What needs improvement with Auvik?

There are a couple of items here and there that float around disconnected from the network map. That is annoying because they are defined as something that they are not. For example, I have a couple of workstations that it thinks are Wi-Fi access points, and it is a hard and tricky item to clean up. The cleanup or more granular functionality of the network map would be an interesting feature. If there was a way to do some sort of remote desktop control for endpoints from Auvik, that would be an interesting feature because we have another product that we use for endpoint control to remote into somebody's computer. If Auvik had that, we might move from the other tool into the product that Auvik would offer. We already have that from Auvik to infrastructure devices, which is awesome, but if I could go one step further or one step down right to the workstation that has an issue, that would be a very interesting thing.

Most of the past frustrations have either been resolved or were more about how I was trying to figure things out. They were not necessarily an Auvik problem. I have been pretty happy with the usage. I have not come across a pain point that was a deal breaker. They can maybe provide some more best practices or guidance around how large a network should be. They can provide some cutoff points, such as, if you have 30 network devices, you might want to chunk that into a smaller subset or site. They can help you better plan and design how to create your Auvik sites, especially if you have a large environment. Most of our client environments are less than a dozen devices, but we have come across a few where they have had 60 switches. It has been interesting dealing with so many devices and seeing all the data that Auvik can provide with so many devices in one single pane.

There was an issue where I did not have the ability to turn off certain notifications or noise that I did not care about. I worked with the support guys. They showed me how to do it, and I was able to silence notifications on a specific device, which is something that I was having trouble with. I had one device that was getting non-stop notifications about one issue that could not be fixed. It just had to be that way. It was a legacy machine. After working with support, I was able to turn those notifications off specifically for that one device and that specific problem, which I could not find on my own. After they showed me how to do it, I have not had anything to complain about this product. If anything, the spacing on the network map can be better. In the network map, we have one switch crammed in there. Some improvements in the spacing on the network map would be good. Their documentation and knowledge base can also be improved.

The solution's loading time could be improved because when you click on a switch, it usually takes some time before it has everything loaded.

The solution's interface isn't the most user friendly, however, once you get used to it and once you get into the groove and have a little bit of experience, it's pretty nice. For a novice coming into it, it's more difficult. I was overwhelmed, for sure. The layout just isn't the most intuitive.

We might have encountered a bug. We notified Auvik when we had an issue with every single installation of their controllers. Using the normal uninstall process was not able to remove any of the controllers from any of the devices.

Auvik only covers the physical network devices. It doesn't include remote apps working in the cloud, but I'm hopeful that they'll have that at some point. It maps virtual machines and physical devices but not low-level cloud systems.

We have a firewall with devices behind it. When that firewall goes offline, we get alerts for it and the 10 devices behind it. There should be a way to set up a dependency so that when the firewall goes down, Auvik bundles it up and sends it at the same time. That would reduce the noise in our email. We don't want to get 11 alerts because one firewall went down. We just want one alert saying that all the devices under the firewall are also offline. I'd like to see device response times and packet losses. Auvik monitors these metrics for internet links, but I would also like to see this for devices within the network.

It would be useful if network monitoring tools could differentiate between traffic on individual physical ports and traffic on logical interfaces like LAGs or bonded interfaces. Ideally, the tool would also recognize and remove duplicate traffic counts within the overall flow metrics. While solutions like Auvik might not currently offer this functionality, tools like NetBox can be helpful for documenting physical layer connections. It would be interesting to see if Auvik would consider incorporating features to document these physical layer details alongside the logical network configuration, especially for long-term network management within an organization. This could provide valuable insights into how physical infrastructure translates to network behavior.

I would like Auvik to offer an alternative method for backing up devices that don't support or have SNMP disabled, since currently, SNMP seems to be a prerequisite for any functionality in Auvik. This would be helpful for legacy devices that might not be compatible with SNMP.

I don't have many critiques. It's a really great tool. If I did have to think of one, I would say maybe there could be a wider knowledge base for auto-determining what devices are would be useful. Sometimes we get a generic device, then we can't tell what it is quickly from the details. Just having a better knowledge-based integration for determining what devices are, and what their make and models are, would be helpful.

