No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Auvik Network Management (ANM) vs NetFort LANGuardian comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 10, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Auvik Network Management (ANM)
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
5th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
216
Ranking in other categories
IT Infrastructure Monitoring (6th), Network Troubleshooting (1st), Cloud Monitoring Software (6th), Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) (2nd)
NetFort LANGuardian
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
89th
Average Rating
10.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of Auvik Network Management (ANM) is 1.2%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetFort LANGuardian is 0.4%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Monitoring Software Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Auvik Network Management (ANM)1.2%
NetFort LANGuardian0.4%
Other98.4%
Network Monitoring Software
 

Featured Reviews

AmanThakkar - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Engineer at Titanslab Inc.
Network automation has reduced troubleshooting time and supports faster issue resolution
The biggest and best feature I have experienced with Auvik Network Management (ANM) is automatic network discovery, along with features such as topology map, instant alerts, real-time monitoring, easy remote access, and simple dashboards. Among those features, I find automatic network discovery to be the most useful because it gives a clear picture of the entire network without having to create manual diagrams. It is very easy to use Auvik Network Management (ANM), so even a new team member can quickly understand the network because everything is displayed in a very clear way. Auvik Network Management (ANM) has positively impacted our organization by reducing troubleshooting time, improving network visibility, providing a very clear picture, and helping us support multiple client networks and environments very efficiently. We have noticed a 35 to 40% improvement in troubleshooting speed, less manual work in documenting any network system, faster responses to network issues, and better uptime with the client networks.
it_user172854 - PeerSpot reviewer
Research Special Projects Lead at a university with 501-1,000 employees
Cost effective but when we originally purchased LANGuardian, some features needed further development.
The ability to detect and decipher torrent traffic for the purpose of identifying what some refer to as "copyright violators" Our CIO asked us to track down the source of undesired uploads, which trigger e-mails received by outside bodies regarding what they refer to as "copyright violations",…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable feature of Auvik is the remote access functionality."
"I find Auvik's intuitive interface a welcome change from the complex network management platforms I've used."
"The ability to map out the network topology is one of the top features I like about Auvik. It's one of the best on the market. They have a feature called Loopback Detection, which has helped us, in many scenarios easily detect that without having to physically go to the location to see if there is a loopback somewhere."
"Automatic network mapping, alerting functionalities, and TrafficInsights are valuable."
"Auvik has decreased our mean time to resolution for the issues that it alerts us on."
"We have backup connectivity in case of some failures. So, it has been of some help. Our mean time to resolution has been decreased by half an hour."
"The monitoring and backup are the most valuable features."
"I like Auvik's alerts. We can configure the alerts for a specific timeframe, i.e., we can set it to alert us when devices have been offline for a specific amount of minutes. If a device or port is flapping, we can ignore it or allow only the first alert to come in and mute the subsequent alerts."
"If you are looking for a solid solution that can be easily deployed then I'd recommend considering Netfort solutions."
"Our CIO asked us to track down the source of undesired uploads, which trigger e-mails received by outside bodies regarding what they refer to as "copyright violations", and Languardian was the most efficient and effective tool for the job."
 

Cons

"For pulling up the devices, the dashboard is a little bit sluggish. I know there is a lot of data, and I am starting to get nitpicky here, but this is the only thing. The dashboard is a little sluggish, and you have to keep the filter on sometimes."
"The onboarding could be a bit better for Auvik. We've had a few issues out of the gate because we already had an existing Auvik setup that was invalidated. Given that we're a new customer, it's taken a while to get support for these issues. It's taken a couple of days, but I would have thought that as new customers, we'd get priority support until we've got the solution running."
"If the out-of-the-box price was about 30% lower, I think it would have allowed us to purchase it sooner. It definitely costs more than some of the competitors that are out there. It's also better, so I understand why it's a little bit more expensive."
"It would be helpful if it integrates more with Windows Server event logs and other types of logs."
"One is the alerting system. While it is very useful, the default alert settings can generate a lot of notifications."
"Some of the automation pieces for discovery still need a little bit more improvement. I wouldn't mind seeing some more security features as that's the world we're driving into. I know Auvik probably wants to try to keep itself separate because that's its brand, but even if they brought on board another brand that was able to plug into them, it would benefit us. It would lower some more network security costs if as a company, they are a one-stop shop. They have already got the network piece going. If they improved in that area and focused a lot on that, they would gain me as a customer, and they would probably gain a lot of others."
"There are spots in the interface that could use a little more work as it is congested with a lot of information in one spot."
"The use of a mobile app would be very beneficial because sometimes I cannot access a computer."
"It takes a long time to load results. I think it would be great if they fix the slowness issue in the next release."
"Sure, at the time we bought the product, the GUI and graphs/reports/pie charts etc ... were not fully developed."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"They charge for switches and some networking hardware, but everything else is free."
"The pricing is kind of steep, but it's worth the price. There's no beating around the bush. It's an expensive solution, but it's really the best solution there is for us."
"It is a little more on the expensive side, but I feel that it is a premium product. It is good."
"Given the types of alerts and the different aspects of Auvik, I think it's worth the cost that is associated with it. I don't think the cost is terribly high. The infrastructure is the core or the backbone of a business. If it goes down, then the business stops. You have to decide how much money you're going to lose if you're network is down and you can't figure out why for hours or days versus what Auvik would cost you a month."
"Auvik's pricing model is good."
"As an individual IP company, Auvik is a little bit pricey. It is a little expensive, but as an MSP owner, I have a small side business. So, I'm an Auvik customer in that sense too. In that, I think it's reasonable to pay $10 to $15 a device or less depending on the endpoint. For the amount of capability that it has, it is very reasonably priced."
"Auvik is significantly cheaper than what we were using before."
"The pricing is by device. We have 75 devices, which is a little more than we really need. With school and volume discounts, it is still a little over $16,000 annually. Our WiFi access points are not being billed, but all our switches and routers are."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
14%
Construction Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
14%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Construction Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business157
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise26
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Auvik?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is average. The cost is typically higher for these kinds of tools, so it is moderate.
What needs improvement with Auvik?
Auvik Network Management (ANM) can be improved with better reporting options. While there are options for reporting, having more clarity would be helpful, along with more advanced analytics and mor...
What is your primary use case for Auvik?
Our main use case for Auvik Network Management (ANM) is to monitor and manage the client networks, helping us to track the network devices and identify issues quickly to monitor the performance and...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
LANGuardian
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
City of Armadale, NCG Group, King Faisal Hospital
Find out what your peers are saying about Auvik Network Management (ANM) vs. NetFort LANGuardian and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.