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

CA Unified Communications Monitor vs NetCrunch comparison

Broadcom and AdRem Software are both solutions in the Network Monitoring Software category. Broadcom is ranked #102, while AdRem Software is ranked #82. Broadcom holds a 0.1% mindshare in NMS, compared to AdRem Software’s 0.2% mindshare. Additionally, 50% of Broadcom users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of AdRem Software users who would recommend it.
CA Unified Communications M...
Read 2 CA Unified Communications Monitor reviews
  • 181 Views
  • 135 Comparison Views
50% willing to recommend
NetCrunch
Read 3 NetCrunch reviews
  • 361 Views
  • 290 Comparison Views
100% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 9, 2024
```html

CA Unified Communications Monitor and NetCrunch are software solutions competing in network management and monitoring. NetCrunch has an upper hand due to its robust capabilities and perceived value.

Features: CA Unified Communications Monitor offers detailed insights into communication patterns, enhanced network traffic analysis, and communication oversight features. NetCrunch provides comprehensive network monitoring tools, real-time performance tracking, and infrastructure visualization capabilities. NetCrunch's broad monitoring tools position it strongly in feature comparison.

Room for Improvement: CA Unified Communications Monitor could improve in scalability, feature integration, and complex deployment handling. NetCrunch could enhance its deployment streamlining, offer more flexible pricing options, and optimize resource utilization, making user experience smoother.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: CA Unified Communications Monitor has a straightforward deployment model with adequate customer service facilitating implementation. NetCrunch has a more complex deployment but compensates with exceptional customer support, providing smooth transitions and assistance.

Pricing and ROI: CA Unified Communications Monitor is more cost-effective, attracting budget-conscious buyers with fast ROI promises. NetCrunch requires higher initial investment but justifies the cost with significant long-term benefits, making it appealing to those who prioritize comprehensive features.

```
DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed CA Unified Communications Monitor vs. NetCrunch Report (Updated: April 2025).
Buyer's Guide
CA Unified Communications Monitor vs. NetCrunch
April 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 848,270 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

CA Unified Communications M...
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
102nd
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
71st
Average Rating
6.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Unified Communications Monitoring (5th)
NetCrunch
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
82nd
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
62nd
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Server Monitoring (26th), Log Management (77th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of CA Unified Communications Monitor is 0.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetCrunch is 0.2%, down from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Monitoring Software
 

Featured Reviews

itarchit489981 - PeerSpot reviewer
Good end-to-end voice quality monitoring and offers valuable features
The solution should have automatic baseline detection. On the per hour, per base, per week. That's usually the best. And on a per individual CI level. I know that they're working on it and when that's available then we will definitely implement it because it will reduce the effort we need to maintain all the products. Right now we have to set thresholds for every location, and it needs to be actually dynamic so if we have better thresholding, we'll have faster alarms across all our locations. We won't have to expend effort on it by resetting or checking them on a regular basis.
Read full review
RP
A network monitoring platform with a useful reporting feature, but permission-based options could be better
The initial setup is fairly easy. Most of it's wizard-based. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to set it up. But if you don't know certain things related to protocols and everything else, it might be difficult. If you know how SNMP works, it'll be fairly simple to set up.
Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Good end-to-end monitoring"
"We use the solution to meet the needs of the customer."
"Reporting on NetCrunch is pretty good. It's very similar to SolarWinds. It's just a different interface. The majority of everything there was beneficial."
 

Cons

"The solution should have automatic baseline detection."
"All the features and functions of the solution can be improved."
"I didn't care for the role-based, permission-based options, which were not the best."
report
See which vendors are best for you
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
See recommendations
848,270 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Educational Organization
9%
 

Company Size

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

Comparisons

No data available
Zabbix vs NetCrunch Logo
Zabbix vs NetCrunch
Compared 56% of the time
PRTG Network Monitor vs NetCrunch Logo
PRTG Network Monitor vs NetCrunch
Compared 22% of the time
Nagios Core vs NetCrunch Logo
Nagios Core vs NetCrunch
Compared 22% of the time
More NetCrunch Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
CA Unified Communications Monitor vs. Ixia Hawkeye
April 2025
CA Unified Communications Monitor reportDownload CA Unified Communications Monitor product report
Buyer's Guide
Network Monitoring Software
March 2025
NetCrunch reportDownload NetCrunch product report
 

Also Known As

CA UC Monitor
No data available
 

Overview

CA Unified Communications Monitor is a unified communications monitoring solution that evaluates and reports on the network’s support of real-time applications in multi-vendor environments, so that Network Administrators can optimize the network’s quality of service and end user experience.

Broadcom

NetCrunch is the complete network monitoring solution for monitoring traffic, topology, devices, systems, logs, and services. It's policy, and template-based configuration makes managing thousands of nodes a breeze. It automatically generates layer-2 maps and manages monitoring dependencies. NetCrunch supports major operating systems, virtualization platforms, and the Cloud. Complete SNMP support with 8,700+ MIBs included and a built-in MIB compiler.

AdRem Software
 

Sample Customers

BBVA Compass
AER Kooperation, AON Corpration, Advance Financial services, Airbus SAS, Bauer Net consult, Banco Soal, Bertelsmann, Burke County public, COF training services
Buyer's Guide
CA Unified Communications Monitor vs. NetCrunch
April 2025
Free Report: CA Unified Communications Monitor vs. NetCrunch
Find out what your peers are saying about CA Unified Communications Monitor vs. NetCrunch and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
848,270 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our CA Unified Communications Monitor vs. NetCrunch report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors and best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors.

We monitor all Network Monitoring Software 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.