Sometimes we run into a new switch, firewall, or router brand that the system doesn't manage or interpret. If they could expand the products they support, that would be ideal.

I'd like the devices to be more integrated and easy to access. I find I have to move through various stages when it could be at least a side of the dashboard or something. I would like to use different network protocols that we could implement. It could help us with very specific problems. I wouldn't want them to focus too much on adding new features, as sometimes more features end up loading the system or the software with too much stuff.

Tying in with the IP address and the network mapping could be improved. I've spoken with some of their support engineers before about this as well. One of the areas it struggles with the most is it doesn't always work the best for mapping in DHCP Management. It would be good if your devices were statically assigned or IP addresses so your core network infrastructure doesn't suffer. However, if you want to see where a host is connected to in the network, that's not always the most reliable. Sometimes, getting those addresses reassigned once they get tagged by one device, even if that device no longer holds that address (ANM), can be a little bit confusing. As great as the mapping is, it feels like it's only dependable on the higher architectural levels. It's only truly accurate if everything holds the same same address.

Some parts of the interface are a little hard to navigate. It's not the most intuitive dashboard. That said, it works. It's technical. If you know what you are doing, it's fine. There could be a button to skip two-factor authentication for 30 days or so. I'd like the option to turn off the mask at the top. It takes up a large portion of the screen.

There are spots in the interface that could use a little more work as it is congested with a lot of information in one spot.

It's not 100% user-friendly. However, it does offer a good balance. Still, if I wanted to add or change something, I'd have to think about how to do that. It should be easier to see Mac addresses. I'd like to be able to see every Mac address of every device by just one-clicking on it.

It would be helpful to be able to send CLI commands to multiple devices in Auvik simultaneously.

Auvik's interface can appear cluttered at times, reflecting its feature-rich nature, but despite some occasional messiness, it remains fairly intuitive for new users. It would be helpful to suppress credential prompts for specific sites in Auvik. Currently, we have to dismiss the "enter credentials" or "new devices found" alerts for each site, which can be repetitive. An ideal solution would be a per-site checkbox to indicate that we've discovered all the devices we expect on that network and don't want to be prompted for credentials again. This would streamline our workflow and eliminate the need to dismiss repetitive messages. While Auvik offers good integrations with SNMP, WMI, and VMware, there's room for improvement with Hyper-V, a platform we heavily rely on. Additionally, enhanced UPS integration would be valuable, particularly for alerting on critical events like a switch to battery power, which currently seems to be missing. This limitation may be specific to our UPS setup, but improved UPS monitoring within Auvik would be beneficial. The speed and performance can be improved.

Auvik's UI, while informative, can be a hurdle for new users due to its complexity. It offers a steep learning curve that necessitates extensive training for beginners. As someone who's been using it for nine months, I find it valuable, but it overwhelms my less experienced colleagues. While not a major issue, improving the UI's user-friendliness for beginners would be a welcome change. The network map's user-friendliness is a seven out of ten. While it offers comprehensive information, it can be overwhelming at first glance due to the sheer amount of detail. However, the filtering system is excellent, allowing us to focus on the specific aspects we need once we get accustomed to it. Overall, the map excels at displaying network information, but initial filtering is necessary for a smooth experience. While I find Auvik to be a valuable tool, it's not beginner-friendly enough for my tier-one technicians to use independently. Ideally, I would have liked a solution that could bridge the gap and lighten my load, but Auvik currently requires training and isn't easy to pick up for new users. Due to our busy schedules, we haven't been able to invest the time in training them yet, but I believe Auvik has the potential to be more user-friendly in the future. While the support team was excellent, the onboarding process for Auvik felt overwhelming from the start. The sessions weren't very productive, leaving us to do much of the setup ourselves, which has delayed realizing the full value of the product.

