GFI Exinda NetworkOrchestrator vs. Riverbed SteelHead

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

Incentivized

If you are dealing with large CAD files on a daily basis "remotely", Riverbed Steelhead makes your home office feel just like the office

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Effectively improves data throughput over VPN WAN connections.
• Seamless operation.
• Optimizes a variety of applications. Including, HTTPS, Citrix, Netapp SM and SV, Exchange, etc.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• A reduction in price is always welcomed
• Simplify and streamline advanced features and add-on pieces for more detailed traffic analysis
• Getting granularity into traffic behavior becomes confusing and very expensive

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

We tested Cisco eleven years ago in parallel with Riverbed in a PoC. The Cisco configuration was very complex and sticky based on the location. The Riverbed configuration is flexible based on the whole storage. A software client for devices like laptops or tablets is not available for Cisco WAAS, therefore we selected Riverbed based on a PoC.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Files now open a lot quicker, at near local speeds.
• We are able to respond to customers quicker as we can get access quicker.

Incentivized