Users considered VMware vDGA, Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops, and AMD MxGPU before choosing NVIDIA virtual GPU (vGPU). VMware vDGA was noted for its performance but lacked flexibility. Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops were favored for their integration capabilities but had scalability concerns. AMD MxGPU was evaluated for its cost-effectiveness but faced reliability and performance issues. Users ultimately chose NVIDIA virtual GPU (vGPU) for its balanced performance, scalability, and integration.
Users considered Fortinet, Palo Alto, Cisco Firepower, pfSense, MikroTik, Ubiquiti Networks EdgeRouter, Huawei, Sophos, ClearOS, Check Point, Azure Firewall, and openWRT. Fortinet was often viewed as an excellent commercial firewall albeit more expensive. Cisco ASA was used but had hardware issues. pfSense was popular but users often switched to OPNsense for better system protection. Some users favored OPNsense for its affordability, open-source nature, and satisfactory functionalities.
Users evaluated various firewalls including Palo Alto, Cisco Firepower, Fortinet FortiGate, MikroTik, Ubiquiti Networks EdgeRouter, Sophos, Huawei, ClearOS, check Point, Azure Firewall, and pfSense. They considered performance, security, budget, and hardware compatibility. Many valued OPNsense for its affordability, open-source flexibility, and solid performance, although they acknowledged that commercial options like FortiGate and Cisco ASA offered ease of installation and support. Some also shifted from older OS-level firewalls to more advanced options.
<p>Users evaluated multiple options including Fortinet, Cisco, Juniper, Dell, Meraki, Check Point, SonicWall, Sophos, Forcepoint, WatchGuard, Barracuda, and Huawei. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls were chosen for their superior security, advanced features, ease of use, and better performance compared to other firewalls. Cost-effectiveness, logging capabilities, centralized management, and integration with existing systems were also significant factors influencing the decision.</p>
<p>Users have considered SonicWall, Palo Alto, Fortinet, Check Point, Cisco, Forcepoint, WatchGuard, Cyberoam, Barracuda, pfSense, CloudGen Network Security, and MikroTik. They compared based on ease of use, features, performance, pricing, customer support, and existing partnerships. Fortinet and Palo Alto were commonly mentioned as alternatives due to their performance and features. Check Point was noted for its log console. Cisco and some others were avoided due to complexity or cost.</p>
Users considered products like Indeed and Glassdoor, but chose LinkedIn Talent Insights for its extensive data, user-friendly interface, and comprehensive analytics. They found it more effective for tracking hiring trends, understanding competitive landscapes, and sourcing talent from a larger professional network. Additionally, LinkedIn Talent Insights provides real-time insights, which were highlighted as superior compared to other options.
Users explored One Identity Manager, SailPoint, and Okta Identity Cloud. They found One Identity Manager and SailPoint complex and challenging to implement. Okta Identity Cloud was considered but lacked some essential features. Netwrix Usercube was chosen for its user-friendly interface, comprehensive functionality, and effective identity management capabilities compared to other options.
Users preferred NovaMDR for its user-friendly interface, high detection accuracy, and reasonable cost over competitors like CrowdStrike, Symantec, and FireEye.
Users considered Cisco SecureX, Fortinet FortiEDR, and SentinelOne due to their advanced features. They found Fortinet's interface complex and SentinelOne's cost high. Cisco SecureX lacked certain capabilities. NovaMDR's cost-effectiveness, ease of use, and comprehensive support made it the preferred choice.
Users considered alternative platforms like Segment, Google Analytics, and Tableau. They found these options less intuitive, more expensive, or lacking in specific capabilities. Users noted BlastPoint's user-friendly interface, cost-effectiveness, and robust data analysis features as decisive factors in their choice. BlastPoint provided the precise customer segmentation and actionable insights that competitors did not offer.