To get the details about applications in Traffic Insights, you need to dive into the applications as a general category. You can see the users using the application, but I cannot pull each component into the report. Let's say I'm going to an end-user or a client. When I print a report, it comes out with 10 pages about the usage, resources, etc. I want to see details about the resources I use, and I can't do that. We have this data in a graphical format, and we can get the data provided in Traffic Insights by using other components within Auvik. I want a detailed report that we could present to the client. I was told at one point that we could produce this through integration with another solution. We tried that, and it didn't work. We did a service ticket again and spoke to the relevant persons, but there were false positives. They should pull the Traffic Insights feature until they're finished developing it. I cannot generate a report. It's all about monitoring, not configuring or backing up anything. It's just about monitoring, so I can't pull the report. Traffic Insights should be able to do that. The network map could be more customizable. You can decide whether you want a comprehensive map or only want to see the core network features. It all depends on the shape the end-users want for the network map. It's not the traditional shape that we're used to in IT. They could introduce something where the map can adapt to new shapes.

The menu bar and display could be more colorful.

We schedule backups in the middle of the night, and a high volume of data passes through our networks during those backups because it backs up everything for a couple of hours. That generates alerts in Auvik's monitoring systems saying that these network ports are at 99 percent utilization because they're being maxed out. I'd like to have a way to mute alerts during these hours. There's no way to whitelist this activity within a set period. I want to be able to tell Auvik not to send me alerts about high utilization on these ports between 1 a.m. and 4 a.m. While the web interface is somewhat easy to use, it was hard to find a few things. I would rate the interface seven out of 10. We had to reinstall the monitoring software on some of those machines, and it didn't work, so we had to do everything manually with no UI. I would rate the network map five out of 10. It didn't draw everything exactly out correctly. The textual representation of the network map was more useful than the graphical view.

It is not backing up my configurations on much of my network equipment. For some reason, it struggles with Ubiquiti equipment, and it is a known issue. They have a ticket open for it. Some of the issue could be the way Ubiquiti handles authentication. Ubiquiti handles authentication differently. Auvik expects to be able to log in to a device and then go into Config mode, whereas you are already in Config mode when you log into a Ubiquiti device. There is no additional authentication required, so they are having difficulties getting their scripts working on Ubiquiti. The piece that I would like to see the most is getting those configs backed up. That is my chief complaint. If Auvik can get that work, they would be perfect.

The conventions that they use for the various menus are not super intuitive. They make sense after you realize how things are laid out, but I have to do a lot of digging to find the things that I am looking for. The map itself is a little clunky in terms of zooming in, zooming out, and moving around because you have to use the manual on-screen buttons as opposed to being able to click and drag. I know that it is just a front-end graphic implementation, but it is slightly clunky to move around the map. However, all the information is there and presented in a very succinct fashion. It would be nice to be able to move around the map a little better. There should be more convenience from the drag, scroll, and zoom standpoints.

The Auvik interface, while functional, doesn't feel as intuitive as some competing products. Compared to modern software, the design appears a bit dated. After using it for a couple of years, I've learned where things are located, but I still find myself occasionally clicking the wrong buttons because the layout isn't very logical. Overall, the interface could benefit from some improvements to make it more user-friendly. The Ubiquiti line of network products is gaining significant popularity, but Auvik currently struggles to gather in-depth information from them. It's unclear whether this is due to a lack of communication between the two companies. It seems beneficial for both parties to explore a partnership to improve data availability. While Auvik emphasizes its close relationship with Ubiquiti, there's still an information gap compared to other vendors. It's difficult to say definitively if this is an issue with Auvik or Ubiquiti, but initiating contact between the right people at both companies could likely lead to a solution.

Our billing structure is device-based, with different service levels offered for each device. Ideally, we'd like Auvik to integrate with Autotask and allow us to set service levels within Auvik e.g., Monitor, Manage, Protect. This would streamline our workflow by automatically syncing these service levels over to Autotask.

One drawback I found with Auvik was its inability to generate clear network diagrams. The connection lines appeared messy, and devices weren't grouped logically. In contrast, HP OpenView, which I used previously, produced well-organized network maps.

In terms of improvement, while the network map and dashboards are generally easy to use, the NetFlow app can be a bit compressed and difficult to customize for better readability.

