Statseeker Reviews

We primarily use this solution for monitoring. We use the Mac version.

Our investment in this solution was customer-driven. When we have a request from a client business we look at what we have. If we cannot satisfy the request then we look into investments such as this.

The monitoring provided by this solution helps us to track down and solve issues.

The most valuable feature of this solution is NetFlow.

In terms of being able to see everything at once, Statseeker is not quite there yet.

It would be very nice to have the Cisco ACI option included in the regular license.

The newer version has bugs in a feature that I want to use, so I am unable to upgrade from my current version because of that. They are aware of this problem and will let me know once it is solved.

The stability of this solution is great compared to other solutions, such as SolarWinds. Statseeker is one step further.

Technical support is great, and I don't think that I'm going to have an issue with them.

In the past, we used SolarWinds and find that Statseeker is more stable.

The initial setup for this solution is straightforward. Everything is online, and you simply follow the instructions on the web page step-by-step. It is very clear and nothing is difficult.

We performed the deployment in-house.

We pay a yearly maintenance fee of approximately $40,000 USD.

The Cisco ACI option is not included in the regular maintenance fees.

We evaluated ThousdandEyes and decided that it was not quite as mature as Statseeker, so we opted for this solution.

We also considered Splunk.

While I would recommend this software to a colleague, I would also suggest running different products at the same time to see what works best.

I like this solution because I have used different products and I find this one is simpler.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

It is a good monitoring tool. It does the job.

It helps us track the status of over 1200 devices in multiple geographical locations.

Integration including ability to do network diagrams.

We have been using this solution for three years.

We had a stability issue. It seems to occasionally hiccup with duplicate IPs.

There weren't really any issues with scalability.

Technical support, at least for me, has been good. No complaints on technical support.

I was using SolarWinds NPM/NCM. This department was already using Statseeker and didn’t want to change.

It’s getting better, but it still requires some low-level Unix command line tweaking occasionally. I’ve seen two Statseeker techs work several hours to fix it.

Interface counting/reporting with Juniper switches adds TWO interfaces for every single interface. That is killing our licensing. I’ve had to tweak removing some interfaces that I don’t want to track.

I worked with SolarWinds for ten years.

Know Unix. It’s a must.

Our primary use case for Statseeker is for network monitoring.

It is quicker and faster responding to troubleshooting.

The solution reduces the complexity of our network monitoring because it can make my engineers do their jobs faster. The solution also reduces troubleshooting time for network administrators to pinpoint issues quicker.

In terms of network availability, we have a faster response to outages and thus, faster remediations in uptime.

It's fast and easy.

The solution's network visibility is very in-depth and granular. I can look at one-minute data points and it does not roll data up over time.

There is a little bit of room to improve in the alerting section to give some more options there. It's all I can think of right now off the top of my head.

The solution also has very good stability.

The solution has very good scalability.

Their technical support is very good. They solved every issue we've had.

We didn't really have a previous solution. It was kind of a home-grown solution, so Statseeker was easy. It was inexpensive. It fit the need and was very fast to get implemented.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We may not have a solidified ROI, but my engineers' time to troubleshoot was reduced so they can focus on other, more important issues.

The licensing cost is yearly and it's $5,000 to $8,000, I think.

We didn't really have a short list. It was just one or two. I think the other company doesn't exist anymore. We chose Statseeker because of the ease use, fast deployments, and simple interface.

It's a great product and if you're looking for network monitoring, I would highly recommend it.

The biggest lesson I learned is that having one-minute granularity that doesn't roll up over time is incredibly important if we want to do any historical troubleshooting.

I would rate Statseeker as nine out of ten, not a ten only because it wasn't free.

Our primary use for this solution is to watch and record ports for the entire network.

We are now able to easily track where problems are with bandwidth and port errors, rather than having to do a lot of diagnostics.

The most valuable feature is its ease of use.

I would like to see fully automatic updates so that our version is always current.

The stability of this solution is excellent.

The scalability seems to be pretty good.

Technical support for this solution is good. Sometimes the response times need to be quicker, but their technical knowledge is very good.

Prior to using this solution, we were doing scripting to record bandwidth numbers, and this made things a whole lot simpler.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

We performed the implementation in-house.

We do not have the current version of this solution, but I would love for us to get it.

If you want something that is easy to use and catches the basics, especially for your first line people, then this is the product to go with.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Interface monitoring, mainly for interface statistics. We use it for monitoring up/down, capacity management, bandwidth utilization, reporting.

Prior to using it, the company was using something really basic, it was very slow and it didn't have descriptive statistics at all. Statseeker provides a lot more graphics, the reports are very user friendly, the tools are very easy to use, and it's very quick.

The most important feature for us is the interface statistics, because our customer normally asks us for bandwidth utilization reports. Statseeker has very descriptive transmit and receive information.

I spoke to James Wells from Statseeker. We use an application called Dynatrace, which was formerly Compuware, and he was saying that they might be able to integrate Statseeker with Dynatrace. What Dynatrace does is application monitoring. So if we went to look at say some statistics and we could see some high traffic, we could drill down into that traffic and then down to the application. So James was saying that could be possible, and that would be a great improvement.

