NETSCOUT nGeniusONE Reviews

The main use cases are primarily customer experience management for telecom operators. I've been working with telecom operators, mainly in the commercial enterprise sector for the telecom side. 

It's very valuable for a telecom operator for customer experience management to see the network end-to-end to the unit. KPIs reports for network enhancement, network optimization, and the end-user customer experience.

The most valuable feature is that it is in line with the traffic. It already captures the raw traffic itself and then filters it, giving us the correct image. Some other companies may just extract what they think is valuable from the traffic itself. nGeniusONE is in line. So from the probes themselves from NETSCOUT probes, it gets the real data, real chunks of data, and then we have the correct vision about our network.

Maybe the optics cost could be improved. It's not about the product itself, but the optics cost from other companies is very high, which affects the business. When you buy a $1 million product, you shouldn't be expected to pay $500,000 for support. So, support, operation, and professional services are very expensive. It's the main weakness.  

There were some issues that have been addressed now. There's the new JTP correlation and the Smart User Plan feature, and they've already implemented them.

I have been working with this solution for five years now. 

NETSCOUT nGeniusONE is very stable.

It's very scalable and very easy to scale.

The tech support is very competent but not very flexible. I don't know if it's maybe the American mentality versus the Northeastern Indian mentality. Sometimes, if our support is finished on October 1st, they will not support us by 2nd October by any means. So it's about high cost and less flexibility, but the competence itself is very high.

Positive

I worked with PoleStar. It's also another competitive product.

PoleStar tells you what you want to hear. NETSCOUT gives you the truth, whether it's good or bad. 

Polestar will give you what you want to hear. It's not that reliable. Also, NETSCOUT has its own hardware ports, while Polestar uses a lot of third-party products.

The initial setup is not overly complex. We have a good training program, and the setup process is fairly straightforward. From the perspective of the telecom environment, it's even easier in the enterprise environment.

For both cloud and on-prem deployments, we typically start by setting up the environment. We receive the devices, connect them, and then install the initial software and perform the initial configuration. However, the more complex and advanced configuration tasks are typically handled by NETSCOUT's cloud professional services team.

Typically, one or two people per site are sufficient for deployment. It's a bit of a snowball effect. The first site may take a couple of weeks to deploy, while subsequent sites may only take a couple of days.

It's fairly standard maintenance. It may involve changing power supplies or cards, but nothing fancy or complicated.

It's fairly expensive, and the licensing is very hard. So the competition here will be Huawei. Huawei's SmartCare solution gives a better ROI, return with the cost, not with the return itself. The cost is much, much less, so it's very flat.

If you can afford the system, the support, and the professional service, which can be quite expensive, I would recommend it anytime for any application for any sector, industry sector.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We use the product to monitor infrastructure devices and troubleshoot application behavior if there is any issue.

The solution helps me understand the issues and troubleshoot.

If the connection doesn’t work, the product provides us with a code, for example, 5000. Then, we have to search the internet to understand what this number means. It would be better if the product gave us a code and its meaning while identifying issues.

The solution needs enhancements. We need to reconfigure the tool if we have a connection with dissimilar ports. The tool should ideally capture all traffic. However, it is unable to analyze unknown ports. I have to reconfigure and refine the tool to monitor the connection. This process is a waste of time.

I have been using the solution for six months.

I rate the stability a six or seven out of ten. The product crashed a few times within six months of implementation.

The solution is scalable. It works the same when we add more components. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. Almost 50 employees are using the solution in our organization.

We need regular support from the vendor. The support is good.

Positive

The solution is not easy to install.

It took us three to four hours to deploy the tool. We needed only one engineer to deploy it.

The product is too expensive compared to other products.

We also use SolarWinds. We are trying the tool because our organization needs multiple monitoring solutions. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

The primary use case is network and application performance management.

We build application dashboards and performance indexes for locations.

This solution provides us with increased visibility while conducting IT deployments, e.g., data migration.

The solution helps us get to root cause quickly by using the Media Monitor to help identify QoS mismatches for voice calls on the network.

We use the solution for unified communication application performance. It helps us with uptime and end user experience. We can proactively detect if there are issues and resolve them before they impact the end user.

• Application performance
• Triage
• Resolution
• Problem identification

The single pane of glass is possibly overrated.

The dependency mapping is good, but I am hopeful that they will build some type of partnership and relationship with ServiceNow. I want to see NETSCOUT partner with ServiceNow so they can leverage Service Now Discovery and Service Mapping to automate the build of the service dependency mappings inside of nGeniusONE.

The user interface needs some updates. There is some complexity to the product. You have to understand where the InfiniStreams are and what physical interfaces are connected where, so when you go into the user interface, you know what data you are collecting and from where.