There is room for improvement in the reporting aspect. Specifically, we would like to receive notifications when individual drives reach full capacity. However, the current system aggregates information for all drives on a server, making it challenging for us. Obtaining comprehensive hardware information from both PCs and servers is also proving to be difficult.

One enhancement I'd appreciate is the ability to configure the network map based on specific criteria. It would be valuable if Auvik allowed users to customize their view, defining what elements they want to see consistently. For example, configuring the map to display only printers in a retail store upon launching Auvik would streamline the process, eliminating the need to filter down the entire network map each time. Implementing a configurable dashboard for the network map would enhance user experience in this regard.

Price sensitivity is an issue in the country where we use Auvik because of our exchange rate. It would be helpful if they could offer a slightly more affordable price in this region. I'd also like to see Auvik introduce more AI-driven features.

The tutorial could be a little bit more comprehensive. Their online training is one area that needs improvement.

When it tries to build the topology, it does it in a way that is usually incorrect. It cannot validate VLANs correctly, and it is a bit cumbersome. When we have a known topology, it makes it completely different. The network maps are not accurate. It does not always give a real-time picture of your network. It all depends on how it was configured. I have seen proper configurations, and they look fine, and then there are other ones that are completely broken. For example, I have several clients with mixed equipment, but the topology map shows switches that are on top of the map, whereas firewalls are technically on top. It does not see them correctly. At times, it puts random switches not even connected to anything, even though we know they are physically connected in the topology. If we are able to manually move devices on the topology, that would be great. It would be amazing if the network map could be manually redrawn. I have submitted this as a request previously.

The use of a mobile app would be very beneficial because sometimes I cannot access a computer. Additionally, I believe that more monitoring could be done on certain devices, especially since we have credentials for them. Ideally, there should be more comprehensive monitoring for endpoints, such as switches, firewalls, workstations, and even servers. Support for other hypervisors would also be valuable.

One main feature I would like to see in Auvik is the ability to generate alerts based on specific events appearing in syslog messages.

The Auvik network map and dashboard are not reliable enough to provide a real-time view of our network. Metrics should be reported for individual devices rather than IP addresses. I believe it would be highly beneficial to display the paths over which each VLAN is accessible on the network map.

Integrating some LLM/AI capabilities into the product that would enable us to use natural language to query the tool and get sensible answers back would be great. Being able to integrate that with Slack or Teams would be even better. We are always looking for ways to shave time from operations tasks. Even without LLM/AI, being able to integrate some degree of real-time query from a tool like Slack would be very useful. That would eliminate some of the need for us to check the portal and various customer tenants to get the information we need.

The visibility on the site itself is a bit of a problem. We do have the alerts panel, but there is no central monitoring. When we had requested how we would do this to place it up in the NOC and how we would view it and everything else, their answer was to use a third-party tool, such as Power BI. That was the response that we got. A front-end component to show the actual NOC operations at a glance is not present. That would be a major con in my opinion, especially for what we do as a data center. The actual adding of networks, systems, and everything like that is fairly easy, but the problem that I have is getting the metrics out. Specifically, if you go to the Auvik webpage, sign in, and go through the alerts and everything else, they don't offer any plasma display with a red light, green light, or stop light indicating this device is in an error state, down, etc. To get around this, we have to use their API. I had to code an entire interface to work around that lack of information. One of my major concerns or my major problems is the API hasn't always been super reliable. Sometimes things get broken. Sometimes it is down for a little bit. It doesn't seem to have the same reliability as their primary service, the actual web page itself. The API reliability is problematic when you apply a user account. I have a super admin account, and I have an API user that is a super admin as well. I create a new site as a super admin, and you'd expect everything to fall through, where the top level is the super admin and the subsites don't have access. We have network admins that create sites and DCOM sites and everything else all the time. When that happens, it breaks the alerts API and gives a 403, forbidden error, and that's across everything. If it can't access the top-level tenant, it just breaks the site. There are ways of counteracting that, and we're aware of the pitfalls there. We have had the API function in erratic ways where we do filtration based on various criteria, for example, if a ticket has been dismissed, if it is in maintenance, or if it is critical. We have filters for all the metrics. Sometimes, we had a couple of tickets where it doesn't acknowledge those filtrations or the filters, which causes a little bit of a problem, and we have to do a little bit of a sanity check within our code itself. It almost seems a little bit like they do focus on the front end and making it visible, but it seems like the API is almost a second-class citizen.