Users evaluated ZoomInfo, Clearbit, and DiscoverOrg due to their extensive data coverage but chose PointFive for its accuracy and real-time updates. They also considered Apollo.io and LeadGenius for their outreach features. PointFive stood out for its user-friendly interface and customizable options. Some users looked into DataFox and InsideView but found them less effective in achieving their business goals. PointFive's strong customer support also influenced their decision.
Users considered CrowdStrike, Microsoft Defender, and Palo Alto Networks before choosing Cisco XDR due to its comprehensive threat detection, ease of integration, and superior support. CrowdStrike was praised for its endpoint protection but lacked seamless integration. Microsoft Defender offered strong features but had compatibility issues. Palo Alto Networks had high-quality security measures but was more expensive. Users found Cisco XDR more aligned with their security requirements.
Users considered DocuSign, Adobe Sign, and HelloSign, but chose Verify 365 due to its user-friendly interface and real-time verification features. They explored alternatives like SignNow and PandaDoc, finding them less intuitive. Some also looked into OneSpan Sign, appreciating its security but finding it complex. Cost and ease of integration were crucial, leading to the selection of Verify 365.
Users considered Notion for its documentation capabilities and Confluence for its integration with Jira. GitHub's ReadMe files and GitBook were also evaluated for their collaborative features. Some looked at Markdown due to its simplicity and widespread use. Swimm was chosen for its interactive tutorials and real-time synchronization with code repositories.
Many users explored LastPass, Dashlane, and 1Password before selecting Password Depot. Evaluation factors included better security features, more user-friendly interface, and competitive pricing. Some mentioned considering these alternatives for their well-known reputations but ultimately preferred Password Depot for its comprehensive functionality and ease of use.
Customers preferred Vimond VIA for its seamless integration, user-friendly interface, advanced customization, and robust video management over Kaltura and Brightcove.
Before using Vimond VIA, users explored Kaltura and Brightcove due to their robust video management features. Some also considered AWS Elemental for its streaming capabilities, and JW Player for ease of integration. Vimond VIA was ultimately chosen for its flexibility and customer support.
Users looked into Google Places, Yelp, and Facebook Places. Foursquare Proximity was chosen for its superior location accuracy, real-time data updates, and reliable user analytics. Google Places lacked detailed analytics, Yelp had inconsistent data, and Facebook Places didn’t offer real-time updates. Additionally, Foursquare Proximity’s easy integration and robust API made it a preferred choice over its competitors.
Many users considered alternatives like SAP, Oracle, and Microsoft Dynamics due to their established reputations and robust functionalities. They eventually chose PiERP for its cost-effectiveness, ease of integration with existing systems, and user-friendly interface. Additionally, PiERP's exceptional customer support and faster implementation times played a significant role in their decision-making process.
Users chose Asset Management 365 for its features, ease of use, support, integration, accuracy, user-friendliness, cost-effectiveness, and scalability.
Several users explored IBM Maximo and SAP EAM but chose Asset Management 365 due to its intuitive interface, lower implementation cost, and seamless integration with existing systems. Additionally, positive customer support experiences and customizable features swayed their decision, emphasizing ease of use and efficient asset tracking capabilities.
Users considered Google Data Studio for its simplicity, Power BI for its advanced features, and Tableau for its visual capabilities. Two Minute Reports was chosen for its user-friendly interface and quick setup process. It was favored over competitors due to its seamless integration with Google Sheets and ability to automate tasks easily. Users appreciated the prompt customer support and affordability, making it ideal for immediate reporting needs.
Users considered Salesforce and HubSpot for their extensive features, but chose Synerise for its more user-friendly interface and better customer support. Adobe Marketing Cloud was also evaluated but was seen as too complex. Some looked at Microsoft Dynamics due to existing use of Microsoft tools but appreciated Synerise's seamless integrations and real-time data capabilities. Users appreciated Synerise's pricing model compared to competitors.
Users chose ProviderDirectoryAI over alternatives for its accuracy, integration ease, and affordability, despite competitors' interface, integration, and cost issues.
