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

DX NetOps vs Infraon IMS comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 10, 2024

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

DX NetOps
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
44th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
AIOps (17th)
Infraon IMS
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
87th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Server Monitoring (28th), IT Infrastructure Monitoring (60th), Cloud Monitoring Software (44th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of DX NetOps is 0.5%, down from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Infraon IMS is 0.1%, down from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Monitoring Software
 

Featured Reviews

Mark Tukh - PeerSpot reviewer
Leverages comprehensive network monitoring and AI-driven automation for enhanced performance analysis
There is a model for network traffic analysis in the NetOps product called NetOps Flow Analyzer. It provides all the necessary protocols and analysis. DX NetOps supports network monitoring across hybrid environments, though I hope it works out of the box. The product features include automation through AI, allowing out-of-the-box analysis of performance data, building baseline trends, and enabling configuration of dynamic thresholds relative to collected data.
Maharajan S - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides data accuracy for availability and policy harmonization
The reporting capabilities are a challenge and could be improved. We have been trying to connect to it from our help desk ticketing system, because the ticketing system manages asset tracking, which has been a bit challenging for us. Otherwise, they give some reports that are okay, but we do not use them much because we work in the dashboard. This solution is available in SaaS. The reason why we have not gone to SaaS is they do not have a country-specific separation of assets. There are GDPR and other requirements that might require country-specific sensitive information to be filtered as well as other things that need to be taken care of. Normally, if we need to do any compliance, like ISO27000 compliance, they don't have such a report within their system. This kind of report is missing from their SaaS. That is one of the reasons that we have gone to the on-prem version, where I am assured that my data is secure. I can take the report and show it to them from a compliance point of view. However, the moment we go to a SaaS model, I don't have control of the data and where the data is stored. I don't receive any complaints-based reports from the SaaS model.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"A highly scalable solution."
"I rate the stability of the product as ten on a scale of one to ten, indicating that it is very stable."
"The AI is the best feature in this solution."
"The solution is stable."
"The product features include automation through AI, allowing out-of-the-box analysis of performance data, building baseline trends, and enabling configuration of dynamic thresholds relative to collected data."
"It's good for root cause analysis for network problems and network link problems."
"It is straightforward to configure, and you can quickly gather data from your infrastructure."
"I like that it provides an overall view of our network. From the topology view to every event, we can view it. We can also see the interface utilization for future capacity planning. It fits our use case and environment."
"It is a stable product. After the initial configuration, you don't have to tweak it much. All systems of Everest IMS work perfectly."
"We use the solution to automatically trigger processes to help us resolve issues. The whole IT process has been automated, such as trying to map all the users and the escalation process. So, if any issue happens, we get an SMS and WhatsApp of the report. If there is a critical issue this has to be sorted out, like the entire data center being down, then there is an alarm."
"Our response time is within 30 minutes for any support. This solution provides alerts immediately, so we are within our SLA, giving efficiency to our support."
"Their discovery is very quick and they have a CSV file upload mechanism that allows you to onboard five thousand devices a day."
"The role-based dashboards provide data points and charts and topology diagrams in a single window. It's like a spider web, where the application, connectivity, and everything is defined for each user of those applications."
"The most valuable feature is alerting. We get email alerts when a link is down that tell us which device is having a problem."
"The backup, restore, and comparison features are all good."
"The feature that I like the most and the best part is the customization."
 

Cons

"The hardware requirements can be improved."
"The licensing cost of DX NetOps is expensive, not very affordable, and on the top of the price range in the market."
"One improvement that could make the product better is to streamline its modules into a more cohesive solution."
"Technical support could be more responsive."
"It would be better if they had an NFA network analysis feature. We appreciate features like extended network security for bucket flows, but it would be better to have some IDs, IPS functionalities, DDoS, or something like that."
"It would be useful to have more AI features."
"Lacks dashboards and better integration with other solutions."
"Technical support needs to be better. They need to be more knowledgeable and responsive."
"I would like to have the option to add a new device or meet with the next release. Right now, it needs to be done from the backend which results in a heavy reliance on R&D."
"The graphical view of the topology does not show us all of the connectivity in our network, which is something that could be improved."
"Email support is a bit slow. Once you drop an email, it takes time."
"The GUI is in need of improvement. It is not drag-and-drop or easy to use."
"There might be some features in other products that are currently not there in Everest IMS and can be included. I have not yet compared it with any other product."
"I would like to see an integrated view of Infraon IMS and Infraon Desk. It would be very helpful if that were integrated into the solution."
"This solution is available in SaaS. The reason why we have not gone to SaaS is they do not have a country-specific separation of assets. There are GDPR and other requirements that might require country-specific sensitive information to be filtered as well as other things that need to be taken care of. Normally, if we need to do any compliance, like ISO27000 compliance, they don't have such a report within their system. This kind of report is missing from their SaaS. That is one of the reasons that we have gone to the on-prem version, where I am assured that my data is secure."
"We have enquired if there are any possibilities of monitoring non-IPBS devices."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The pricing is reasonable, given the features that they provide."
"If you are looking for the best product with the best price, Infraon is the best product. We evaluated five to six products and finally felt Infraon was better because of the pricing model, especially because it was more flexible."
"We pay for a number of devices on the accounts and since it is on-premises, we pay the maintenance charges for the year."
"Licensing is calculated on a per-user basis."
"I think that the pricing for this solution is reasonable and varies by number of devices."
"The cost model is within our budget. I have less than 180 critical assets, but the moment that I have 1,000 assets, then the license model is totally different. I don't know whether they are capable of handling that kind of a load. They could revisit the licensing model."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
849,475 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Construction Company
11%
Real Estate/Law Firm
11%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about DX NetOps?
It is straightforward to configure, and you can quickly gather data from your infrastructure.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for DX NetOps?
The licensing cost of DX NetOps is expensive, not very affordable, and on the top of the price range in the market. However, there are no extra expenses in addition to the standard licensing fee.
What needs improvement with DX NetOps?
It would be useful to have more AI features.
What is the best network monitoring software for large enterprises?
It actually depends on the exact purpose or requirements. Some tools are better for only network devices while others are better from a cloud monitoring or APM monitoring perspective. You can check...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Everest IMS
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Fujitsu
Airtel, BSNL, BlackBox Corporation, ACT, Geojit, Canara Bank, Federal Bank, Corporation Bank, Birla Corporation, CESC Limited, Mphasis, GAIL, Udaan, Cowrks, SEBI, PowerGrid, ION, Summit Communications, National Information Technology Center (Nepal), Bhutan National Bank, Servion T, Greenlam, Translab Technologies, CMSIT Services, Nelco, HPCL, Navitas Life Sciences etc. 
Find out what your peers are saying about DX NetOps vs. Infraon IMS and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
849,475 professionals have used our research since 2012.