If the out-of-the-box price was about 30% lower, I think it would have allowed us to purchase it sooner. It definitely costs more than some of the competitors that are out there. It's also better, so I understand why it's a little bit more expensive.

When we deal with larger networks, the current interface is difficult to navigate around the network map because of the volume of devices. The solution can improve by providing a simpler way to display and navigate through all of the devices on larger networks. The stability can use improvement.

I would recommend fixing the visual layout of the screen. I dislike not being able to zoom in and out with the mouse wheel. To zoom in and out, we have to use the plus and minus buttons on the side of the screen. I also recommend not having the device constantly refresh while we're looking at it. At times, we'll be trying to figure out where things are and devices will suddenly start moving back and forth. Sometimes we want the information to pause so we can check the layout. I wish there was a way to reduce the cost somehow.

The search could be slightly more intelligent. If I type in "Dell" and put an extra "L," Auvik doesn't give a suggestion, "Did you mean 'Dell?'" I have to fix that. That's a minor thing. Also, if I select a specific device and apply it as a search filter, it shows me the device, and I have to click on it to see it at the bottom of the page. Otherwise, it just stays on the discovery. When I close the device, it remains on the switch displaying the diagram. I have to click the home dashboard to get back to the way it was. When I remove the filter, it should take me back to the home dashboard. After I add a filter, select a device, and apply it as a search filter, I think it should pop up if there's only one. When there's only one device in the filter, I find it somewhat annoying to need to click it to dive into that device. If I remove the filter, I would prefer it return to the home dashboard. It's a minor irritation at times.

The mapping automatically finds all the interfaces but tags some of them incorrectly. For instance, if it can't find how a CPU interface is connected, it will use the MAC address last seen on the router and sometimes attribute cloud-connected devices to the route, but it's not actually there. That's not a true connection. It isn't going to the cloud. It's going directly back to the router. I've talked to Auvik support about that already. They're looking into it. Overall, mapping could be a little better. Though they do a great job, there's still room for improvement. It's 100% accurate for some sites but only 90% for others. It gives you a complete view of how things are connected for the most part. Auvik still struggles with wireless bridges and things of that nature. However, Auvik isn't the only product missing that, and there is a simple way to make those connections myself.

Configuring alerts is pretty tedious. It would be nice if they had a wizard who walked you through instead of having everything turned on or off from the start. For example, it could have some radio buttons and ask you, "When this kind of alert happens, where would you like the alert to go?" Is it push alerts to a cell phone or an email address? Is it simply alerting? I think an initial onboarding wizard would help you to build out Auvik and get more out of it from the front end.

Auvik has issues with collecting information from some devices. I don't know if this is an issue on Auvik's end or if the device isn't compatible. We have noticed that some clients have been unable to add their devices to Auvik due to compatibility, but devices are fickle. I think it's a device issue and not an Auvik issue. I've seen Auvik resolve these issues. They will create the ticket and tell us the issue is resolved. For example, maybe the customer restarted the modem, or the ISP got it running. They'll go ahead and close that ticket. The automation there is so nice that it will keep us updated if something's happening automatically.

Auvik could be better integrated with our ticketing system ConnectWise Manage. We tried integrating Auvik to create tickets, but working to implement a more granular classification system based on priority. The important thing is that we get the alerts, regardless of priority, but that's something that can be improved.

Auvik doesn't communicate very well with Ubiquiti devices and will incorrectly flag facets as down. Compatibility with Ubiquiti is my biggest pain point with Auvik.

The user interface could be less cluttered. There's a lot going on, which is good because there's obviously a lot of information displayed. Sometimes I feel a little bit claustrophobic with the user interface. It can be confusing at times because there's so much going on. Once you know how to use it and navigate, it is easy to use.

