ManageEngine Applications Manager Reviews

I am a user as well as a functional person who understands the process, suggests flows, and asks ManageEngine some announcement queries. I internally guided the team through the asset module, problem module, incident module, and change module implementations. That is something I did the last year.

I used it extensively for a year, and prior to that, I was very comfortable.

The main issue with ManageEngine is that it only functions as a record-keeping system, it has never had an IT framework in place.

The necessary flows, KPIs, and SLAs are not easily configurable. It's not an apple-to-apple comparison, but most people are familiar with Remedy, ServiceNow, Azure, or Azure IT ticketing tools, as well as low-code and no-code. The flexibility available versus ManageEngine's system of record is killing rather than helping.

That is the main area of concern.

When ManageEngine releases new or upcoming updates, the usability features or the bare minimum MVP are not taken into account. Some of the fundamentals are seriously lacking in ManageEngine in IT.

None of the solutions meet our expectations. Each solution is half-hearted. Each solution is not well integrated. That is the reality.

The problem is that implementation requires a significant amount of mapping effort. For example, if it is a monitoring system, there should be immediate code operations or immediate server statistics linkage to that server statistics to the thresholds, and the threshold to peak should be too low. The mapping required a significant amount of effort to implement.

In my previous organization, I spent the previous 12 months working with ManageEngine Applications Manager. The implementation of this solution was mandated by my organization.

I used it for one year extensively.

ManageEngine Applications Manager is not stable at all.

Although I have not attempted to scale it, we can increase the number of users. Scalability is limited in terms of functionality, but it is possible in terms of handling users.

We contacted technical support, but the problem is that they acknowledge it, but they always say that this will be part of our next release, which is a product release, or a version release. As a result, it is fundamentally useless to us until it is incorporated into the next version.

I implemented a couple of ServiceNow implementations as a delivery manager. As a result, their ease of understanding, user-friendliness, and dashboarding provides a very comfortable view and comfortable customer satisfaction.

In ManageEngine, we must perform many more queries. We have to create a chart, but those charts are only available as bar charts or pie charts. Fundamentally there are limitations. 

I was fortunate to have worked as both an implementer and a user on both of these ticketing tools.

I don't recall, it's been a long time since I raised invoices, and I don't remember the cost. 

If I go with ServiceNow and if I go with ManageEngine, I'm willing to pay more if there is a feature that ServiceNow has. We do not have pricing constraints as an organization, because we do have reservations about ManageEngine being functionally scalable.

They have a business relationship with ManageEngine as well as a partnership.

I would rate ManageEngine Applications Manager a four out of ten.

We use this solution for application monitoring.

We have an on-premises deployment model.

The most valuable feature of this solution is its ease of use.

We would like the ability to log and move monitors between probes.

The dashboards in the interface need a lot of work.

The ability to go ad-hoc would be a helpful inclusion in the next release. You put something into maintenance mode on a schedule, which is something that I can't do from my screen.

At the moment, we are not finding this solution to be very stable. We've had a lot of calls with the vendor to sort things out.

Scalability is pretty simple. We have more than two hundred users.

If you're dealing directly within the technical support team then they are pretty good.

Prior to using this solution, we were using Microsoft System Center Operations Manager (SCOM), and it was horrible.

The initial setup of this solution is pretty straightforward. The deployment took no longer than a week, including getting everything up and running.

We performed the implementation in-house.

The cost of this solution is not too bad, although it could be cheaper considering what you're getting for the price.

Depending on the size of the environment, this is a solution that I recommend. You also have to be careful about how you deploy it.

This is a good product, but right now, we have too many issues with stability.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

It is used primarily to monitor applications. 

It is a cost-effective solution that has an easy implementation curve. 

Even with the top-notch dashboard, it could be made stronger with an additional plug-in for analytics. If that could be included, it would add more value.

It is quite stable. We have not found any issues in the past two years. 

They have given us an architecture that looks quite scalable. We haven't scaled past our current needs, but we have about 1000 devices and applications. 

I have used tech support. I find them helpful, and they give correct advice.

The initial setup was straightforward, without complexity.

ManageEngine Application Manager is not as costly as other solutions in the marketplace.

In the cases of:

• ManageEngine Application Manager vs Dynatrace
• ManageEngine Application Manager vs CA APM
• ManageEngine Application Manager vs BMC.

The features on the dashboard of ManageEngine Application Manager are much better than these other solutions. Furthermore, I found that those solutions can be quite costly in comparison.

This solution covers 80-90% of our requirements, and that is fine for us. I would recommend this product to others looking for a solution in this realm. 

We use the ManageEngine suite in many dimensions. We not only use it for application monitoring and troubleshooting; we also do our services through this suite. We manage services in general, and to provide our services, we use the ManageEngine suite. Depending on what a customer needs, we put different modules and applications. Sometimes, the customers buy the solution or software, and sometimes they buy just the services. We put the software as a service. 

The main product that we have here is for a banking client, and they have the latest version. Its version, however, varies based on the customer. In general, it is deployed on-premises, and our big customers require it in data centers. We hope to be in the cloud soon.

Its price and the flexibility to deploy are the most valuable. Flexibility is very important, and you can scale from very basic to more complex. 

This solution is a part of a complete suite of management tools. So, it can be integrated with other solutions for monitoring networks, which is very important. You can expand it or interconnect it with many other tools, which is a powerful feature.