Very stable, and the support has been fantastic. Every time I've had an issue they've always assisted me straight away.

Not at all, it's one of the best tools I have. It's so quick I could run reports in a matter of seconds, whereas with some of the other systems they take minutes. Sometimes they time out. With Statseeker, I could do the last year's reports in a couple of minutes. Very happy with it.

They always give me a call, and they're always at hand if I need help. Last time I did an upgrade they were on the phone right away, assisting me with almost every step, you could say. Tech support has been fantastic. I've had issues where backups have failed and they've sat with me to work out the problem. So very good.

They used a system called Cacti and it wasn't user friendly. To get to an interface it took a long time. You'd go to the router and from the router you had to find the interface. It wasn't as easy as Statseeker. With Statseeker you can just click on a router or switch, click on the Reporting Tool and it will show every single interface and you just click on the one you want. With this one you had to physically find them. The graphs weren't very good at all. It didn't compare.

We now feel the pricing is a good value. Previously we had a just a normal license but now we've got an Enterprise license. Since the Enterprise, it's been a lot better value. We did think it was pretty expensive before, but with the Enterprise license it's almost less than half that price.

If you have a number of accounts within the organization that use Statseeker, I would suggest get the Enterprise license.

Go for it. I recommend it. I think it's great value. 

It's an easy tool to use. Support is fantastic and Statseeker are always looking to improve. We've had a few meetings where they always ask for suggestions on how they can improve their system to tailor it to customers' requirements.

The fact that it doesn't aggregate the information up, it's very good at troubleshooting. The fact that you have all the information there, it's very easy if you require the information to go back and get it. It's very quick when you're doing a report or when you're looking at something, it's very quick to give you the information. How it improves how we function: its ease of use and its responsiveness.

The most important feature is just the fact that it doesn't aggregate the information up, and I can look at detailed information going back quite a long time. I find that useful in my role.

Overall it is quite stable when. The main issue I've seen, in the last six months to a year, is when I upgrade I seem to be hitting bugs. The upgrade won't go smoothly and I have to engage support. These things happen when you upgrade, it's not the end of the world, but from a stability point of view, the only time I've so far, is during upgrades. And there have been one or two bugs that I've seen across the years, but overall it's quite a stable product.

At least in our deployment, I wouldn't say we've had any scalability issues as of yet. For our environment it seems to be okay.

I have to say they're quite very good. I've never had any issues getting in contact with them. They're quite responsive, so I can't really complain about that.

I've been using the same product in my environment for all the time I've been here.

As Statseeker has released extra features into the product, we have migrated sections of other tools. We have stopped using other tools for various things that we migrated into Statseeker. Why did we switch? It came back to either quickness of reporting, or the fact that other tools did aggregate the information up over a timeframe; with Statseeker we can go back over a time and actually have a look at stuff. The previous product we were using, it would age out the information or aggregate the information up. So, we weren't able to look back in an extended timeframe.

I haven't had to set up the product myself. I've had to build a new server and migrate from the old server to the new server. If I was to treat that as an installation, it was relatively okay, apart from running into one or two technical issues which I had to troubleshoot and to fix. Once I got passed that technical issue, to actually install the product was relatively simple, and to get it up and running was relatively simple.

One thing that needs improvement is how it's licensed. I understand historically the company licensed it off a same charge for everyone. I understand the company needs to make money, but how they introduced the tiered licensing model, and then multiple layers of licensing was a bit of an issue. So, on the whole, coming up with a licensing model that isn't confusing and complicated and is easy to understand would be one way to improve the product.

In terms of licensing, I would say, talk to Statseeker and find out because historically there was multiple layers of licensing. It's confusing. Read through it, try and understand it, ask lots of questions, and make up your mind what you want to do. 

They have told me lately that they're changing how they license stuff, but they haven't made that - as I understand it - in their marketing material public knowledge as of yet.

But I would basically say, if somebody was asking me what do I think of the licensing, I would say that at the moment it's a bit convoluted. It's confusing. Some of their basic licensing model is a bit of a ripoff. If you go over five or ten support calls in the basic licensing model they start charging you for support calls. I think that's a bit rich.

They need to make sure they don't price themselves out of market. They've been quite flexible in the last six months, and they've been good in negotiating the costs, but those are my two main things: making the licensing model easier to understand, and keeping their cost competitive compared to the rest of the market.

Up until we actually talked to Statseeker, and Statseeker came and gave us an enterprise licensing model for multiple accounts, I would have said the pricing was not good value. The fact they've come to the party now and given us a very good discount, I would say it's probably about right, the pricing they're giving us now. But the retail pricing, if I went out and, as a separate company, and asked for pricing for one account, I probably would say their retail pricing is not competitive. The fact that they've given us a discount now because we have multiple servers across multiple accounts, I would say that pricing is about right, but not their retail pricing. It's too expensive.

I would say you would need to understand the licensing model and figure out which one you want to buy and for what reasons. It's not a simple, "Just sign up."

I came into the environment after it was already built. We did compare it against another product to see if the other product could take over from Statseeker, and we determined that that was not possible. We have that other product in our environment and it does other tasks that Statseeker can't do. So, when we evaluated another product against it, we found it wasn't up to what Statseeker could do.

