Many users considered alternatives such as Rocket Cache, Speed Booster, and Accelerate Max before choosing Rocket Zeke. They were drawn to Rocket Zeke for its user-friendly interface, affordability, and seamless integration. Some faced compatibility issues with other options and appreciated Rocket Zeke's efficient support. Discounts and positive feedback from peers also influenced their decisions. Features like faster page load times and better customer support made Rocket Zeke stand out.
<p>Users considered alternatives such as Pure Storage, Nutanix, EMC, Dell, NetApp, IBM, and Hitachi but chose HPE Alletra Storage due to pricing, reliability, performance, technology, cost-effectiveness, ease of use, and integration. Many had previous experience with HPE products like Nimble, 3PAR, and Primera. Transition and familiarity with HPE, combined with a preference for a single vendor, were also significant factors.</p>
Users considered alternatives like Cisco UCS and HP ProLiant, citing factors such as reliability and cost. Cisco UCS was noted for its robust performance but was seen as more expensive. HP ProLiant had an appealing price point but lacked some advanced features. IEIT SYSTEMS HF Series was chosen for its balanced cost, performance, and innovative features, making it a preferred option over others.
Several individuals evaluated Veeam, Rubrik, and Commvault but opted for Unitrends due to its competitive pricing, comprehensive features, and reliability. Some preferred Unitrends after finding Veeam’s licensing costly and Rubrik’s implementation complex. Others appreciated Unitrends' user-friendly interface compared to Commvault. Unitrends was favored for offering strong customer support and seamless integration with existing systems.
Users considered SolarWinds RMM, ConnectWise Automate, and Kaseya VSA before selecting N-able N-central. They explored SolarWinds RMM for its user-friendly interface and deployment ease, ConnectWise Automate for its extensive scripting capabilities, and Kaseya VSA for its comprehensive automation features. Despite these options, N-able N-central was ultimately chosen for its superior performance, scalability, and robust remote monitoring capabilities.
Users considered platforms like AppSheet and BuildFire but chose Appy Pie for its simplicity and affordability. Others found AppGyver and Glide, yet opted for Appy Pie due to its user-friendly features and cost-effectiveness. Some reviewed OutSystems and Mendix but preferred Appy Pie for ease of use and reasonable pricing.
Users compared Google Workspace, Zimbra, and Linux-based solutions, with some experimenting with OpenOffice and Lotus Notes. The majority favored Microsoft 365 Business for its integration, ease of use, and familiarity. Many did not consider alternatives due to long-term use of Microsoft products and policies. Google Workspace was noted for its free services and collaboration tools, but many found it less refined and harder to use than Microsoft 365 Business.
Users considered Microsoft Azure Active Directory due to its integration with Microsoft services, Okta for its user-friendly interface and single sign-on capabilities, and Google Cloud IAM for its simplicity and cost-effectiveness. They also evaluated CyberArk for its strong security features and Centrify for its identity management and privilege access control. Each alternative was compared based on user experience, pricing, and compatibility with existing infrastructure.
Users considered UiPath, Automation Anywhere, and Blue Prism but chose akaBot for its user-friendly interface, cost-effectiveness, reliable support, and compatibility with existing systems. Some found akaBot's features more comprehensive and adaptable to their requirements.
<p>Users considered Okta, PingFederate, Google Workspace, AWS, IBM, OneLogin, and various on-premises Active Directories before choosing Microsoft Entra ID. Some valued Microsoft's integrated ecosystem and seamless integration with Office 365. Okta was noted for richer features but was more costly and complex to integrate. Google Workspace, AWS AD, and other Active Directory solutions were evaluated but many found Entra ID to be more effective, scalable, and cost-efficient.</p>
Users evaluated SAP BusinessObjects and Oracle Business Intelligence but found QAD Process Intelligence's ease of integration with existing ERP systems and intuitive interface more appealing.
Users considered Google Authenticator and Duo Security due to their widespread availability and integration capabilities. Some evaluated Authy for its user-friendly interface. Others looked at RSA SecurID, specifically for its industry reputation and compliance features. However, they chose LoginTC for its simplicity, ease of implementation, and support for multiple platforms, which were crucial for their authentication requirements.