We're having difficulties with Auvik's regular maintenance windows. They do the maintenance on the cloud side, which affects the on-prem collectors that gather the logs from the different network assets. When they have the maintenance window on the cloud, we do not have visibility of the network assets on-prem. I've read a support ticket regarding this, but there hasn't been a solution.

The deployment could be better. It's something that we've done recently. Auvik uses something called a collector, and I added a collector to our main site. I only added it to the main site, but when it came to adding additional sites because this was in the testing phase, I had to reconfigure that collector. It wasn't overly clear about how to do that and how to share. They call it sharing a collector. I had to mess around a bit to reconfigure that collector and add some new sites. I originally set Auvik up as a single site and put the credentials. We share the credentials across the other sites as well. I did the credentials onto our headquarters, and then I realized that I could have added the credentials at the very top level or the organizational level. I had to do a bit of reconfiguring to move the credentials over, and then it scanned the device again to make sure they were the right credentials. So, reconfiguring was a little bit of a pain. In the initial setup phase, if it was described a bit better that if you use the same credentials, you can put them here instead of at the site level, that would've been quite beneficial. They could also mention that you can set your collector up as a shared collector from the very beginning. It could be that it does that, and I just missed that step. If that's not there, then just the description as to what it could do and how it would benefit, instead of having to retrospectively change it, would be useful. There should be a slightly clearer understanding of how devices are charged. We integrated the Meraki system, and certain devices are chargeable and certain devices aren't chargeable. It would be quite useful to have some kind of message saying, "Right, we've discovered these devices on Meraki. Once you are monitoring them, you will be charged this per device, and there'll be an uplift of your billing every month."

I want the network map to be faster and more responsive.

Auvik can improve by increasing the tech file management capability. In the past we had a Git server where we made changes to configurations, allowing us to push the changes, and depending on the system, we had the ability to convert the information down to a text file but if there was a problem, we could quickly revert it back. I would like the ability to version control Auvik configurations and potentially automate them by having a type of Gitflow system.

Auvik doesn't help keep device inventories up to date in the way that I would like. It just helps keep us in the loop for anything that should or shouldn't be on the network. The one thing that I need more help with is the networking of virtualization hosts. I need more information on those hosts and which virtual networks are attached to what, the virtual switches that are in there, and how they function. None of that exists currently. That's more of a need than anything else that Auvik is doing. If they wanted to monitor more of the network, specifically Hyper-V and VMware hosting, that would make it better and more robust, but that's not their goal.

Onboarding devices could be easier. When you first add a device to the Auvik platform, you need to add each one by hand. It would be nice if they could automate the process where we only need to run a script.

The one feature we need is that when something goes down, we need a phone call, a text message, or something like that, not just an email alert. This is something they don't do. So, we have another service that does that for us. It would be nice to have that integrated into this, but at the moment, we have a way around it, which is with another partner of ours. It's not like we have to sign up to a new service for it, but it would definitely be nice if we can set up more detailed alerting schedules and things like that. However, we have found a way to make it work. The automated network maps are really nice. Sometimes, I wish we could make the manual tweak to them because sometimes, it doesn't quite get what the network is like, but overall, it's doing a great job. It's a lot easier than doing it manually. Where it misses the mark is that we would want to make some manual tweaks, which is not possible, but the overall intuitiveness of the network visualization is pretty good. Auvik helps to keep device inventories up to date, but I just wish it would be easier to sync with our overall inventory software. At the moment, most things live in Auvik. We would like to think it should be possible, but we haven't been able to get that to work. So, there's still some improvement to get there, but overall, it has definitely been an improvement. Syncing the assets that are in there through a third-party program definitely needs some improvements. There should be better synchronization of its assets to different asset management platforms. The alerting capabilities can definitely use improvements. We use third-party for that at the moment, and then the way they look for performance on network equipment is really heavy on heavily used devices, such as firewalls. It taxes certain equipment pretty heavily when it does performance monitoring. So, the SNMP calling that it does can be way improved.

