Discover the top alternatives and competitors to Cisco Secure Network Analytics based on the interviews we conducted with its users.
The top alternative solutions include Zabbix, SolarWinds NPM, and PRTG Network Monitor.
The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.
Cisco Alternatives Report
Learn what solutions real users are comparing with Cisco, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Zabbix, an open-source solution, offers extensive monitoring integrations without licensing costs, appealing to budget-conscious enterprises. In comparison, Cisco Secure Network Analytics offers advanced threat detection with deep analytics, attracting security-focused organizations despite its higher costs.
Zabbix offers a low setup cost, appealing to budget-conscious users, while Cisco Secure Network Analytics has a higher setup cost, reflecting its advanced features.
Zabbix offers a low setup cost, appealing to budget-conscious users, while Cisco Secure Network Analytics has a higher setup cost, reflecting its advanced features.
SolarWinds NPM excels in customizable, efficient network monitoring and scalability. In comparison, Cisco Secure Network Analytics focuses on threat detection and deep integration with Cisco products. Buyers may choose SolarWinds for flexibility, while Cisco appeals for extensive security and visibility.
PRTG Network Monitor has a lower setup cost, making it more budget-friendly, while Cisco Secure Network Analytics incurs higher initial expenditure but offers robust enterprise-grade security features.
PRTG Network Monitor has a lower setup cost, making it more budget-friendly, while Cisco Secure Network Analytics incurs higher initial expenditure but offers robust enterprise-grade security features.
Nagios XI offers extensive customization and cost-effectiveness through its open-source model, appealing to those with technical skills. In comparison, Cisco Secure Network Analytics provides integrated security features suitable for larger infrastructures despite higher pricing and complexity in deployment.
SCOM excels in monitoring Microsoft environments with comprehensive capabilities and deep integrations. In comparison, Cisco Secure Network Analytics focuses on network traffic analysis with effective threat detection. Tech buyers choose SCOM for Microsoft integration and Cisco for robust network visibility and threat management.
SCOM has a higher setup cost, while Cisco Secure Network Analytics offers a more affordable initial investment. SCOM includes comprehensive monitoring features, whereas Cisco Secure focuses on robust security analytics.
SCOM has a higher setup cost, while Cisco Secure Network Analytics offers a more affordable initial investment. SCOM includes comprehensive monitoring features, whereas Cisco Secure focuses on robust security analytics.
LogicMonitor excels in providing customizable dashboards with Google Maps integration, ideal for managing locations and specific monitoring needs. In comparison, Cisco Secure Network Analytics focuses on network traffic analysis and real-time threat detection, offering robust analytics but facing integration challenges.
LogicMonitor has a straightforward setup cost, while Cisco Secure Network Analytics requires a more comprehensive initial investment, highlighting a key difference in their pricing structures.
LogicMonitor has a straightforward setup cost, while Cisco Secure Network Analytics requires a more comprehensive initial investment, highlighting a key difference in their pricing structures.
Cisco Secure Network Analytics excels in threat detection and deep analytics, providing proactive insights. In comparison, NETSCOUT nGeniusONE is valued for robust packet and NetFlow analysis, offering detailed traffic visibility, which is beneficial for capacity planning and historical analysis.
IBM SevOne NPM offers detailed infrastructure visibility and scalability, integrating performance metrics for real-time insights. In comparison, Cisco Secure Network Analytics excels in threat detection, providing enhanced network security. A tech buyer might choose either based on visibility needs or security priorities.
IBM SevOne NPM typically incurs higher setup costs compared to Cisco Secure Network Analytics, which offers more cost-effective implementation. However, IBM's robust features may justify the initial investment for businesses seeking comprehensive network performance management.
IBM SevOne NPM typically incurs higher setup costs compared to Cisco Secure Network Analytics, which offers more cost-effective implementation. However, IBM's robust features may justify the initial investment for businesses seeking comprehensive network performance management.
