ManageEngine OpManager Reviews

We primarily use the solution to monitor devices. It has the ability to monitor uptime and performance.

The detections, when they work right, are helpful. 

The detections are fine when they work. 

It is not doing a good job of monitoring items such as uptime and performance. 

We get a lot of false alerts.

It needs better reliability. 

I've used the solution for five to six years. 

The customer service is not very good. I find it to be awful. 

There are language barriers, and there are windows of support. You've got to pick when they're available. They're not actually available when you need them.

We've had to redeploy it a couple of times. I was involved in the redeployments due to how bad it was.

It's a bit complex to set up. There are too many customizations that are difficult to get around. 

I'd rate the ease of implementation two out of ten.

We have not witnessed any ROI at this time. 

It is a bit pricey. I'd rate the solution's affordability four out of ten. 

I'm currently looking at other options that might be available as I do not like this particular product.

We are using the current version of the solution. 

I'd advise new users to be prepared to work for results. 

This is not a solution I would recommend. I'd rate the product four out of five overall. 

I primarily use ManageEngine OpManager to monitor servers and network devices. 

We use the NetFlow add-on.

Some of the useful features are NetFlow and analytics.

I would like to see more enhancements made to the product. This would be better because compared to other products, the vendor is very slow at enhancing the solution.

I have been using ManageEngine OpManager for approximately two years.

In terms of stability and performance, it's fine.

This is a scalable product. We have approximately 500 users in the company.

We don't expect our usage of it to increase.

We have been in contact with technical support and are satisfied with the speed of their answers.

The initial setup is easy to do.

It took approximately two months to install and configure everything.

The initial installation has to be done by the vendor but afterward, you can do the configuration yourself. Two people are required for deployment.

The licensing is on a yearly basis and the pricing is on the cheaper side.

This is a product that I can recommend to others.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

I used it about six months ago. We implemented it in the last company I worked with. We were using it for patching, rolling out images, and other similar things.

We were using the most recent version.

I liked Network Configuration Manager. They had some pretty decent features there, and they also had pretty good monitoring and alerts. 

The only problem with it is that the setup isn't very intuitive. I know that they just upgraded the product to make it a little bit easier to use, but compared to some of the other platforms, it is not easy to configure it, set it up, and get it running. However, once you have set it up and got it running, it runs great.

Once it was set up and running, there were no issues with it. It seems to run fairly well.

It is scalable. I was the admin for this system, and we probably had over a thousand end-users. I was the only one who knew how to use it at the time.

Their tech support was pretty good. For any issues we had, they'd come in and work with us and get them resolved pretty quickly.

Its setup isn't very intuitive.

We had perpetual licenses. The cost was around 36,000 for OPManager, and then you'd have the yearly maintenance fee of 2,000 or 3,000.

They have a service where they come in and configure it or do the setup for you for a price. I don't remember the price, but it was pretty reasonable. If you're not familiar with the platform, that might be a good thing to go with, especially if you don't want to go in and do the ifs and buts trying to set it up. It would be a lot easier if you had them come and set it up for you. With all the alerting and everything else that you have to set up with it, it takes a minute to get it up and running and have everything the way you wanted.

I'd give it a nine out of 10. I was really happy with it.

We use the product to monitor service equipment. 

The product provides intensive reports. 

You cannot resolve 100 percent of the issues yourself. You would need to reach out to the support. It needs to be cheaper. 

I have been using the product for a couple of months. 

ManageEngine OpManager is stable. I rate it an eight out of ten. 

I rate ManageEngine OpManager's scalability a seven point five out of ten. My company has four users. 

ManageEngine OpManager's deployment and maintenance is easy and takes three days to complete. You need two resources to handle the process. 

The tool's licensing costs are yearly. 

I rate the product an eight out of ten. The choice of equipment and scale depends on your specific needs. For small to medium-sized businesses (SMBs), basic sets of equipment may suffice.

We use the solution to monitor links. It also helps us to track servers and monitor logs. 

We encounter challenges in monitoring cloud services. I would also appreciate it if there was someone available to walk you through the documentation. 

I would rate the product's stability a seven point five out of ten. 

The solution is scalable. 

The product's response is slow. 

The tool's setup is straightforward. 

The solution's licensing costs are yearly and based on the number of applications. 

I would rate the product a seven out of ten. 

OpManager monitors the uptime and the performance of the network, servers, and applications. Additionally, it monitors the condition of the RAM, the CPU, and memory. It also monitors any inbound applications. We get notifications of any downloads or devices making unauthorized requests. It runs the processes on both sides. If it finds something we get an alert. It will tell us what the problem is and give us directions as to how to fix it.  