The stability is okay.

The scalability is difficult. Packet capture and packet broker are hard to do because you ultimately have to build a separate overlay network, so you can capture the packets. The network speeds are constantly increasing, so now you are at 10 gig or 100 gig capabilities, and it's hard to scale.

The initial setup was straightforward, but we did leverage an RSE in the beginning.

We used NETSCOUT directly for the deployment.

We have seen ROI.

The solution has cut our overall troubleshooting time by two to four hours.

The solution has helped increase our application/network uptime by less than two percent.

Understanding what problem you are trying to solve. NETSCOUT nGeniusONE is not a true application performance management product. However, because of the wire data, packet data, its ASI capabilities, and the analytics on the roll up of that ASI data, there is benefit and value there. 

We use the solution for proactive monitoring of remote sites. To some extent, we also use the solution for SaaS applications that are external to the environment to do proactive monitoring.

Troubleshooting is our primary use case for the solution.

We get increased visibility from nGenius while conducting an IT deployment. If the deployment has issues then we can always go back, look at the logs, and figure out what may be happening.

A lot of times people blame the network, and since I'm responsible for the network, people call me. Through troubleshooting using the tool, I verify that it's not our issue, and I also use the tool to help figure out what the issue really is.

It helps us get to root cause quickly. For example, troubleshooting an application issue without the tool would mean we wouldn't have the collection of data to go through to figure out what the problem is. Now that we have X number of hours, maybe even days of data, depending on what we're actually watching, we can look at the data. It's possible that somebody's having an application issue and they come to us figure out what the problem is and we can help them solve their issue a little faster.

We have seen a measurable decrease in mean time to know and mean time to repair. It's a little hard to say how much because it depends on what you're troubleshooting, but I would estimate it at 25 percent, or even less, of what it would normally be. And our overall troubleshooting time, in most cases, is down to a day, as opposed to multiple days. Without the data, it's almost impossible to figure out what a problem may have been.

The packet capture is the most valuable feature for us. It gathers data from the device. In case somebody has a problem, I can go back X amount of time - days, hours - and get the data to do real troubleshooting.

In terms of the single pane of glass view, it's good, but trying to set up dashboards is hard to figure out at times, if you don't do it every day. It's not really intuitive to set them all up. Other than that, it's a good dashboard. A lot of people are using it.

If there were a wizard to take us through, step-by-step, creating dashboards and the like, that would be really helpful.

It's very stable. Every once in a great while we'll have to reboot the nGeniusONE server. That may be server-related and not application related.

We haven't really scaled it very much. We're not a really big shop. We've got five InfiniStreams collecting into our nGeniusONE. It's supposed to scale pretty well, but I don't really have much comment on it because we're pretty small as it is.

Technical support is very good.

We didn't have a previous solution at all, other than Wireshark to capture packets when we needed them. We knew we needed something better than that.

The initial setup was a little complex, only because it was the first time we were getting into such a tool. We didn't know much about it. We had to learn while going along. It was complex, but quite doable.

We did it ourselves.

I don't see the numbers, because I'm a technical guy. But I would imagine there probably is a return on investment because we're fixing these applications faster, causing less of an outage. I would say we're actually saving money, or at least not losing as much money when these applications are down. It's a big help there.

I would show someone who is looking into this type of product what I know about the product, how I use it, and help them make a decision on whether it's the right product for them.

The product has a lot of capabilities and we're just using a small fraction of it. So, right now, I would call the solution a nine out of ten, because we only use a small portion of it. But for what we do, it helps us out tremendously.

The primary use case is network monitoring for telecoms.

Everybody is using the same tool set. Therefore, we are speaking the same language.

Network faults are easily and quickly identified through dashboards and drill down.

It has versatility to correlate different traffic types and performance management statistics.

The single pane of glass view is very simple and good. For my users, having all the applications in one place is the aim.

We would like more encryption of customer data, because we have a very security conscious company. We have a lot of regulation coming in which requires us to make customer data private.

There is a lot more integration work that needs to be finalized for simpler tool set. The integration of many products into a much simpler single pane of glass is where we want to be.

The stability is good. We haven't had a major failure for years. Apart from the hardware's age, the software is pretty robust.

The current solution is not easy to scale, because it is an appliance-based solution. So, you have to swap everything out.

The technical support is OK. While it is not outstanding, we don't have any complaints.

We did not have another solution previously.

The initial setup is relatively straightforward, as any network integration can be. The complexity comes when you are trying to tune it.

We used a reseller for the deployment. They were very good. We have a good working relationship with them.

