This article continues our previous blog on why we don’t engage in competitive analyses; it is designed to give you an example of why an ‘us […]

The DCIM Competitive Analysis Gone Wrong (Part Two)

This article continues our previous blog on why we don’t engage in competitive analyses; it is designed to give you an example of why an ‘us […]

modern data centerThis article continues our previous blog on why we don’t engage in competitive analyses; it is designed to give you an example of why an ‘us vs. them’ DCIM vendor comparison fails.

Let’s break it down.

First, here’s a link to a competitive analysis on netTerrain from another vendor (who’s never used netTerrain).

Now, let’s look at how the vendor’s competitive analysis of our product (netTerrain) vs. their product is inaccurate.

Right off the bat, it tries to sound semi-neutral with a faux, pseudo-compliment: “if you want a GIS-enabled product for Outside Plant, then maybe we are a fit”. Gee, thanks!

Wanna guess what an OSP competitor would say? “Hey, if you want a DCIM-enabled product then maybe this is a fit, but for OSP only look at me.” How convenient.

The list below is a random mix of the 12 items from the other vendor’s competitive ‘analysis’ of our product. The truth is: you could easily pick 12 different ones and make the case for Excel being a better DCIM than netTerrain. Some of them are really the same, just disguised as different things…

  • Automatic Service/Application Discovery:
    They don’t define what it is…but we can discover applications through a variety of protocols as well as connect to any application management tool
  • Resource Utilization:
    Not sure what exactly this is. It doesn’t say. Could it be CPU? Memory? Disk? Things like that? Maybe, which we do (and much more).
  • Discovery Included:
    A bunch of different items here that are really just banging on one and the same straw-man argument, that our discovery is no good — according to this vendor — because it is only on our on-premise solution. This is too rich. we are the only DCIM vendor that offers a true SaaS, the others simply put their solution in the cloud and decide to call it like that, which, when we do, also includes discovery.
  • RESTful APIs:
    Apparently, ours is no good because, again, it is only available in our On-premise version. This is news to me.

It’s too easy to come up with 12 features that, when vaguely defined, make it look as if our software is better than the rest. Here’s my “we are better than them” list of random features, put together in 5 minutes:

– Built-in full-scale BI tool
– Drag and drop-based, full custom-configurable dashboards
– Cable bundling
– Connectors to any custom database, in minutes, by the end user
– OSP module for fiber and outside plant management
– Georeferenced GIS maps with KMZ imports
– Unlimited, custom hierarchies, types and fields in seconds, with simple drag and drop
– Configurable, browser-based IP toolset
– Interdiagram cables down to port and subport level
– Unlimited, user-defined, diagram layering and filtering
– Full document management with versioning, check-in and check-out
– SOAP and (true) RESTful interface with Swagger test GUI

Bottom line? Every vendor loves to shout like Freddy Mercury: “we are the champions”, however…don’t let yourself get played by a competitive analysis that tosses up some random features and pits them against some poorly researched info on another vendor’s product. Know what your pain points are — and ask a vendor how, exactly, their software can help you solve those pain points.

Jan Durnhofer
Jan Durnhofer
As CEO / Product and Engineering Manager, Jan joined Graphical Networks with the purpose of creating the most advanced DCIM and IT visualization company in the market.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *