OpenText Network Node Manager i (NNMi) vs. Syncsort Network Management

Well-suited for large-scale deployment without needing more servers. Linux installation is quite stable, and Polling of a large number of devices is well managed. Less suited to Network Observability scenarios or cloud network monitoring.

Incentivized

• Fault and Performance Monitoring
• Performance Reporting
• Alerting and Flexible threhsolds
• Product stability

Incentivized

• More out of the box monitoring parameters features
• Improved GUI
• Independent reporting functionality within NNMi

Incentivized

NNMi's user interface is described as well-designed and intuitive, making it easy for users to navigate and perform tasks quickly, thereby enhancing the overall user experience. The system offers a powerful network discovery mechanism that maps out your network's physical and virtual topology, enabling you to visualize connections between devices and identify potential issues. Fault monitoring is at its best. NNMi provides a unified environment for viewing faults, availability, and performance data, consolidating essential information into a single platform.

Incentivized

Support is long and arduous and often are unable to help resolve the issue. We often have to do escalations or duty manager to get things moved. Even with a technical account manager, we do not see much improvement from a support point of view. This is an area where Micro Focus has a lot of improvement to do.

Incentivized

Even though there are many products in the market such as from Solarwinds, CA Spectrum (no DX Spectrum), PRTG that offers similar or even with more flexibility the fault and performance monitoring still Micro Focus is a very nice tool when it comes to Scalability and Stability with all necessary monitoring coverage. There is no external database required and hence less issues with integration.

Incentivized

• HP NNM is very good at producing root cause analysis. MTTR is reduced with NNM.

Incentivized