We have seen some ROI with the root cause analysis. It is quicker to root cause analysis. We are seeing increased network uptime, because if we're spotting, and if we're getting root cause analysis quicker, then we know what comes up quicker.

From my user community, I am getting the impression that something which use to take days has now gone to hours for troubleshooting.

Troubleshooting our LTE network - any situations that come up in our cellular network. We also use the solution for proactive monitoring of remote sites, as we use it to monitor all the towers in our cellular network, as well as our core applications.

We're still in the beginning stages, learning how to use it.

It's a great monitoring tool. At a glance, we can get an idea of what's going on in our network.

Also, while I don't track it personally, I know that time to repair has been reduced and that it has cut our overall troubleshooting time.

The most valuable feature of this solution is being able to drill down into any kind of troubles that are reported to us, by use of identifiers.

Some of the filters could be easier to see and to set up. That's the only thing that I've ever had any trouble with. The ones that I've seen here, at NETSCOUT Engage 2019, are part of a newer version that we don't have yet, and it looks better. So, it may already have been fixed.

It's 100 percent stable.

The scalability is great.

I'm sure it's great, but I haven't had to deal with technical support. I'm a technician.

I assume the setup was straightforward. I'm a telecom tech. The engineers did all the setup and I only use the tool. I didn't help set it up.

I would recommend it. It's the best tool that I've used as far as troubleshooting quickly, at a glance, and for being able to drill down into any issues, any complaints we might have from customers.

I do know that we would like to get TrueCall, but we don't have that yet. We're working on it.

I would rate nGenius a nine out of ten because I don't rate anything a ten. There's always room for improvement.

The primary use case is to have the ability to detect issues that a customer would eventually see. It's a more proactive approach for making the customers have a better satisfaction in terms of their usage and performance.

It gives us quicker reaction times and more proactive diagnostics, especially in terms of needing to set up an alarm if a threshold was exceeded.

It gives us a deep package inspection. It provides that sort of visibility. It also has the ability to get the data in real-time.

This solution helps us get to root cause quickly, especially as we dive deep capturing packets.  

• The quick ability to troubleshoot.
• The ability to look forward.
• The ability to develop proactive solutions.

It is the ability to collect data and analyze it, especially key performance indicators. This is before a customer would call to the service center to complain that they have had bad coverage or a dropped call.

While it is good, the single pane of glass view is too high level. It is better for management or someone doing sanity checks. A lot of times, I need to go deeper into the additional screens to get what I want out of it.

We would like to have increased performance in the future. Eventually, we will need more horsepower.

We would like NETSCOUT to add additional topics to the data that it collects, because big data is important going forward.

It's very stable. 

When we first got the tool, there were some performance issues. Eventually, they worked out the issues through various upgrades and server hardware enhancements. That was a plus.

We do have two onsite NETSCOUT engineers, who are excellent. Especially when we encounter an issue, we tell them right away, "We have an issue. Can you fix it?"

We don't have to wait a few days for something to be solved.

The initial setup was a probably a little complex. We had to get things up and running, do field trials, fine tune the performance, then evaluate it under load, and fine tune it again.

We worked closely with NETSCOUT for the deployment. 

We have our own IT department who channels the server, infrastructure, and networking. I'm on the engineering side, and we work directly side-by-side with NETSCOUT. 

We don't use a third party vendor.

Proactive versus a customer having a bad experience: That is the key point. Because you get a bad experience, and you lose customers. You always want tools to make your customer happy.

The solution gives us a forward looking vision. We develop custom applications on top of the data that we collect. It gives us that ability, which is an advantage.

It's definitely decreased troubleshooting time. We get a direct window into the infrastructure and various probes, especially the ability to capture certain KPIs that we look at. Normally, if we didn't have this tool, we would have to collect them under various vendor boxes. That takes time and experience.

Deep packet inspection is the key point for NETSCOUT versus the other competitive tools that we also use.

Take a look at it. If not, you're losing the opportunity to improve your performance in terms of its customer aspects.

We are a telco company and we are using nGeniusONE to do a survey of our core network. We created different services based on nodes and based on services like VoLTE and the like. Our use cases are mainly to provide KPIs and to detect anomalies in case of an issue in the network.

Before we were pretty weak in network KPIs. That's the area where we have improved as a result of the solution, based on the service.

The solution transforms packet wire data into real-time data that is actionable. It helps us with faster detection of issues and allows us to create alerts.

It also provides the right people in our company with the right information in a single pane of glass view. There is always a place for improvement, but it does so. We have created a special dashboard for different teams so that each team has a relevant dashboard for the system.