Users evaluated UiPath for its robust capabilities, compared Microsoft Power Automate for its integration ease, and assessed Automation Anywhere for its usability. They found UiPath complex, Microsoft Power Automate limited by licensing costs, and Automation Anywhere lacking flexibility.
Users considered alternatives such as SharePoint, Hyland, and OpenText. They chose KnowledgeLake due to its ease of use, strong integration capabilities, cost-effectiveness, and efficient document management features.
Users considered using Slack, Microsoft Teams, and Asana before choosing C TWO. Slack was noted for its communication capabilities but lacked robust project management features. Microsoft Teams integrated well with other Microsoft services but was complex to navigate. Asana offered comprehensive project tracking but was found to be less intuitive and had a steeper learning curve compared to C TWO.
Users explored alternatives like CloudZap for its pricing, WebFlow for customization, and SpeedyNet for its speed. However, they chose Rocket Zena due to its ease of use, comprehensive features, and reliability. They appreciated Rocket Zena's superior customer support and seamless integration with existing tools. Additionally, Rocket Zena's scalability and performance outshined competitors, making it an optimal choice for their requirements.
Users considered Kudzu, SAP CRMs, Bizagi, Appian, Pega, Camunda, Integrify, IBM, Lotus Notes, K2, SharePoint, BizFlow, and Microsoft Power Platform. They preferred K2 for its customization and ease of use, evaluated Bizagi, Appian, Pega, Camunda, Integrify, and low-code tools under Azure, and compared K2 and Nintex after Nintex acquired K2. Nintex is seen as user-friendly with moderate complexity, while Power Platform offers more flexibility but requires technical skills.
<p>Users compared Control-M to CA Technologies, Tivoli, UC4, AutoSys, Dollar Universe, JAMS Scheduler, IBM's Tivoli Workload Scheduler, ActiveBatch by Redwood, Matillion, and in-house solutions. Control-M was preferred for its advanced features, intuitive interface, ease of use, integration capabilities, and stability. Other tools were found to be either outdated, difficult to use, or lacking in functionality. Control-M's ability to meet extensive requirements and provide a complete solution made it the top choice.</p>
Several users considered IBM Workload Scheduler and CA Workload Automation before choosing BMC Compuware ThruPut Manager. They found IBM Workload Scheduler less efficient in terms of resource optimization, and CA Workload Automation was deemed challenging to integrate with existing systems. BMC Compuware ThruPut Manager was praised for its seamless integration, enhanced performance, and user-friendly interface.
Several users considered Airflow manually deployed on AWS, Google Cloud Composer, and self-hosted Airflow. They chose Amazon Managed Workflows for Apache Airflow due to its seamless integration with AWS services, reduced operational burden, and scalability.
Users considered Salesforce, Monday.com, and Asana before choosing SponsorCloud. They preferred SponsorCloud for its specialized features that cater to sponsorship management, user-friendly interface, and cost-effectiveness. Users found it provided better customer support and more tailored tools compared to the alternatives.
Users explored alternatives like SAP Hana and HubSpot for their user-friendly interfaces and robust analytics. Knowde stood out due to seamless integration, comprehensive data management, cost-effectiveness, and superior customer support. Competition focused on niche functions, while Knowde offered a broader range of features that met diverse requirements.
Users evaluated other options such as VPNs, internet-based connections, and leased lines, but chose AWS Direct Connect for its reliable bandwidth, lower network latency, and enhanced security. They appreciated AWS Direct Connect's ability to provide dedicated network connections, improve performance for data-sensitive applications, and offer cost-effective pricing compared to traditional WAN solutions. Additionally, its seamless integration with other AWS services was a critical factor in their decision-making process.
Users considered Genesys, 8x8, and Five9 before opting for Vonage Contact Centers. Genesys was found to be costly and complex to implement. 8x8 was seen as lacking in features and customization. Five9 had issues with ease of use and service reliability. Vonage Contact Centers was chosen for its ease of integration with existing systems, excellent customer support, and a more intuitive interface.