I do know of one or two products out in the market that are targeting themselves at the same niche that Statseeker has. That being said, I have not really played around with Statseeker's competitors and played them off each other as of yet.

From an end-user point of view, I would say it's fairly intuitive once you've got it up and running, once you've spent some time on it. It's a fairly intuitive product as to how to generate reports. It just takes time to work your way through it. Maybe you could get a trainer or a subject matter expert to show people how to do stuff, but the more time you spend on the product, the more you get to understand it, and the easier it is to use. It's not super-complicated to use. There's a reasonable number of instruction videos from Statseeker. It's not a complicated product to use from an end-user perspective and to get people up to scratch.

If you need a product that's able to monitor all the ports in your environment or all the ports that you want, this is a great product to use. Statseeker is quite flexible in tailoring the product, spending time tailoring the product with you. It's fairly low maintenance. It's quite quick.

It's a good tool at what it does, but it's not a tool that you would install in a network operation center to deliver alerts to your tier-1 operators. It's not a Zenoss or an HPE OVO, it's more of a tool that's an eyes-on-glass type of thing. It works in its own niche.

My advice would be, you have to figure out what you actually want the tool to do, and whether or not what you want is what Statseeker is going to give you. We have multiple tools in our environment, which address separate areas, and Statseeker can't do everything. So before you buy it, figure out if the capability the product has is actually what you're trying to address.

I'd give it an eight out of 10, and the reason is it's a very all round good product, but for quite a long time the impression that we got was they weren't developing the product. There weren't any new features coming out. Now that being said, over the last year or two, it seems like they've had new personnel come on board, and they've started to put in new features, and started to be more customer focused; they've started to develop the product. But if they want to stay in the market, in my opinion, they need to keep on developing the product and adding features, because there are other players out in the market that they seem to be constantly adding new features and tweaking the product on quite a regular basis.

That being said, I haven't tried the competitors' products, but it seems to me, the other players in the market are developing product at a rapid pace. So they need to keep up.

It's servicing our requirements at the moment and Statseeker is very flexible. When we ask them, "Can you put this feature in?" they'll work with us and help us out, but we're just one account. What I'm trying to say is, I could see how, if I was a person comparing products at the moment, if there was a fresh environment, I would probably play Statseeker off against the other main competitor, which I believe is AKIPS, and I would tick which one I like the most and serves my need the best, and to be honest it might not be Statseeker.

Statseeker is a great product. It's doing what we need. But if we wanted to switch over to another product it would require a lot of work, because there is all sorts of stuff we do with Statseeker which we would have to rewrite. We're a happy enough customer at the moment, but that might not be the case if I went somewhere else and somebody said to me, "You need to buy a product." Would I necessarily buy Statseeker? Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. That's why I'm giving it an eight, because I'm not automatically saying I'm going to implement this wherever I go. If I need to address an issue that Statseeker can help me out with, and if a company was coming to me saying, "This is your budget," then I would compare it with other products beforehand.

Our primary use case is for polling and interface utilization. The solution helped us to monitor our network availability. Now we're more alert to what's going on. 

It's used by our network operations center to identity down interfaces.

It also allows us to predict capacity on WAN circuits to plan when we'll need the next upgrade. The solution has made things more visible for the network admin, so this solution has been good for them. It has also helped with monitoring so that we're alert to what's going on. 

The most valuable feature is the historical data that it offers. The solution's granularity in terms of network visibility is good. 

That user interface for selecting things needs to be a little more intuitive. 

The stability of the solution has been great.

The scalability is good. 

I haven't had to deal with customer support personally. One of my counterparts has. It sounds like it's been good.

My counterpart was familiar with Statseeker from a former job. He brought it in.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We did the setup ourselves directly.

The next company on our shortlist was SolarWinds.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this solution a seven and a half. It's been solid and reliable. I love the historical data and the fact that it doesn't average it when it saves it.

I like the fact that I can aggregate multiple interfaces into a single graph. It allows me to quickly get the summary of traffic for multiple devices which is helpful. 

Our primary use for this solution is historical traffic wrapping.

This solution only handles a very small slice of what we actually need to monitor, so it is just another product in a set of products we use.

This solution helps in terms of troubleshooting, and you can do capacity planning with it.

The single pane of glass simplifies management because I don’t have to spend time supporting eight different products. I only have to support one.

The most valuable features are the tracking of trends and the presenting of graphs.

The granularity is not the best and it's not the worst. It’s fine

The user interface needs a great deal of improvement.

The stability of this solution is fine.

Scalability is horrible. The more stuff we add to Statseeker the more we have to sift through with a horrible interface. It doesn't scale well.

I am not the person that deals with technical support.

Switching had to do with the cost of supporting multiple products. If there is just one product that does it all then it's cheaper, in the long run, to maintain and manage.

I was not the one who deployed this solution, so I do not know.

We evaluated StableNet from Infosim, and we went with them because they had the most functionality of all of the different products that we use.

The interface for this solution is terrible and can be improved in literally any way.

I would rate this solution a three out of ten.