Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Arista Data ANalyZer vs Pico Corvil Analytics comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Juniper Mist Premium Analytics
Sponsored
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
58th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Arista Data ANalyZer
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
75th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
Network Packet Broker (NPB) (4th)
Pico Corvil Analytics
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
46th
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of Juniper Mist Premium Analytics is 0.4%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Arista Data ANalyZer is 0.4%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Pico Corvil Analytics is 0.6%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Monitoring Software
 

Featured Reviews

ALEXANDRE VIANNA - PeerSpot reviewer
May 3, 2024
Has a single dashboard, but is expensive
We use this solution to manage our mission environment The single dashboard is a valuable feature.  The technical support needs improvement. The initial setup is straightforward. The solution is expensive. I rate the pricing an eight out of ten.  Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of…
Use Arista Data ANalyZer?
Share your opinion
Ted Hruzd - PeerSpot reviewer
Mar 15, 2023
Helpful support agents, beneficial issue detection, and high availability
The creation of charts and real-time windows was somewhat cumbersome. The vendor's website had an application called App Agent that required improvement. This API was designed to track message rates between microservers ingested into a microservice memory map. It allowed users to monitor the number of transactions that occurred at specific points within the application, and it was quite impressive. However, it had some limitations, and it mainly served as a tool for basic tracking. The protocols it employed could reveal the type of server-to-server communication and the specific order types, but it was not able to provide a more in-depth analysis of the application. The vendor has the potential to integrate application metrics more extensively into their product suite. The product suite could benefit from more out-of-the-box predictive analytics capabilities, such as projecting market or symbol movements. However, it is unclear whether the vendor currently provides this functionality. Users may need to adjust their software to perform such analysis independently.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is expensive."
Information not available
"As I am working more with Corvil, it looks like it is improving diagnostic times."
"I like the way they've decoupled the hardware now... Everything's based on the licensing side now. The way they do the packs is fair. It's very flexible in that we're not charged per decoder, we're charged for a certain pack. Whether we use one decoder or 20 decoders, as long as they're in the same pack, there's no extra charge. Expensive but fair is how I'd summarize it."
"Corvil has reduced the time it takes us to isolate root causes."
"The pricing is very expensive. Corvil could work on the pricing."
"It is pricey versus its competitors."
"We bought a box from Corvil and it was $200,000 for one big CNE. Then there are obviously the recurring maintenance fees. The licensing is perpetual but the maintenance fees are not."
"Pico Corvil Analytics is expensive. There are several competitors in the market. Selling this solution to a trading firm might be challenging as there are several other solutions available that can perform basic similar operations, such as using Wireshark and Python scripts to obtain the required values. However, that does not nearly approach the comprehensive end-2-end automated depth of metrics and their correlations that Pico Corvil Analytics provides."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
14%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
55%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Educational Organization
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Juniper Mist Premium Analytics?
We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Pico Corvil Analytics?
As part of my role in monitoring multiple client connections, I would use Pico Corvil Analytics to set up alerts for ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Pico Corvil Analytics?
Pico Corvil Analytics is expensive. There are several competitors in the market. Selling this solution to a trading f...
What needs improvement with Pico Corvil Analytics?
The creation of charts and real-time windows was somewhat cumbersome. The vendor's website had an application called ...
 

Also Known As

No data available
DANZ
Corvil
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
IG Group, CBC Radio Canada, Fixed Mobiles Telecom, LivePerson, Samsung SDS
NASDAQ, Commerzbank, Pico Quantitative Trading, CME Group, Interactive Data, Tokyo Stock Exchange Inc.
Find out what your peers are saying about Zabbix, Datadog, Auvik and others in Network Monitoring Software. Updated: November 2024.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.