They say apples to apples, but it is more like apples to oranges.
We could go back and forth on that, for example we support virtualization monitoring out of the box and with them you have to pay extra for it. Same with topology mapping, they make you buy whatsconnected. Obviously this does not help you as a potential customer with web pages like this that do not tell the full story.
I guess what it boils down to are what the use cases you are looking to solve in a solution. If you search this forum you will see feedback from lots of other users, many of which have moved from WhatsUp to Orion and are extremely happy with their move.
Obviously I work for SolarWinds. I encourage you to search thwack and look what others have written, but also put a post of your own asking other in the community for their opinion.
As usual with product comparisons, it's rarely "apples-to-apples" as Ipswitch would propose. The white paper does provide a little more insight into their comparison metrics (so you know where the dollar figures come from). While I can't speak to WhatsUpGold (WUG) itself, I can say that things have changed a lot since 2009 when that was posted.
Orion NPM was at v9.5, which is significantly different from 10.1.2 SP1. IPv6 is supported. Virtualization monitoring is possible in NPM w/o add-on modules (i.e. APM), though Hyper9 (now "Virtualization Manager") does give A LOT more info. And the "advantage" of running WUG on a client OS instead of NPM's required server OS isn't much of a benefit--who monitors mission critical services with a desktop?
With that said, I'll toss WUG a bone by noting that their pricing is almost certainly simpler and more favorable to the customer. Interfaces add up fast so a device-based model would sure be nice. My NPM SL2000 license runs just under $15K--all because we have switches deployed for future growth, even though actual monitored systems/devices are under 300. And like Ipswitch wrote, that doesn't give you/me the ability to monitor Windows services, website availability, etc (and APM is *very* pricey, IMO).
At the end of the day (though), comparison PDFs can't replace a fully deployed trial/eval. Both SolarWinds and Ipswitch will be glad to hook you up, so spin up a VM (or find a spare box) and try each out. And if/when you do, post your thoughts back here so we can all learn. That's one particular thing I respect about SolarWinds; they do listen to customers (even if we do ask for more than they can deliver).
Thanks,
Chris | www.bctechnet.com
Having used both there are definitely many more differences that can be captured in a pdf. I prefer the way device active and passive monitors are configured in WUG, although part of this is because it can be done with a local application rather than all through the web interface, and I prefer device based licensing not only because it can save money, but it seems like I'm constantly adding/removing interfaces from monitored devices since the advent of VRFs.
Thanks being said the IP SLA product from SolarWinds is much easier to setup and get going, and I've had fewer deployment bugs with SolarWinds. I also prefer the interface of SolarWinds. SolarWinds provides a much larger SNMP database out of the box as well. There is something to be said for monitor based licensing as well, if you are frequently adding and removing SOHO devices and such from the network, SolarWinds may have the better model. Fortunately both provide free trials. I caution you to have free time on your calendar however, and really dig deep into each product to see what living with each will be like.
SolarWinds is my default recommendation for now, they seem to have the more mature and stable product.