WhatsUp Gold has a straightforward setup cost, while Cisco Secure Network Analytics includes a more complex pricing structure. Consider these differences when evaluating the suitability of each solution for your needs.
WhatsUp Gold has a straightforward setup cost, while Cisco Secure Network Analytics includes a more complex pricing structure. Consider these differences when evaluating the suitability of each solution for your needs.
vRealize Network Insight excels in network flow visualization and supports advanced features like microsegmentation. In comparison, Cisco Secure Network Analytics focuses on robust threat detection with strong threat intelligence integration, offering real-time traffic insights. Each solution offers distinct advantages depending on user needs.
vRealize Network Insight has a straightforward setup cost, while Cisco Secure Network Analytics involves more complex initial expenses, highlighting a key financial difference between the two solutions.
vRealize Network Insight has a straightforward setup cost, while Cisco Secure Network Analytics involves more complex initial expenses, highlighting a key financial difference between the two solutions.
LiveAction LiveNX attracts tech buyers with its pricing and exceptional customer support, focusing on network visualization and performance monitoring. In comparison, Cisco Secure Network Analytics appeals through comprehensive security features and advanced telemetry, justifying its cost with robust threat detection and response capabilities.
LiveAction LiveNX has a lower setup cost compared to Cisco Secure Network Analytics, making it a budget-friendly choice for initial deployment, whereas Cisco offers comprehensive features that may justify its higher initial investment.
LiveAction LiveNX has a lower setup cost compared to Cisco Secure Network Analytics, making it a budget-friendly choice for initial deployment, whereas Cisco offers comprehensive features that may justify its higher initial investment.
Cisco Secure Network Analytics offers advanced threat detection and extensive network visibility, making it ideal for comprehensive security needs. In comparison, Flowmon excels in performance monitoring and customization, appealing to buyers seeking cost-effective solutions with adaptable deployment and specific application monitoring.
AppNeta offers real-time application performance insights ideal for optimizing delivery, favored for ease of deployment. In comparison, Cisco Secure Network Analytics emphasizes security management with advanced threat detection, appealing to organizations prioritizing comprehensive security despite a more complex deployment and higher costs.
AppNeta by Broadcom has an affordable setup cost, while Cisco Secure Network Analytics generally incurs higher initial expenses. The pricing contrast highlights a significant difference in upfront investment between both network management solutions.
AppNeta by Broadcom has an affordable setup cost, while Cisco Secure Network Analytics generally incurs higher initial expenses. The pricing contrast highlights a significant difference in upfront investment between both network management solutions.
Kentik's SaaS model and real-time traffic visualization appeal to those seeking flexible and maintenance-free solutions. In comparison, Cisco Secure Network Analytics offers strong threat detection and network management benefits through deep integration within Cisco’s ecosystem, appealing to buyers needing comprehensive security capabilities.
Nmap offers cost-effective, simple deployment ideal for smaller networks; its open-source scanning is lightweight and easy to integrate. In comparison, Cisco Secure Network Analytics provides advanced threat detection and integration, appealing to enterprises willing to invest for sophisticated analytics and superior monitoring.
Nmap offers a low setup cost, making it accessible for smaller teams, while Cisco Secure Network Analytics, with a higher setup price, provides advanced features for larger enterprises.
Nmap offers a low setup cost, making it accessible for smaller teams, while Cisco Secure Network Analytics, with a higher setup price, provides advanced features for larger enterprises.
Zenoss Cloud offers ease of use and cost-effective, scalable monitoring. In comparison, Cisco Secure Network Analytics delivers advanced threat detection and security features. Tech buyers might choose Zenoss for affordability or Cisco for comprehensive security analysis, depending on organizational needs and priorities.
Zenoss Cloud's setup cost is lower than Cisco Secure Network Analytics, offering a budget-friendly start. In contrast, Cisco Secure Network Analytics provides a more comprehensive package with higher initial costs, reflecting its extensive range of features.