Before choosing Vonage Communications APIs, users considered Twilio due to its extensive features but found it expensive. They explored Nexmo for its affordability but reported less flexibility. Plivo was another option for ease of use but lacked advanced functionalities. Some looked at Bandwidth for its scalability but faced integration challenges. Sinch was reviewed, appreciated for its global reach but noted for limited support. Users ultimately preferred Vonage Communications APIs for a balanced combination of cost, service, and functionality.
Users evaluated Okta, Microsoft Azure AD, and IBM IAM, seeking robust security, seamless integration, and scalability. Okta was praised for its user-friendly interface but lacked advanced features. Microsoft Azure AD was noted for strong Microsoft ecosystem integration, yet some found it complex to deploy. IBM IAM offered extensive customization but required significant maintenance. Verizon Identity and Access Management was chosen for its comprehensive feature set and easier management.
Users evaluated Citrix XenDesktop, VMware Horizon, and Parallels Remote Application Server before choosing Dell Wyse vWorkspace [EOL]. They compared cost-effectiveness, ease of management, and scalability. Many found Dell Wyse vWorkspace [EOL] offered simpler deployment and efficient performance at a lower cost. The intuitive interface and robust support also heavily influenced their decisions.
Users considered Clearview, BrightData, and Insightify before choosing Aurascape AI. Clearview had integration issues, BrightData lacked customization options, and Insightify's data accuracy was inconsistent. Aurascape AI impressed with its user-friendly interface, superior analytics capabilities, and responsive support.
<p>Users evaluated options like Fortinet, Cisco, Palo Alto, and cloud-native firewalls from AWS and Azure. They consistently noted Check Point CloudGuard Network Security's ease of deployment, integration, and comprehensive security features. CloudGuard's unified management, high availability, and scalability were preferred over competitors. Familiarity with Check Point's ecosystem and its strong performance in security tests further influenced their choice.</p>
<p>Users considered Dome9, Palo Alto Prisma, Qualys, Security Compass, Trend Micro Conformity, Auquasec, Cisco, Symantec, McAfee, Fortinet, Rapid7, Orca, Wiz, Sophos, Barracuda, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, CrowdStrike, Juniper, and AWS/Azure native security tools. They valued Dome9 for ease of access, IAM roles, and centralized management, while Prismas Cloud's comprehensive tools and Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP's reporting and ease of deployment were appreciated.</p>
<p>Users considered McAfee, IBM, Qualys Cloud Platform, Trend Micro, Onapsis, Microsoft tools, SentinelOne, CrowdStrike, Mimecast, Azure, AWS, FortiWeb, Palo Alto, Cisco, Barracuda, ESET, Cloudflare, Sophos, Imperva, F5, Juniper, SonicWall. Integration, support, pricing, and a comprehensive feature set were key factors in the decision-making process. Some preferred Check Point for its reliability and integration, while others found Azure WAF better suited due to specific technical requirements.</p>
<p>Users considered McAfee MVISION Cloud, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Trend Micro Cloud One, Zscaler Cloud Security Platform, FortiGate, and Cisco firewalls. Some evaluated all possible options and chose Check Point CloudGuard Code Security for its stability and team experience. Some had experience with Layer 7 solutions, while others had always used Check Point. Many did not evaluate alternatives or were unaware of other options. Some needed a tool compliant with cloud standards.</p>
Users evaluated CrowdStrike, Cylance, Carbon Black, and Symantec for security integration, scalability, and threat detection efficiency. CrowdStrike was praised for its threat intelligence but perceived as expensive. Cylance impressed with predictive AI capabilities, yet some noted coverage gaps. Carbon Black offered robustness but faced performance issues. Symantec appealed with comprehensive feature sets but lacked advanced automation. SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security emerged as a preferred choice due to competitive pricing and superior automation features.
Users explored Citrix and VMware Horizon. Citrix was favored for its comprehensive features, but many found it too pricey and complex. VMware Horizon was praised for flexibility and integration capabilities, yet users reported it as challenging to manage and costly. Azure Virtual Desktop was chosen due to seamless Microsoft ecosystem integration, competitive pricing, and ease of use, meeting operational efficiency and budget requirements.