We have a very good and long relationship with ManageEngine support guys. They provide very good support for us.

They can improve the post-processing of the data. AppDynamics has more powerful tools for post-processing or analytics.

It has some limitations in more complex environments, but because we are free to use different solutions, we try to find what is best for the customers or the problem we are trying to solve.

I have been using this solution for around 12 years.

We have a very long relationship with ManageEngine development and support guys in India. We have direct access to them, and they provide good support. I would rate them a nine out of ten. If we have any problem, we work online with them, which is a very advantageous thing. It is impossible to do the same with other solutions like AppDynamics.

Its price is good.

I would rate ManageEngine Applications Manager an eight out of ten because there are more powerful tools in the market.

Normally, the customer uses ManageEngine to monitor an application by inserting it into the IBM solution from the back-end to find out the root cause of any application problem. 

I use ManageEngine to test-compile my products. Sometimes I use it for the summary clips with CF quotas. My experience with ManageEngine is primarily with the application performance management side. 

I also use ManageEngine to research and compare CF quotas and then appraise them so I can propose to the customer which solution is suitable for their organization.

For a small organization, I think ManageEngine is pretty nice, I think it's enough.

The feature that I have found most valuable in ManageEngine Applications Manager is its dashboard.

The information provided by ManageEngine is not deep-dive like IBM and CA provide. For example, ManageEngine does show the data, but it's common data like response time and data like that.

From the engine side, and from my perspective as a systems expert or the perspective of my site engineer, the information provided by ManageEngine is not enough to do the analysis of my application and to find the root cause of the application problem. They need to improve the engine that collects the information. For the dashboard I think ManageEngine is enough and it's easy for the user to do the daily monitoring. But for systems experts and developers, the information is not enough, they would need the dashboard to be improved.

Additionally, their integration could be improved. ManageEngine is sold as a modular product. They have their own application monitoring product which is separate from their network monitoring. It would be good for the customer if they consolidated it all together into one engine, especially on the IT side. If they consolidated it into one engine and one dashboard it would be better for the customer. Therefore, I think the integration between their tools and integration with other tools would improve the engine overall.

In terms of scalability, I think this tool was built for small and medium-sized business. If the tool is intended for an enterprise or for a lab company, I don't think it is scalable enough. 

The customer would need to insert the hardware to make these tools work properly.

I have never contacted the support.

I have experience with CA, Dynatrace, and AppDynamics.

The installation was very fast and easy even when compared to IBM because they provide good windows. I just "next, next, next" and it works. It is not difficult to follow the instructions.

I can do the setup by myself.

I evaluated CA and IBM.

Before I recommend ManageEngine to a customer, I first look at the company size and their application requirements. If the size of the company is small or medium, I will propose ManageEngine. Secondly, I examine the capability of the organization. For example, if it is just an IT operation but they don't have an internal developer or systems expert, I might suggest using ManageEngine, but I also might recommend CA, AppDynamics, or Dynatrace. Lastly, I would examine the complexity of the application. If the application is not complex, I would recommend it. For example, if the application only has two or six components, I think ManageEngine is pretty nice.

On a scale of one to seven I would give ManageEngine a seven.

The most valuable features are:

• Takes care of all IT monitoring in one console: Server, apps and business services.
• Helps businesses ensure their revenue-critical applications meet end-user expectations.
• Offers out-of-the-box monitoring support for 80+ applications and servers.
• Allows you to monitor application servers, databases, web-servers, ERP systems, and physical & virtual servers.
• Provides end-user monitoring.
• Performs monitoring in agentless mode.

We manage a wide range of business applications and network services. We get the flexibility to group applications and their related services and monitor them from a single dashboard.

I would like to see end-user experience monitoring, which is now is in the beta release. With this release, we can only monitor web applications.

My suggestion for improving this feature is to also monitor the end-user experience for application clients and servers.

There have been no problems with stability.

There have been no problems with scalability.

Technical support is excellent.

We used another solution, but switched to this one due the ease-of-use and the competitive price.

The initial setup and configuration is very, very simple.

We did the implementation in-house.

The primary use case is for monitoring SQL and nodes.

The most valuable feature is the ability to be able to monitor Kubernetes. We noticed to be able to monitor your Kubernetes, you have to do this by using the latest application manager. The service desk is useful for our customers.

One area of improvement is the dashboard should be more readable and available. If I have easy and quick access in a readable format I can see if there is an issue in the company or with a customer. 

I have been using ManageEngine Applications Manager for more than two years.

The solution is extremely stable.

The scalability is proven with thousands of company individuals using the solution.

The initial setup is straightforward and not complex.

The annual licensing depends on the number of monitors you have connected. Once you get to two hundred monitors you can see the price reflect.

I would rate ManageEngine Applications Manager an eight out of ten.

It's number one, as it does all that you need for monitoring, highly recommended. This is because Application Manager is super easy to use. It was exceptional for me because it an all-in-one solution.

The best option that is has is the option that allows you to enable monitoring RAID storage on a local ESXi server.

I have set it to monitor all the services on physical and virtual servers, our websites ,our databases, and report via SMS. I used its web-link monitor, services monitor (Linux, Windows. ESXi, etc.) and so many other options.

I found Application Manager better than other products, including Solarwinds, because there are so manys option in Application Manager that makes it unique, such as supporting all servers, networks, cloud systems etc.

More modem support for SMS feature.