Users considered DoctorFinder, HealthNet, and ProviderSource for their comprehensive databases but found them lacking in real-time updates and customization. Consumer feedback highlighted ProviderDirectoryAI’s superior speed, accuracy, and ease of use, stating it outperformed competitors in integrating seamlessly with existing systems. Additionally, users appreciated its intuitive interface and robust support, which were deciding factors in choosing ProviderDirectoryAI over others.
Customers chose PayShield over Gemalto, Thales, and SafeNet for its encryption, integration, user interface, support, reliability, and cost-effectiveness.
Users considered Thales, nCipher, and SafeNet before PayShield. They found PayShield more user-friendly, with superior encryption capabilities and better integration. It offered more comprehensive documentation and responsive customer support compared to alternatives.
Many users chose PayShepherd for its user-friendliness, superior integration, robust support, and efficient implementation over competitors like SAP Ariba.
Users evaluated systems like TrackerSuite, TimeSheets.com, and Harvest before choosing PayShepherd. They found TrackerSuite clunky, TimeSheets.com lacking integration, and Harvest cumbersome for detailed tasks. They appreciated PayShepherd's ease of use, comprehensive functionalities, and better integration capabilities, which solved their billing and project tracking challenges more effectively.
Many users considered tools like Qualys, Tenable, and Rapid7. They found that while these alternatives offered robust features, Nanitor excelled in user-friendly interfaces, faster deployment, and better support. Some mentioned that other tools were either too complex or too expensive for their needs, whereas Nanitor provided a balanced solution with comprehensive security measures and cost-effectiveness.
Users considered Power BI for its comprehensive data analytics capabilities, Tableau for its powerful visualization tools, Qlik Sense for its user-friendly interface, and Looker for its strong integration with Google products. However, they ultimately chose Galileo for its ease of use, scalability, quick implementation, exceptional customer support, and more affordable pricing. They found Galileo to be more adaptable to their specific requirements and appreciated its seamless data integration features.
Robust Intelligence was preferred for its integration, user-friendly interface, support, security, deployment, flexibility, accuracy, and handling large datasets.
Many considered alternatives such as IBM Watson, SAS, and DataRobot. IBM Watson was noted for its robust capabilities but deemed overly complex. SAS seemed reliable but was considered too costly. DataRobot was praised for its automation features; however, it was perceived as lacking in customizability. Robust Intelligence's ease of integration, comprehensive features, and affordability made it the preferred choice for many users.
Many users evaluated Cylance and Darktrace for cybersecurity but chose TrojAI for its advanced AI capabilities and better detection accuracy. Some considered Microsoft Defender due to its integration with existing systems, but TrojAI's specialized focus on AI threats was a key differentiator. A few also looked at Symantec but found TrojAI's performance and ease of use superior. Comparatively, TrojAI's proactive threat analysis impressed several users.
Many users considered options like DocuSign, OneTrust, and TrustArc before selecting Trustible. They mentioned that alternatives lacked user-friendly interfaces, seamless integration features, and comprehensive compliance capabilities that Trustible provided. Users also appreciated Trustible's superior customer support and cost-effective plans, which often outperformed the competition in terms of value for money. Additionally, the robust security features and intuitive design were key factors that influenced their decision to choose Trustible.
Users considered IBM Security Guardium and CyberArk due to their robust data protection features. However, they found these options either too complex or unsuitable for their specific requirements. Several mentioned Mithril Security's user-friendly interface and superior customer support as key deciding factors. Some evaluated Azure Security and found it lacking in seamless integration capabilities compared to Mithril Security, which offered more straightforward deployment and comprehensive support.
Users explored alternatives such as RightData, Collibra, and Alteryx before choosing FAIRLY. They appreciated FAIRLY's user-friendly interface, robust functionality, and excellent customer support. They also valued its comprehensive features, seamless integration capabilities, and affordability.
Many considered alternatives like Zapier, Integromat, and Microsoft Power Automate. Zapier was praised for its extensive integrations but criticized for pricing. Integromat was noted for flexibility but had a steep learning curve. Microsoft Power Automate was highlighted for seamless integration with Office 365 but deemed complex. Enzai was chosen for its user-friendly interface, affordability, and robust capabilities in automating workflows.
<p>Users considered McAfee, Symantec, ESET, and Sophos. Some switched from AVG, Norton, Kaspersky, Trend Micro, and Microsoft Defender. Many did not evaluate other options before choosing Trellix MOVE AntiVirus. A few are exploring alternatives including Azure Defender and CrowdStrike. Some have used a combination of McAfee with other antivirus tools like Kaspersky, Norton, and Symantec. Others have used or are familiar with endpoint security products and broader security frameworks.</p>
Users evaluated Dell PowerEdge Servers, IBM System x Servers, and Cisco UCS Servers before choosing HPE ProLiant DL Servers. Dell was considered for its performance, IBM for its reliability, and Cisco for its innovative architecture. However, users selected HPE ProLiant DL Servers due to their better cost-efficiency, scalability, and extensive support.
<p>Users considered alternatives like Rubrik, Commvault, VMware, Dell IDPA, NetBackup, Arcserve, Veritas Backup Exec, Cohesity, Micro Focus Data Protector, IBM Spectrum Protect, Nutanix, Azure, and Acronis. They evaluated these based on cost, stability, ease of deployment, licensing, virtualization features, and support capabilities. Veeam was often chosen due to its price competitiveness, user-friendliness, robust performance, and streamlined management for virtual environments.</p>
Users evaluated IBM Watson, Google Cloud AI, and Microsoft Azure AI before selecting Lyzr AI. IBM Watson was considered too complicated, Google Cloud AI lacked customization options, and Microsoft Azure AI was seen as too expensive. They found Lyzr AI to be more user-friendly, affordable, and customizable.
Users evaluated Enablon, Cority, and Sustainalytics. SG Analytics ESG Software was chosen due to superior data integration, user-friendly interface, and better customization options. Several highlighted its real-time metrics and reporting capabilities, which stood out compared to competitors. The high level of customer support and quicker implementation times also influenced decisions, making it a preferred choice over the alternatives considered.
Users considered Google Analytics, Supermetrics, and Funnel but found Two Minute Reports more user-friendly and efficient. They appreciated its seamless integration with Google Sheets and ability to automate data reporting without needing complex setups. Two Minute Reports' superior customer service and affordable pricing further influenced their decision. Users also mentioned that other tools lacked the customization options and quick setup time offered by Two Minute Reports.
Users evaluated IBM InfoSphere Optim, Delphix, and HP Service Virtualization to address data management and automation. They preferred Broadcom Test Data Manager for its comprehensive functionalities, efficient data masking, and ease of integration with existing environments. Users also appreciated its robust capabilities in handling large volumes of data securely and its user-friendly interface.
Users considered HP, Oracle, IBM InfoSphere Optim, EPI-USE, Delphix, Symphony, EPI-USE Labs Data Secure, and Broadcom Test Data Manager. DATPROF was chosen for its features, responsiveness, cost-effectiveness, integration with SAP and non-SAP technologies, scalability, self-service capability, and efficient UI. It enabled frequent data refreshes and avoided reliance on hosting providers. Users highly valued DATPROF's synchronized scrambling and masking capabilities across various technologies.
Users preferred CLAIMSLive for its user-friendly interface, specialized claims features, real-time analysis, and cost-efficiency over Excel, Tableau, and Power BI.
Users considered alternatives such as Salesforce and Microsoft Dynamics before choosing CLAIMSLive. They appreciated CLAIMSLive's user-friendly interface, customizable features, and efficient customer support. Several mentioned the positive impact on productivity and ease of integration with existing systems. They also highlighted its affordability compared to other options.
Many users considered alternative tools like SketchUp and Rhino due to their reputations and capabilities. Some explored Blender and Matterport for specific features, while others looked at Revit for its industry-standard competencies. Users ultimately chose Lexset for its ease of use, advanced AI, and cost-effectiveness.
