Elastic Observability vs. GFI Exinda NetworkOrchestrator

We can use this Elastic Observability in our business problems such as Creating internal/operational efficiencies issues, customer relations/service, and business process outcomes issues. This product has a lot of features for the above problems. But this product may be having some issues when charting purposes. But it can adjust for that purpose.

Incentivized

Well suited to traffic control and prioritization WAN Op is limited and does not work reliably

Incentivized

• Open source code base
• Community support
• Is fast in processing

Incentivized

• Ease of deployment
• Traffic policy config
• Admin console is easy to navigate

Incentivized

• Difficult to setup/maintain
• Search pattern bar could be more user-friendly
• Premium subscription features are very expensive

Incentivized

• WAN Optimization does not work well
• Reporting, while available, is difficult to work with

Incentivized

Splunk is a very good product but the licensing costs are high; we utilise the best of both worlds by using both products for slightly different purposes. We put the voluminous data with simple use cases in Elastic where it doesn't cost too much and can be searched quickly while putting the less voluminous data with more complex use cases in Splunk so we can take advantage of Splunk's very comprehensive but often much slower SPL search query language

Incentivized

Exinda was a good balance between cost and capability. We replaced an aging Packetshaper infrastructure with Exinda

Incentivized

• Cost management.
• Good customer increment.
• Time management.

Incentivized

• Minimize bandwidth expenditures by prioritizing the traffic we care about and controlling the traffic we do not care about.

Incentivized