Overall the environment is good. You can deploy it in an area of your network to evaluate risk. It can assess any unusual changes in what is going on. It is difficult to prevent IT intrusions. So if you use OpManager, it will make discoveries of unusual behaviors and give you reports. With that information, you can configure the IT to avoid those behaviors and you can avoid the potential issues.  

The only thing I can think of that might be improved is that it is just a heavy software. When we start it up with the archiving software, we sometimes experience some lag. The access on the console is a little bit slow. It might be that we need to improve our configuration to be sure it is correct. If we improve the way we work with it and make it a lighter load on the software, that may be a solution. Performance needs to be our crowning star. This product is little bit slow sometimes.  

If we improve the RAM, then maybe the performance will improve. It could be something that simple.  

We have been using OpManager for between seven and eight years.  

It is stable. That is part of the reason why we are using it for a long time. That is a definite fact.  

This product is used by the IT personnel. So it is the IT manager's domain, I suppose. Other users are not using this. Expanding the user base is not really necessary or likely.  

It may have some limitations in monitoring the network if it is extremely large. We have not experienced this. If there are performance issues the equipment may need an upgrade. This is a load issue and it is not the fault of the application.  

The support for the product is very good. They provided us the link for the product, we started the Windows server, they started the EFT (Electronic File Transfer). When we had downloaded the software, it started itself.  

If any support is required, then they give us the support we need. They respond as declared within our agreement within a four-hour window. I can depend on the response time of the support team.   

The maintenance is not required because hardware maintenance is not what we take care of. If the software reports that anything goes wrong and we not at all to understand the result, then we need to investigate and then fix that. This is our responsibility.  

So my general opinion is that the support is very good. 

In the initial setup, it is very easy to deploy. It supports SMB (Server Message Block) and WMI (Windows Management Instrumentation) protocol. So with SMB and WMI, it can support multiple platforms like Linux and Windows and Cisco devices.  

Considering the pricing, OpManager is actually one of the cheaper solutions in this category. When a new subscription is required for something additional like support and we add the required license, they charge a very little. So the initial cost is low and the add-ons are reasonable.  

In general, this product meets all our requirements, whatever our requirements are. I expect the product to perform as promised and use all the features that I need. It monitors the services, uptime, downtime, and that general requirement is met.  

I think I have no real implementation requirements. They are also constantly improving by resolving some bugs and they also add some additional features. For example, now if we want to monitor file integrity and IT management, we can do that.  

They also provide all services through the same console. If you want to, you can get other functionality through OpManager add-ons. If you want a service, you just buy the subscription and use the add-ons and monitor the multiple services in a single console.  

There is firewall monitoring, network monitoring, application monitoring, and network configuration is also provided. For some things, an additional license is required.  

If you had seen the previous versions, it is obvious that they have improved. So as of now, we do not need to ask for any requirements to be fulfilled. The IT person really only needs the alerts and designation as medium, critical, or high priority. This tool does that and it is a good monitoring solution.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would have to rate it a nine. They get a good rating because of the support and the features. Whatever they communicate, they provide.  

We use ManageEngine OpManager to monitor our link status, latency, and errors.

It's a standard monitoring tool. It doesn't have a lot of extra features. It's primarily used for low-level monitoring.

Monitoring is the most valuable feature of this solution. 

There are some concerns with the recording performance of ManageEngine OpManager. It does not offer accurate monitoring when compared to SolarWinds. We have seen endpoint collections lag, there has been some choking with a particular link, and it doesn't record properly.

ManageEngine OpManager should include drill-down features. If for example, we wanted to monitor a particular link closely, it should not be an option, it should available.

We would like link monitoring included. At times we need to monitor those specific links closely.

We have been using ManageEngine OpManager for the last five years.

ManageEngine OpManager is a stable solution.

We have one admin user, who logs in.

We have had several concerns with ManageEngine OpManager's scalability; it consumes a lot of resources.

We did not receive adequate support when we had problems during the installation. They take too much time to get it done.

I would rate them a two out of five.

Neutral

I have also worked with SolarWinds Network Device Monitor. It has been deployed on-premises.

We use SolarWinds Network Device Monitor to closely monitor links, which is not a feature that is available in ManageEngine OpManger.

There are significant differences when compared to SolarWinds. First and foremost, the accuracy will be completely different. When we use SolarWinds, we conduct a lot of proof-of-concept work, and occasionally we require specific data. We'll set up a trial enrollment at that time and collect the data. Which is different in ManageEngine. We can drill down if that particular graph is shown in SolarWinds. We cannot drill down in ManageEngine; instead, a five-minute countdown will begin. It will be correct every five minutes to one hour. If you raise the points, the links will be broken. I have approximately 3,000 links. If I increase that interval to one minute, it will consume more of the VMs.