The visualization of network mapping is good. The only complaint would be that VLANs don't necessarily show up as a regular LAN does. They do show up, but there is some manual tuning you have to do to make that look perfect. That's kind of the nature of how VLANs work, so I don't think there's anything they can really do to help make that better. Still, it does at least pick up devices that are on there, and tries to connect it all, but it doesn't always do a good job. Also, it doesn't help keep device inventories up to date. It doesn't have any updating features.

There is some difficulty using the monitoring and management functions of Auvik. If I were to rate it out of 10, I would say it's a seven or eight, on the "difficulty" scale, to set it up properly and in a way that's useful. It's not outside of a normal difficulty range for a tool like this, but there is definitely an amount of overhead required there. The user interface could be tweaked in a few different ways to make it a little bit more intuitive when it comes to navigating through the menus. Also, getting remotely connected to managed devices could be a little bit smoother. Sometimes, it's a little bit cumbersome trying to do that. If they could streamline the facilitating of remote connections to network devices, that would be an improvement.

I don't know if it has integrations with ticketing systems so that alerts would get to the ticketing system right away. That would be a good feature to add.

Nothing really stands out in terms of a lack. If you want to be nit-picky, I don't know that there are any remote tools for directly connecting to workstations through Auvik. If there is, I have not used them, so adding a remote tool would be helpful.

Its interface is very sluggish, and that's probably its biggest impediment. It is easy to set up. However, with the wizard-like setup, the choices are lacking. So, there is a lot more that we feel like we could be doing. If it is outside of their pre-configured monitors, you start getting into a level of difficulty.

It is amazing in keeping device inventories up-to-date. It mostly keeps them up to date as things change. There were a couple of hiccups where a device would get replaced and the mapping would break, and we'd have to go in and fix the mapping. It was with devices that Auvik couldn't fully discover or devices that would change frequently, such as cell phones or other devices on the network that are dynamic and change all the time. The integration would just show up with an IP address and a MAC address. There was no other information in them, which wasn't very helpful. They were the devices that Auvik wasn't able to discover fully. If they had full SNMP or SSH credentials and Auvik knew what the device was and it was matched correctly in Auvik, then Auvik could push it through. It is not at all cheap. We migrated to Domotz because of its pricing.

I don't like how Auvik handles their multi-site and site terminology compared to other tools. The sites are customers, and the multi-sites are generally partner accounts, but it could also be a customer account with multiple sites underneath it. Their documentation isn't clear on what to use in which scenario. It's up to your best judgment. Other RMM tools like ConnectWise Automate have customers and sites. Auvik refers to customer accounts as the "multi-site," and the sites underneath are their actual sites unless you have a reason not to set it up that way. Then you can have all the sites under one site. It's confusing. I also think Auvik's integration with ConnectWise Manage could use some additional features for excluding certain configuration types. We have that turned off because it's overriding configurations when we don't want it to. I believe the ability to exclude those configuration types is on Auvik's roadmap.

Auvik could have better compatibility with more devices. The devices that we're using are essential within our network infrastructure. It would be great to access the full range of features that some of the other ones do, such as the device configuration backups and the configuration change alert. But there are always new devices coming out, so they have to work through getting the compatibility in the first place. It makes too many attempts to connect to devices when it's online. You want real-time alerting and that sort of thing, so it has a lot of active connections going on behind the scenes. It creates quite a bit of talk on the network when it's connecting to a device. When it's trying to connect to one for the first time, it tries all the credentials you have saved within your credential library, and that isn't always ideal. If you're on the device, you can see that there have been a lot of failed login attempts because it's just trying another credential that it shouldn't use.

It would be cool if they came out with an app, but running the browser isn't bad.

So far, I haven't had an issue with it. But I could see where they may need to add some more integration pieces with different vendors. For example, API keys aren't available for certain vendors. While everything that I have works with Auvik and gets monitored by it, there are a few network items I have that I would like to see deeper integration with, but the lack of that type of integration doesn't stop me from doing what I do.