Before choosing Informatica Platform, users evaluated other offerings like IBM DataStage, Microsoft SSIS, and Talend. Their reasons for selecting Informatica included its comprehensive features, superior data integration capabilities, and scalability. Users also appreciated its ability to handle complex data transformations and extensive support for various data sources. They noted Informatica's strong reputation in the industry and the robustness of its platform as deciding factors.
Users considered VMware vSAN, Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct, Nutanix, and HPE SimpliVity before opting for StorMagic SvHCI. They found StorMagic's cost-effectiveness, simplicity, and ease of deployment to be superior. Many appreciated its lightweight nature, high availability, and performance in edge environments. Budget constraints and the need for a straightforward, efficient system often led them to choose StorMagic over its competitors.
Users evaluated Shopify for its ease of use, Stripe for its payment processing capabilities, and PayPal for widespread acceptance. They sought alternatives that offered better integration, customization, and support. Modal was chosen for its superior performance in these areas, which users found lacking in the other platforms. Additionally, users appreciated Modal's user-friendly interface and robust feature set that catered specifically to their business requirements.
Users considered CallTrackingMetrics for cost-effectiveness, WhatConverts for its comprehensive features, and CallFire for simplicity. Others evaluated Marchex for advanced analytics and Invoca for robust integrations. Prior choices included Grasshopper and Twilio for customization options, but users found CallRail's interface and customer support superior. Call Analytics, known for its reporting capabilities, was also assessed before switching to CallRail.
Several users evaluated Salesforce, Chorus, and Zoom before choosing Gong. Salesforce's pricing and complexity caused hesitation. Chorus had strong features but lacked integration capabilities. Zoom was considered for its call recording but fell short on insights and analytics.
Users considered alternatives like UpGuard, RapidFire Tools, and NinjaRMM before selecting Fieldguide AI Platform. They found Fieldguide AI Platform more flexible, boasting better customer support and integration capabilities. Additionally, they appreciated its more user-friendly interface compared to the others.
Users initially explored Zoho and Microsoft PowerApps citing features and customization options. Comidor was chosen for its intuitive interface, scalability, and ability to streamline business processes efficiently. Many found interface friendliness and robust automation capabilities appealing. Cost-effectiveness also influenced decisions. Past experiences with other platforms highlighted a need for flexible integration and better user support, which they found Comidor successfully provided.
Users considered PayScale, Salary.com, and Mercer due to their extensive databases, interactive dashboards, and industry-standard metrics. Compa Index was chosen for its user-friendly interface, real-time data analytics, and cost-effectiveness. Users appreciated Compa Index's ability to integrate seamlessly with existing HR systems and provide reliable insights into compensation trends, leading them to prefer it over others.
Many considered Symantec, McAfee, and Palo Alto Networks for their cybersecurity needs. CrowdStrike Falcon was chosen for its lightweight agent, cloud-based infrastructure, and superior threat detection capabilities. Alternative options like Carbon Black and Cylance offered strong security features but couldn't match CrowdStrike Falcon's real-time visibility and ease of use. Numerous users found CrowdStrike Falcon's speed, comprehensive reporting, and centralized management superior compared to competitors like Trend Micro and Sophos.
Users considered Symantec, McAfee, and Carbon Black before choosing CrowdStrike Falcon. Symantec and McAfee were described as having limited functionality and outdated interfaces. Carbon Black was noted for its high resource consumption and complex management. CrowdStrike Falcon was preferred due to its lightweight design, easy deployment, and advanced threat detection capabilities. Cost-effectiveness and scalability also played significant roles in their decisions.
Many users evaluated alternatives like PayScale, Mercer, and Radford but chose Compa Index due to its superior data accuracy and user-friendly interface. While other options offered competitive benefits, users found Compa Index to be more cost-effective and efficient in meeting their specific needs. The product's comprehensive data and analytical tools were also highly praised, leading many to select it over other platforms.
Users considered Blue Prism and UiPath for their intuitive interfaces and robust features. Automation Anywhere was also evaluated for its scalability, and Microsoft Power Automate for its integration capabilities. However, Astro RPA was selected for its superior ease of use, cost-efficiency, and strong customer support compared to other solutions.