In addition, nGeniusONE provides us with increased visibility while conducting an IT deployment. When we are launching a new node or a new application, it gives us a way to check that traffic has moved from one node to the other and that we still have the same level of traffic and the same success ratios.

It also helps us to get to root cause quickly, for sure, with the drill-down. If we see an issue on a KPI or we have an alert, we drill down to get into the special cases — tracing and that kind of thing — to detect the root cause.

Using nGeniusONE for unified communication application performance for VoIP helps us with uptime and user experience. We can see, for a given call, if it is a one-way or there are gaps.

The main feature, for us, is the dashboard. That is the main way we are using the solution to detect issues and to create alarms.

The drill-down is definitely interesting.

We are also using another tool from NETSCOUT, for tracing, called Iris Session Analyzer.

The solution's ability to transform packet wire data into well-structured contextual data works pretty well. But sometimes we've had issues because when we want to present some KPIs, not all the formats are available at the same time. When we think it would be better to present a KPI in a certain way, that means we have to remove another presentation. For example, there was a point in GTP where we were creating services on nodes and after that we wanted to have services on APN. We can't have both. That should come with the next release, but we are still not on version 6.3. So there are some limitations with these types of things. When we would like to use a feature, we have to remove another one. For me it's a bit of a drawback. I'm a bit frustrated with it. I would like to have everything, at all times.

For me, it would also be good to be able to split the system. For example, I would like a user to have rights for some probes but not the same rights for other probes. I'm thinking about a laboratory where we have probes and I would like to give all the rights in the laboratory to all users. I would like to have everything in the same system. We have users who can use both production and the laboratory but we aren't always able to specify that a user has access to only this part of the installation, or the hardware, while another user has access to another part. I would like to give a user rights to see everything in one part, but to have limitations in other parts, due to data protection.

Otherwise, the product is efficient and we are able to do most of the work which is required.

I have been using NETSCOUT nGeniusONE for about five years.

The stability could be a bit better. We are working right now to find solutions to improve the stability and we are in discussions with NETSCOUT about that.

The solution's distributed architecture, in terms of being both lightweight and scalable, is pretty good. The ability to distribute the solution is good. We have more and more use cases with virtualized systems, so we need a way to be able to distribute the solution on different clouds and sites.

There are about 100 users.

Previously we were using Tektronix, and that became NETSCOUT. We took nGeniusONE to improve our ability to detect issues. We were mainly working with a tracing system and nGeniusONE brought us more network visibility, with KPIs based on the network itself, and on the traffic in the network.

The initial setup was pretty complex. For me it was complex to configure everything as needed to be efficient: to get all the data, to have some reliability, and some confidence in the data quality. It was time-consuming. We need to understand what was possible, what was the best solution for evaluating a service, etc.

In one sense, the deployment is a never ending story, because each year we have new services and we need more capacity. We are always implementing new things. But the initial deployment itself took us almost a year.

In terms of our experience with NETSCOUT's customer support during deployment and post deployment, here are two levels. The first level was their people who are in direct contact with us and that level was good. When they needed support from development and R&D, at that level we had some quite long delays, at times, and the response was less good.

As for the learning curve, when people are used to working with the system, it's okay. At the beginning we had some training, but now, if a new colleague comes in, we can train him internally. We help colleagues on different teams by giving them training. With one day of training, you can already provide a lot of hints and information. After that, people need to learn by doing.

When it comes to administration, there are three of us who are mainly involved, but it's not 100 percent of the time for any of us. It might be the equivalent of one FTE. I'm a network engineer and I'm mainly involved in the monitoring and probing of new applications. When new services come out I work on increasing the capacity and evolving the system. So I'm not the main user working each day with it.

We have worked directly with a NETSCOUT consultant. We have a reseller, but direct contact with NETSCOUT is very important for me.

We needed this type of a solution. Without it we are fully blind. We can't even launch a service without one solution or another. We needed to put something in place, but I don't have figures or a monetary value for ROI. It gives us visibility.

The pricing is fair.

We have a yearly agreement that covers extensions, etc. There are no additional costs.

We didn't evaluate other solutions much because we already had a probe installed with Tektronix. NETSCOUT was quite a natural way to extend what already existed. We decided not to remove everything that was in place, but to extend instead.

It's a good tool. You need to have a clear view of what you need before you evaluate the system.

Automatic discovery and mapping of client-server relationships is not something we are using much, because we are more at the level of the network and a bit less at the level of all the servers and the internet application server.

The biggest lesson I have learned from using nGeniusONE is that to get good results from the system, you need good knowledge of the network. The system will, for sure, help to find issues, but it's not possible to have someone working with it, someone who doesn't know the network, and have that person fully use this type of system.