Sometimes, we get requests for exporting a map of the network. I can export a map, but it exports it as a PDF, which is basically just like a drawing. There is no context. When you're looking at the map, you can hover over things and you can drill in devices and see all kinds of information, but when you export it to a PDF, it is just like a flat image. It is a picture of it, and if you don't know what you're looking at, it doesn't necessarily make any sense. This may be something that has already improved. The exportability piece was one thing that was kind of like a gripe, but it is not all that important. If NCUA wanted to see proof that we have network topology diagrams, I can just show them the tool. Worst case scenario, I can give them read-only access to log into our Auvik tenant, and then they can see for themselves all of that stuff. Currently, with Auvik's support, I'm troubleshooting some of the information gathered on Cisco devices through SNMP V3. Auvik is not able to pull some of the important information that it uses to draw the map, which is kind of shocking because it is Auvik. So, it is their platform, and it is monitoring Cisco devices, which are obviously very prevalent in the world. Auvik is having a hard time gathering such important information over SNMP V3, which is a networking standard, and on super popular device brand and model. They're actively working with me on that piece. It seems that network device management using SNMP V3 could use a little tuning.

The reporting needs a little bit of improvement. Sometimes, I get too many reports. Or, I don't get reports when I should be getting reports. I don't know if this is Auvik's fault or the devices that the reporting is coming from, but I have noticed there have been some discrepancies.

It's missing the license checker feature. We are using Salesforce and the license is a really crucial part of the development, and we have to monitor it. Now, I have to write a script and then run it on a random Linux box and get a notification if it's expiring. It's a really specific feature. I'm not sure Auvik will develop it. We used Nagios for monitoring. Since it's an open-source thing, you can easily extend it with plugins. We had the license-checker in Nagios and I miss it in Auvik. There might be a solution to check this license. I just haven't had time to check it.

I don't really have any points of improvement. The few times I've had to call their customer service or use their customer service, they've been pretty prompt and I've been able to get issues resolved pretty much with one phone call. So I don't have any issues there.

Sometimes, it is easy to use. Sometimes, it is painful to add something and get some of the features running. For example, we had a problem adding interfaces to the monitoring. When some features are not yet deployed, sometimes we struggle with configuration problems, adjusting it in the proper way. There have been some problems with the implementation of the monitoring. Because we can't monitor as we would like, we aren't introducing anything more to the platform at the moment. It needs flexibility for the pooling of information. Because it is fully automated, it is pooling everything from the device from a given category. There is no way to exclude things that are not important or if you want to temporarily remove them to see statistics of other things. For example, we get about 100 MB from Auvik. We are unable to limit this. We would rather stop monitoring something, since some features will always give you alerts, because they shouldn't be monitored. However, it is impossible to exclude them, e.g., the internal interface. If somebody disconnects the device from the internal interface, we get an alert. So, this is something that is really painful for us. More flexibility would solve most of our issues. We can only see the global picture, not the detailed one. This is something that we don't have in Auvik.

The logging features could be a little bit better polished, although that aspect is relatively new. It comes in as raw data, with different formats for different vendors. It's not immediately clear to people what's going on with some of that and you have to read through the codes. Some of the higher-end logging solutions, like Splunk, which is very expensive, can parse through it and correlate items better. Improvement to the logging features would be a value-add, but I'm still very happy that it exists. There are a few edge cases where I have found support for devices to be a little bit lacking. I'm migrating away from Check Point right now and Auvik and Check Point do not get along at all, so it was very troublesome to get those put in place. Another issue that I know is already in progress, but that will be very nice, is full integration with PagerDuty. I'm using email connectors right now that have a little bit of a lag, so once the APIs are in place between Auvik and PagerDuty, it will give me better alerting when something breaks. I know that's on the roadmap because I've talked to them about it.

They need to improve the reporting system. They still don't have a proper reporting system in Auvik. They have built a dashboard in Power BI using APIs, but they should build some sort of report within Auvik itself. If Auvik fixes the reporting or comes up with a good reporting module, it will change the game. I have already talked with the CEO of Auvik about this. He agreed that he will be working on getting some reporting systems in Auvik. As of now, they only have reporting via Power BI, and it is an additional cost to get the Power BI licenses. Another drawback, the Power BI reporting is not that accurate and you really have to struggle to get the reports.