<p>Users evaluated Tableau, Power BI, and Google Data Studio. They sought better customization and user-friendly interfaces. Tableau and Power BI offered robust features but were costly. Google Data Studio had limitations. DataLion provided flexibility, ease of use, and affordability.</p>
<p>Many users considered Toggl, Hubstaff, and Clockify due to their reputation and diverse features. They found WebWork Timetracker more accurate, user-friendly, and cost-effective. Its detailed reporting, screenshot capability, and activity tracking were also highlighted as deciding factors. WebWork's seamless integration with existing tools provided additional convenience, making it a preferred choice over competitors.</p>
<p>Users evaluated alternatives like Evancy, ManageEngine, Casier, Acronis, Veeam, MSP360, Automox, Pulseway, SolarWinds, ITarian, TeamViewer, AnyDesk, Barracuda, SCCM, WSUS, LogMeIn, and Atera. Evancy and ManageEngine offered distinct features in patching and distribution. Users found NinjaOne's interface simple and web-based and preferred it for its licensing plan and pricing over Automox and TeamViewer. Atera was noted for being user-friendly but lacked some advanced features found in NinjaOne.</p>
Users considered Nagios, Zabbix, and PRTG Network Monitor before choosing Checkmk. They found Checkmk to offer superior scalability, better integration capabilities, and a more user-friendly interface. Its robust performance monitoring and comprehensive feature set convinced many users to prefer it over alternatives. Nagios and Zabbix lacked the same modern interface and ease of use, while PRTG Network Monitor was seen as more expensive without offering significantly better functionality.
Users explored alternatives like Zabbix, Nagios, and PRTG. Zabbix was noted for its flexibility but lacked intuitive UI. Nagios was praised for its extensive plugins yet criticized for complicated maintenance. PRTG offered robust network monitoring but was costly for larger environments. Users found Checkmk's automatic configuration and robust features suited their monitoring needs better, leading them to choose it over others.
While considering Power Admin PA Server Monitor, users evaluated others like Nagios, SolarWinds, PRTG, and Zabbix. They found Power Admin PA Server Monitor more user-friendly, cost-effective, and feature-rich. It offered better customization options, quicker setup, and more reliable performance. Other considerations were disregarded due to higher costs, complexity, and lack of essential features. Users appreciated its intuitive interface, ease of use, and responsive customer support.
Users considered Nagios, Zabbix, and SolarWinds before choosing Icinga. They evaluated Nagios for its robustness but found its configuration challenging. Zabbix was appealing due to its rich feature set but had a complex setup. SolarWinds was reviewed for its extensive monitoring capabilities but deemed too expensive. Icinga was favored for its flexibility, easier configuration compared to Nagios, and being more cost-effective than SolarWinds.
Users considered Nagios, Zabbix, and SolarWinds but chose ManageEngine Site24x7 for its ease of use, comprehensive monitoring capabilities, and cost-effectiveness. They appreciated its user-friendly interface, extensive reporting, and reliable performance, which met their specific criteria better than competitors.
Users evaluated Datadog and New Relic prior to selecting Okmeter, appreciating their extensive monitoring capabilities. However, they found these options more complex and expensive compared to Okmeter. Many mentioned that Okmeter offered a simpler, cost-effective solution that met their technical monitoring requirements efficiently.
Users considered alternatives like Prism Central, Microsoft Hyper V, Nutanix, OpenStack, and Microsoft AHV before choosing VMware vCenter. Nutanix and Microsoft Hyper-V were common choices for some, who found VMware vCenter more user-friendly and feature-rich. Elastic and SolarWinds were mentioned for server monitoring. VMware's flexibility, control, and third-party support were highlighted as significant advantages.
Users considered SolarWinds, Redgate, and Quest before choosing AimBetter. SolarWinds was deemed too complex and costly for small teams. Redgate lacked real-time monitoring capabilities that users required. Quest was initially attractive but required extensive setup and maintenance, which deterred some users. AimBetter was selected for its ease of use, affordability, prompt support, and quick setup.
Users considered Pingdom and UptimeRobot before choosing StatusCake.com. They found Pingdom too costly with limited features. UptimeRobot was mentioned but lacked detailed reports and real-time alerts that StatusCake.com provides. People appreciated StatusCake.com's affordable pricing, reliable monitoring, and advanced reporting, leading to their final choice.