Zenoss Cloud's setup cost is lower than Cisco Secure Network Analytics, offering a budget-friendly start. In contrast, Cisco Secure Network Analytics provides a more comprehensive package with higher initial costs, reflecting its extensive range of features.
OmniPeek excels in real-time diagnostics and cost-effectiveness, making it ideal for quick deployment and immediate insights. In comparison, Cisco Secure Network Analytics provides advanced threat detection and comprehensive monitoring, offering superior long-term security, albeit with higher setup complexity and cost.
Cisco Secure Network Analytics excels in advanced threat detection and automated responses. In comparison, Plixer Scrutinizer provides detailed network traffic analysis and flexible reporting. Cisco is ideal for those prioritizing threat management, while Plixer suits in-depth data analysis needs.
Cisco Secure Network Analytics has a comparatively higher setup cost, making it potentially less appealing to budget-conscious users, while Plixer Scrutinizer offers a more affordable setup cost, attracting those looking for a cost-efficient solution.
Cisco Secure Network Analytics has a comparatively higher setup cost, making it potentially less appealing to budget-conscious users, while Plixer Scrutinizer offers a more affordable setup cost, attracting those looking for a cost-efficient solution.
Alluvio AppResponse attracts tech buyers with its cost-effectiveness, emphasizing network performance monitoring. In comparison, Cisco Secure Network Analytics is favored for its extensive security analytics capabilities. Each solution caters to distinct needs: Alluvio for simplicity and affordability, Cisco for comprehensive security.
DX Performance Management excels in cost-effectiveness with robust analytics for in-depth network insights, appealing to budget-conscious buyers. In comparison, Cisco Secure Network Analytics offers feature-rich security management and threat detection, justifying higher investment for those prioritizing comprehensive security measures.
DX Performance Management setup costs are affordable and straightforward, whereas Cisco Secure Network Analytics involves higher initial expenses, highlighting a clear difference in setup investment between the two solutions.
DX Performance Management setup costs are affordable and straightforward, whereas Cisco Secure Network Analytics involves higher initial expenses, highlighting a clear difference in setup investment between the two solutions.
Cisco Secure Network Analytics excels in ease of deployment and customer service with seamless integration into existing environments. In comparison, NETSCOUT vSTREAM's strength lies in its robust feature set, providing advanced traffic analysis and monitoring, justifying higher costs for deeper insights.
Cisco Secure Network Analytics features a higher initial setup cost compared to NETSCOUT vSTREAM, which offers a more economical solution for businesses prioritizing budget efficiency during installation.
Cisco Secure Network Analytics features a higher initial setup cost compared to NETSCOUT vSTREAM, which offers a more economical solution for businesses prioritizing budget efficiency during installation.
Statseeker excels in real-time network performance monitoring for organizations seeking granular visibility with minimal bandwidth overhead. In comparison, Cisco Secure Network Analytics offers robust security with advanced threat detection, making it suitable for complex environments requiring deep analysis and comprehensive security value despite higher costs.
Statseeker offers a straightforward setup process with minimal upfront costs, while Cisco Secure Network Analytics involves a more complex and potentially higher setup cost. Statseeker's affordability contrasts with Cisco's extensive features requiring higher investment.
Statseeker offers a straightforward setup process with minimal upfront costs, while Cisco Secure Network Analytics involves a more complex and potentially higher setup cost. Statseeker's affordability contrasts with Cisco's extensive features requiring higher investment.
Cisco Secure Network Analytics is attractive for its intuitive management and seamless integration, appealing to those prioritizing ease of use and compatibility. In comparison, NETSCOUT InfiniStreamNG's advanced features in packet analysis make it ideal for users focused on deep network insights and visibility.
Cisco Secure Network Analytics has a higher setup cost compared to the more budget-friendly NETSCOUT InfiniStreamNG, highlighting a cost distinction in deployment between the two network security solutions.
Cisco Secure Network Analytics has a higher setup cost compared to the more budget-friendly NETSCOUT InfiniStreamNG, highlighting a cost distinction in deployment between the two network security solutions.
