So, support, operation, and professional services are very expensive. It's the main weakness.  

There were some issues that have been addressed now. There's the new JTP correlation and the Smart User Plan feature, and they've already implemented them.

I have been working with this solution for five years now. 

NETSCOUT nGeniusONE is very stable.

It's very scalable and very easy to scale.

The tech support is very competent but not very flexible. I don't know if it's maybe the American mentality versus the Northeastern Indian mentality. Sometimes, if our support is finished on October 1st, they will not support us by 2nd October by any means. So it's about high cost and less flexibility, but the competence itself is very high.

Positive

I worked with PoleStar. It's also another competitive product.

PoleStar tells you what you want to hear. NETSCOUT gives you the truth, whether it's good or bad. 

Polestar will give you what you want to hear. It's not that reliable. Also, NETSCOUT has its own hardware ports, while Polestar uses a lot of third-party products.

The initial setup is not overly complex. We have a good training program, and the setup process is fairly straightforward. From the perspective of the telecom environment, it's even easier in the enterprise environment.

For both cloud and on-prem deployments, we typically start by setting up the environment. We receive the devices, connect them, and then install the initial software and perform the initial configuration. However, the more complex and advanced configuration tasks are typically handled by NETSCOUT's cloud professional services team.

Typically, one or two people per site are sufficient for deployment. It's a bit of a snowball effect. The first site may take a couple of weeks to deploy, while subsequent sites may only take a couple of days.

It's fairly standard maintenance. It may involve changing power supplies or cards, but nothing fancy or complicated.

It's fairly expensive, and the licensing is very hard. So the competition here will be Huawei. Huawei's SmartCare solution gives a better ROI, return with the cost, not with the return itself. The cost is much, much less, so it's very flat.

If you can afford the system, the support, and the professional service, which can be quite expensive, I would recommend it anytime for any application for any sector, industry sector.

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

The primary use case is to have the ability to detect issues that a customer would eventually see. It's a more proactive approach for making the customers have a better satisfaction in terms of their usage and performance.

It gives us quicker reaction times and more proactive diagnostics, especially in terms of needing to set up an alarm if a threshold was exceeded.

It gives us a deep package inspection. It provides that sort of visibility. It also has the ability to get the data in real-time.

This solution helps us get to root cause quickly, especially as we dive deep capturing packets.  

• The quick ability to troubleshoot.
• The ability to look forward.
• The ability to develop proactive solutions.

It is the ability to collect data and analyze it, especially key performance indicators. This is before a customer would call to the service center to complain that they have had bad coverage or a dropped call.

While it is good, the single pane of glass view is too high level. It is better for management or someone doing sanity checks. A lot of times, I need to go deeper into the additional screens to get what I want out of it.

We would like to have increased performance in the future. Eventually, we will need more horsepower.

We would like NETSCOUT to add additional topics to the data that it collects, because big data is important going forward.

It's very stable. 

When we first got the tool, there were some performance issues. Eventually, they worked out the issues through various upgrades and server hardware enhancements. That was a plus.

We do have two onsite NETSCOUT engineers, who are excellent. Especially when we encounter an issue, we tell them right away, "We have an issue. Can you fix it?"

We don't have to wait a few days for something to be solved.

The initial setup was a probably a little complex. We had to get things up and running, do field trials, fine tune the performance, then evaluate it under load, and fine tune it again.

We worked closely with NETSCOUT for the deployment. 

We have our own IT department who channels the server, infrastructure, and networking. I'm on the engineering side, and we work directly side-by-side with NETSCOUT. 

We don't use a third party vendor.

Proactive versus a customer having a bad experience: That is the key point. Because you get a bad experience, and you lose customers. You always want tools to make your customer happy.

The solution gives us a forward looking vision. We develop custom applications on top of the data that we collect. It gives us that ability, which is an advantage.

It's definitely decreased troubleshooting time. We get a direct window into the infrastructure and various probes, especially the ability to capture certain KPIs that we look at. Normally, if we didn't have this tool, we would have to collect them under various vendor boxes. That takes time and experience.

Deep packet inspection is the key point for NETSCOUT versus the other competitive tools that we also use.

Take a look at it. If not, you're losing the opportunity to improve your performance in terms of its customer aspects.