We performed a comparison between Cisco Intersight and FortiMonitor based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product has good integration."
"Our organization uses Cisco Intersight since it helps manage our physical infrastructure."
"Intersight can validate our environment."
"We enjoy having an inside view of all the data centers and all the EdgeX nodes within a single portal rather than going into the EdgeX connections one by one."
"What I like most about Cisco Intersight is its manageability."
"The tool helps to manage Cisco servers."
"Provides an overall view using a single portal."
"Scalable portfolio of services for remote device management, with good cloud integration. It's also easy to set up."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is what the devices are used for. We have big backups for our Cradlepoint solutions, but FortiMonitor is a great routing device and we love working with them."
"With FortiMonitor, you can get all the logs of the traffic information of the destination or the source."
"The most valuable feature of FortiMonitor is user monitoring. We are able to see if the user is following the policy or not from their system. Additionally, the solution integrates well with Fortinet FortiGate and has centralized management."
"FortiMonitor is really easy to use for monitoring the logs on FortiGate...It is a stable product."
"The solution helps to see client infrastructure. It has many boxes and blinks green or red when the station goes up or down. We have different domains for the device groups that we monitor."
"It provides the best firewall features."
"The tool continuously improves, adapting to support new vendors and technologies. Importantly, it automates the process, triggering alerts when devices require attention, and eliminating the need for manual intervention."
"FortiMonitor's dashboard is very informative and user-friendly."
"It's a very complex solution."
"The product's setup should be easier."
"The usability must be better."
"In the future, the solution needs to plan on an extension to cover a broader range of objects since, at present, there are some Cisco devices within the range of Intersight UCS that it can't manage."
"The unique problem with Cisco Intersight is that it's not supporting some players."
"Cisco Intersight needs some improvement in terms of stability. Hybrid cloud management and proper hyperscaler tie-up are other areas for improvement."
"An area for improvement in Cisco Intersight is automation. It needs more automation capabilities. Apart from enhanced automation, I want Cisco Intersight to integrate with third-party monitoring tools in its next release."
"The product could be easy to use."
"I think the current features are really good for me, nothing else comes to mind right now. Maybe some small improvements could be made in the customization and configuration part of the UI to make it easier or more intuitive. Customizable UI options, like we saw in the demo, could be helpful for everyone. But in our operational environment, having clear health status and system details is crucial for us system engineers. One feature I'd really like to see is a credential management system. It would help us keep track of who's logged in and how many times, which is important due to user restrictions. Sometimes, we need to manage logins more efficiently, like logging off other users to free up credentials. So having a feature like that would be really helpful."
"We use FortiToken, and it's a pain to use because you have to send things through your phone and then confirm by email. Only after this can you log in. It's dual-factor authentication. I wish that I could just log in or bring up a dashboard where I could log in from."
"There is room for improvement in the FortiMonitor report. It is not ideal for showcasing to tech customers or managers, especially when trying to display high CPU usage from logins within a specific range of months or the most recent month."
"FortiMonitor's monitoring could be much better. It should be like, in Palo Alto."
". Enhancements in the dashboard, such as clearer alerting, maintenance window management, software version tracking, and better visualization, would be beneficial."
"FortiMonitor needs to improve its alert system."
"Sometimes, during high CPU usage, we cannot access FortiMonitor and must refresh it."
"Sometimes, we get corruption when upgrading from firmware to the new generation, causing a lot of issues."
Cisco Intersight is ranked 25th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 10 reviews while FortiMonitor is ranked 31st in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 10 reviews. Cisco Intersight is rated 7.8, while FortiMonitor is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Cisco Intersight writes "Scalable and easy to set up portfolio of services; good for remote device management and other functions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of FortiMonitor writes "Helps organizations modernize their performance-monitoring tools, but the solution needs to improve its dashboard". Cisco Intersight is most compared with Cisco UCS Manager, HPE OneView, IBM Turbonomic, VMware Aria Automation and VMware Aria Operations, whereas FortiMonitor is most compared with SolarWinds Network Device Monitor, PRTG Network Monitor, SolarWinds NPM, Auvik Network Management (ANM) and Datadog. See our Cisco Intersight vs. FortiMonitor report.
See our list of best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all IT Infrastructure Monitoring reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.