Before choosing Ivanti Performance Manager, considerations included AppSense and Citrix. AppSense was found to be too expensive, while Citrix did not meet performance expectations. Ivanti Performance Manager was selected due to its cost-effectiveness and superior performance.
<p>Users considered Zabbix, Everest IMS, ManageEngine, PRTG, Zoho, ServiceNow, SolarWinds, Cacti, Nagios, and various open-source tools. They appreciated Infraon IMS for its cost-effectiveness, integration of diverse services, firewall log reading capability, and direct vendor support. They found it easier to manage and customize than other tools, which lacked the combination of features Infraon IMS offered.</p>
Users considered Microsoft SCOM and custom-built systems before BizTalk360. They found SCOM complex and resource-intensive, and custom solutions lacked comprehensive monitoring. One noted that BizTalk360 offered an intuitive interface compared to competitors. Another said it simplified operational management and tailored well to their requirements. Still, others highlighted its seamless integration, ease of use, and comprehensive analytical tools as reasons for their choice, making it more efficient than their initial considerations.
Users evaluated Datadog for its comprehensive features, New Relic for detailed analytics, and Zabbix due to its open-source nature before choosing Sematext Infrastructure Monitoring. They preferred Sematext for its user-friendly interface, competitive pricing, and robust alerting capabilities, which better suited their specific monitoring requirements.
Users considered Fortinet, Palo Alto GlobalProtect, and Citrix before opting for Cisco Secure Client (including AnyConnect). They chose Cisco Secure Client (including AnyConnect) for its reliability, ease of use, and robust security features. Some users also preferred its integration capabilities with other Cisco products and the comprehensive support provided.
Users considered Sourcefire, Palo Alto, Fortinet FortiGate, TippingPoint, Sophos XG 430, Check Point, Cyberoam, and various Cisco IPS solutions. They switched due to issues like support concerns, acquisitions, and expiration of licenses. Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS) was chosen for better visibility, management capabilities, integration, training, and fast reaction time. Some users still use Darktrace alongside Cisco Secure IPS (NGIPS).
Several users considered Infoblox, BlueCat, and Microsoft DNS/DHCP. They chose Cisco Prime Network Registrar for its reliability, scalability, and fulfillment of specific technical requirements. Users appreciated its advanced features and seamless integration capabilities, which were better suited to their infrastructures. Cost-effectiveness and reduced implementation time also played roles. Some users noted that Cisco's reputation and support structure influenced their decisions.
Before choosing Pliant Platform, users explored Zapier, Automate.io, Microsoft Power Automate, and Workato. Users preferred Pliant Platform for its flexibility, ease of use, and robust functionalities. They appreciated the seamless integration capabilities, support for complex workflows, and excellent customer support. Users also considered that Pliant Platform offered better customization and scalability compared to the alternatives.
Some considered SaltStack for ease of scalability, Ansible for its simplicity and widespread usage, and Jenkins for its powerful automation capabilities. Docker Swarm was also evaluated for container orchestration, and Puppet for its robust configuration management. Others mentioned exploring Chef for flexibility and Kubernetes for its widespread industry adoption.
30902
comparison-exec_summary
28273-34365
pending
August 05, 2024 07:40
30901
comparison-pricing_summary
28273-34365
pending
August 05, 2024 07:40
30900
comparison-exec_summary_short
28273-34365
pending
August 05, 2024 07:40
30885
product-customers
33518
unpublished
August 04, 2024 08:54
* Google
* Microsoft
* Amazon Web Services
* IBM
* Oracle
<p>Users considered multiple options like Dynatrace, Riverbed, Skylight, Accedian, SolarWinds, ExtraHop, Colasoft, Profitap, and Gigamon. They appreciated Skylight for its simplicity and cost, Accedian for detailed data analysis and cost efficiency, and ExtraHop for network security. Riverbed and NETSCOUT were noted for their high costs and complexity. SolarWinds was seen as less innovative. Users also evaluated tools like TruView from Fluke Networks and experienced issues with NETSCOUT's scalability.</p>