SolarWinds is faster in terms of performance.

We have had some issues with the initial setup. We struggled to complete the installation.

When compared with SolarWinds, the pricing is a little lower. We chose the same because of the commercial aspect.

In terms of pricing, I would rate it a two out of five. It was expensive.

I would rate ManageEngine OpManager a five out of ten.

We use the product as a network monitoring system. We have ten people who are using the system from the admin and end-user level. The platform is used daily and we are looking at extending it to other areas of the business to do different types of monitoring. We have dashboards that we put up that we leverage off and we want to get more systems incorporated.

OpManager allows us to customize the views better than previous solutions that we were using. This helps us target exactly what information gets to the people who need to know it.

The most valuable feature so far is the net-flow analyzer, which works exceptionally well. We have only just started playing around with the apps monitoring portion, but this seems like it will provide value as well. Beyond that, the ops manager portion, the monitoring in general, and the dashboards are all really excellent. The entire solution is very user-friendly. As the IT Manager, I don't have too much time to go investigate how things are running on the system. This is a solution to that problem.

The for the areas that can use improvement, I would say furthering the abilities of dashboard customization and enabling workflows into other systems. I think we could get much more out of the solution with greater flexibility. If we could customize access further and allow people to enhance role-based access, it would keep people focused on their tasks and the specific things they need to know. I think that is the only other thing I would like to see in the system. Now there are only two views: an admin role or a view role. Roles are fixed in the extremes and there is a middle ground that isn't served by either.

When you look at the price of the system, it is exceptional and a real value for money. However, it lacks strong local support. I can't blame the company because it is a new product, but that is one addition that would be very useful.

The system is quite stable. Since we have had it implemented, I have not had a single day of downtime on the system. Even when it comes to upgrades there was no downtime. These guys do an excellent job of testing enhancements and upgrades, so it is seamless to deploy new versions.

I think the product is extremely scalable. We have actually gone from two thousand nodes up to five thousand nodes and there was no issue in scaling up. We were simultaneously looking at the HA solution at the time and even when upgrading two things at the same time, there was no downtime for the system. 

In South Africa, the OpManager system is fairly new. With the current support structures in place, the support team is exceptionally helpful and they try to go the extra mile. However, I don't think they are as experienced with all the components of the system as the users would hope, so it makes installations a little bit difficult. They do escalate to external teams when it is necessary and warranted and we do get assistance when the local team cannot handle a problem. So from that perspective, I think they do an extremely good job in making sure that we are functional and that we have the contracted level of support. I do not think it is an entirely personal preference to assume that the local vendors would have a bit more knowledge about the products in order to support us properly and efficiently.

Regardless of any and all issues, support normally responds promptly (within a couple of hours). It is simply not desirable that the actual issues can take a few days to get resolved.

We previously used the Microsoft SCOM platform. The product was not very easy to configure. It is tedious and you need a lot of experience to get it done. That difficulty was the reason we moved away from it as a solution.

Installation was pretty straightforward. We did get assistance from the team locally assigned to assist us, but the majority of the work was done within our internal IT team.

We did initiate the implementation ourselves but we were, at times, assisted by our assigned team.

We had a return on investment almost immediately in that a consistent up-time has been easier to achieve. Alerts come through faster. Our staff has the ability to look at the dashboards and put things in place to make sure we don't have outages of the same sort. Previously on SCOM, it wasn't easy to manage and monitor the system. If you had to understand what an alert meant, it was very difficult. Now, the operator can click on the alert and immediately get details of the problem. Then they can drill down to get a solution very quickly.

As far as cost, it was around six hundred thousand rands ($40,500) for the year, for the renewals. That's the total cost for a four thousand node system including support and maintenance. If there is any additional development required, then that comes at an additional cost. We have not really customized too much. The one change we requested was added to the subsequent release. They built the resolution specifically for us and it didn't cost us anything and went out to all users who may have been experiencing similar issues.

I would rate the product an eight out of ten. The reason for that is that it is an exceptional value for the money. It may not be the absolute best, but it is certainly better than most solutions and the price differential is significant.

It is a good idea to get both the application monitoring package and the Ops Manager. They compliment each other, so I would suggest buying both. 

With regards to the implementation, I would suggest making use of an implementer even though it is an easy system to implement. An implementer will have the experience to do the implementation according to standards and proper architecture. This will save you from errors, speed the implementation, and keep you from wasting time doing things over again. We did the original implementation ourselves and then we had to re-build and do things all over again because we didn't have the knowledge of the package. It did work eventually, but it would have worked much more efficiently if done correctly the first time.