We performed a comparison between AppDynamics Server Monitoring and Cisco UCS Manager 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."This solution gives us quite good insights that we might otherwise overlook, or it might take a really long time to debug those issues."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I don't see any problems in the solution...The solution's technical support was good."
"The product has the ability to drill down to the errors whenever we have issues."
"The platform is reliable in identifying the core system issues."
"I like Business iQ the most, so far. It has great analytics configurations and I can get real-time updates. We have eCommerce releases every week. So the one use case that I use Business iQ is to compare before and after release performance using AppDynamics."
"We can view the server activities, including issues in the process, with a single click."
"The solution offers great visibility that allows you to track where errors originated."
"The product provides a nice end-user experience."
"When one server fails, we can attach the service profile to a new server, which saves a lot of time."
"Technical support has been good so far. We haven't had any issues with them. We're satisfied with the level of service they provide our company."
"From a usability and functionality perspective, Cisco UCS Manager is very good."
"The management is one of the most valuable features of this solution."
"The most valuable features are flexibility and management."
"We can configure the Cisco UCS Manager, the profiles and interactions with the resource we manage."
"Cisco UCS Manager is overall a good package because it gives a GUI interface and a CLI."
"The reporting functionality will give you any report you want."
"An area for improvement in AppDynamics Server Monitoring is integration; in particular, it needs a better way to integrate with custom applications such as Siebel CRM. Right now, it's challenging to integrate AppDynamics Server Monitoring with Siebel CRM because it sometimes gives an error and cannot integrate properly."
"The solution could be more mobile friendly."
"I would like the ability to choose from some pre-defined dashboards and reports because as it is now, you have to define them separately for each implementation."
"AppDynamics Server Monitoring has room for improvement in terms of pricing. If the price could be cheaper, it would be great for both the customer and the integrator. What I'd like to see in the next release of AppDynamics Server Monitoring is a better dashboard for the customer. The dashboard should be more interactive."
"If we consider the implementation of alternative solutions, such as Dynatrace, there is a notable difference in the approach to agent-based service monitoring. For instance, Dynatrace employs a single-agent solution, which can pose security concerns. When installing Dynatrace, granting the agent ld pro payload rights is a requirement. In contrast, our solution ensures a more secure approach by not requiring root and administration access. While we currently utilize an agent-based solution, there may be a shift in the next one or two years, possibly with the adoption of Open Telemetry. It's anticipated that many APM vendors, including Dynatrace, may alter their structure or strategy for implementation. However, as of now, the trend is towards an increasing number of implementations daily."
"The solution has performance issues after we deploy the agent."
"The one thing that I find it difficult in using AppDynamics is, for any new user, it's not easy for him or her to configure the transactions in AppDynamics because the UI is pretty complex. The configuration is pretty complex for a new, fresh user. They can make the UI simpler, that'll be very helpful for anyone to configure their website in AppDynamics."
"The tool should provide information like the number of connections and processes utilized in real time."
"Cisco UCS is expensive compared to others. The Cisco UCS Chassis is more expensive than a standalone server, but some companies require standalone servers because of their production load and affordability. You need to pay more if you require more features on the Blade or if you need more ports on the switch."
"There is room for improvement in the software part of Cisco UCS Manager. It should be more user-friendly, especially when creating policies."
"What's lacking in Cisco UCS Manager is the performance dashboard. If a blade has any performance issues, you should be able to create a dashboard on Cisco UCS Manager. Currently, this feature isn't present."
"Its user interface can be improved. It can be more user-friendly."
"I found it a bit of a challenge to get training on UCSM. I've been trying to get that for some time now. I feel like I have to figure it out a lot of things myself. For years I've to log calls with support whenever I've got challenges that I cannot resolve. If I had some training or more manuals, I'd be better able to handle more things on my own."
"I would like to see Cisco UCS optionally work as a hyper-converged system because right now, it only operates as a converged system."
"The integration with other solutions could be better. I think Cisco can only integrate using Intersight. There is a second interface available as a SaaS platform, in the cloud, or on-premise. It's based on the Redfish protocol, which is standard for all the B-series servers in the market. We can integrate other solutions using API."
"Cisco UCS Manager should have a simplified deployment in the sense of not having multiple machines, demilitarized zones, and on-premise options."
More AppDynamics Server Monitoring Pricing and Cost Advice →
AppDynamics Server Monitoring is ranked 19th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 16 reviews while Cisco UCS Manager is ranked 29th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 21 reviews. AppDynamics Server Monitoring is rated 8.2, while Cisco UCS Manager is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of AppDynamics Server Monitoring writes "A highly stable and scalable solution that provides real-time information on servers". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco UCS Manager writes "Used to manage servers, monitor or manage firmware upgrades, and push policies". AppDynamics Server Monitoring is most compared with OpsRamp, ITRS Geneos, Zabbix, Nutanix Prism and PRTG Network Monitor, whereas Cisco UCS Manager is most compared with Cisco Intersight, Nutanix Prism, HPE OneView, Zabbix and Datadog. See our AppDynamics Server Monitoring vs. Cisco UCS Manager 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.