Several users considered Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud, citing their scalability and flexibility. Others evaluated IBM Watson and Microsoft Azure for their strong AI capabilities. Cost was a significant concern for many, leading them to explore these alternatives. Users also mentioned looking at smaller, more specialized platforms like DataRobot. Neuromation was ultimately chosen due to its cost-effectiveness, ease of use, and robust features tailored to their specific needs.
Tumult Analytics was selected for its user-friendly interface, integration options, data visualization, real-time reporting, affordability, and responsive support.
Users considered Google Analytics for its comprehensive data tracking, Mixpanel for its user flow visualization, and Adobe Analytics for its deep integration with other Adobe tools. They also evaluated Pendo due to its strong product engagement metrics, and Heap because of its event-automated tracking capabilities. Tumult Analytics was chosen for its intuitive interface, real-time data access, and actionable insights that perfectly addressed digital marketing and user experience optimization.
Many users considered Snowflake and Redshift due to their robust data warehousing capabilities but found brewdata.ai offered easier integration and better customer support. Some explored BigQuery for scalability but shifted to brewdata.ai for its user-friendly interface and cost-effectiveness. Others looked into Databricks for advanced analytics but chose brewdata.ai for its seamless deployment and flexibility. A few evaluated Azure Synapse, yet brewdata.ai was preferred for its real-time processing and simplified operation.
Users considered Xware, WSO2 API Manager, Tyk, Oracle, Apigee, MuleSoft, Kong, Gravitee, Azure API, AWS API, DataPower, Software AG, Red Hat 3scale, and Google's API platforms. IBM API Connect was chosen for its resilience, comprehensive features, and strong support. Users appreciated its built-in analytics and documentation, though some found it more expensive. Some evaluated other platforms for customization needs and better portal experiences. There was an interest in exploring cheaper, long-term alternatives with adequate security.
Users considered IBM Optim, Delphix, and CA Test Data Manager but chose GenRocket for its user-friendly interface, cost-effectiveness, and advanced test data generation features. They appreciated its ease of integration, flexible licensing, and scalability. GenRocket's support team received positive feedback.
Users considered Synthesize and Tonic.ai before using Gretel.ai due to their features in data synthesis and anonymization. Gretel.ai was chosen for its ease of use, advanced synthetic data generation capabilities, and superior support. Users preferred Gretel.ai's flexibility in model customization and overall performance compared to alternatives. Gretel.ai's ability to handle diverse data types more effectively influenced their decision.
Users considered Talend and Informatica for their integration and data management needs but chose K2View for its real-time integration and faster implementation. They also evaluated IBM MDM and Microsoft SQL Server but found K2View's flexibility and scalability more favorable. Some looked at Denodo and MuleSoft but preferred K2View due to its comprehensive data platform and operational efficiency.
Several users considered Epic, Cerner, and Tableau before adopting MDClone. Epic and Cerner were evaluated for their comprehensive data integration capabilities, while Tableau attracted interest for its advanced visualization features. MDClone was chosen for its ability to efficiently de-identify data, customizable query capabilities, and user-friendly interface that significantly reduced data preparation time compared to competitors.
Users explored options including Mockaroo, Delphix, and custom in-house tools. Mockaroo was considered for its ease of use but lacked scalability. Delphix was evaluated for its comprehensive features but was found to be costly. Custom in-house tools were tried but required significant maintenance and development effort. Users ultimately chose Tonic.ai due to its robust features, scalability, and ease of integration with existing workflows.
Users chose Subsalt for its scalability, user-friendly interface, robust performance, advanced analytics, and excellent customer support over competitors.
Users evaluated Azure and Google Cloud Platform for their data handling capabilities but felt Subsalt offered superior integration with existing workflows. Others checked AWS but found Subsalt's user interface more intuitive. Some looked into Oracle for its scalability but chose Subsalt due to its better customer support. Tableau was considered for its visualization tools, yet Subsalt's real-time analytics won them over. IBM's analytics were explored, but Subsalt's pricing was more competitive.