33
EMA Radar™ for Application Discovery and Dependency Mapping (ADDM): Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile By Dennis Drogseth, VP of Research ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES ® (EMA™) Radar Report November 2013

Ema Radar Addm

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Ema Radar Addm

Citation preview

Page 1: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for Application Discovery and Dependency Mapping (ADDM): Q4 2013Report Summary & ManageEngine ProfileBy Dennis Drogseth, VP of Research ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES® (EMA™) Radar Report

November 2013

Page 2: Ema Radar Addm

Table of Contents

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

2

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

Executive Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 1

Use Cases ......................................................................................................................................... 2Overall ADDM Selection Criteria in Market Context ..................................................................... 3

Architecture ................................................................................................................................. 5The CMDB Connection ............................................................................................................. 8Functional Power and Outreach .................................................................................................. 9

Tradeoffs ......................................................................................................................................... 12Performance Optimized versus Multi-Use Case ........................................................................ 12Other Tradeoffs ......................................................................................................................... 12

Introduction to the Vendors ........................................................................................................... 14Change and Change Impact Management ..................................................................................... 17Service Impact and Service Performance ......................................................................................... 19Service-Aware Asset Management ................................................................................................... 21Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 22ManageEngine Profile ..................................................................................................................... 24

Page 3: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 1

Executive Introduction The Application Discovery and Dependency Mapping (ADDM) market is evolving rapidly, and in multiple directions at once. While this is confusing, it is also a good thing, as in its diversity and diverse solutions, vendors delivering ADDM capabilities are seeking to be more responsive to, as an aggregate, a yet broader set of constituents, requirements, use cases and roles than ever before. This includes requirements emerging from internal and external (public) cloud, the extended enterprise across ecosystems, agile application development and DevOps, and a dramatic upswing in currency, ease of deployment and modularity.

The ten vendors featured in this EMA Radar – AppEnsure, ASG, BMC, HP, IBM, ManageEngine, Neebula, OpTier, Riverbed and ServiceNow – are both collectively and individually reflective of this richness, diversity and innovation. And given this, EMA has made its categories reflective of two interrelated by distinct groups. Foundational or multi-use case ADDM solutions are represented by offerings from ASG, BMC, HP, IBM, and ServiceNow. Performance-optimized ADDM solutions, some of which approach multi-use case in diversity of function, include AppEnsure, ManageEngine, Neebula, OpTier and Riverbed. A more detailed discussion of the tradeoffs between these two groups can be found on page 12.

However, the fact that in the end this is one market with a real continuum of choices, versus two completely separate islands, can be seen in the three use-case-driven bubble charts on pages (17, 19 and 21). These are:

• Service impact and performance management

•Change management and change impact optimization

• Service-aware asset management

Recent EMA research showed that 83% of respondents with serious internal/external cloud initiatives directed at delivering business services were also involved in service modeling of some type (including ADDM, dashboards, and CMDB/CMS). Of these more than half had deployed application discovery and dependency mapping in support of service performance or managing change. Most importantly, those with very effective cloud deployments were far more likely to have investments in ADDM than those with less success.

The lesson here is that visibility and proactive insight count more than ever with the advent of cloud, and given that fact, ADDM, in all of its evolving varieties, may well become the next-generation spine for truly effective service management.

Methodology EMA began this research in Q3 of 2013, collecting data across all ten vendors, who filled out an extensive questionnaire followed by 90-minutes or more of individual review. In addition, EMA spoke to at least one, and in most cases two, customer deployments to validate data points and values. Profiles and positioning were also reviewed by vendors both as an FYI, and to correct any last-minute factual errors.

Page 4: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 2

Use Cases Since ADDM is fundamentally an enabler, it’s important to understand the leading values in terms of use cases that it can support – usually through integrations that range from native, core, single product footprints to highly diverse integrations across multiple third-party options, as well as the vendor’s own portfolio. The three represented here are those most primary in assessing ADDM options, and each has its own distinctive variety of options. A more detailed look at criteria for assessing each use case can be found on pages (17, 19 and 21)

• Changemanagementand change impactoptimization is the heartland of ADDM, and here EMA favored strong and proven CMDB/CMS integrations, powerful levels of automation to support remediation and review processes, and clear role-based support across a wide number of stakeholders. EMA looked at both pre-deployment and production-level change impact. EMA also differentiated between two types of change impact analytics (either directly or through native integrations) – those with clear visual insights into what services will be impacted by change, and those with more advanced analytics to actually predict the outcome of making changes.

• Serviceimpactandperformancemanagement is one of the richest areas of innovation as well as difference. For this area, EMA favored real-time, transaction-aware capabilities native to, or natively integrated with, the ADDM solution itself. This wasn’t, admittedly, a perfect formula as it didn’t emphasize infrastructure performance so much as dependencies impacting application and business service performance suitable for diagnostics, triage, and predicting where changes may damage or enhance services – an overlap with change impact.

• Service-awareassetmanagement is an area of strong focus among some vendors, and marginal focus among others, with quite a spread in between. Once again EMA favored CMDB and other integrations (asset and license management), as well as appropriate automation and role support to manage IT assets throughout their lifecycles as performing contributors to service delivery.

Page 5: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 3

Overall ADDM Selection Criteria in Market Context There has been a lot of focus on improved deployability across the ADDM market. EMA asked about Full-Time Employees (FTEs) associated with initial setup, support for one initial application and then support for multiple applications. Average responses for these across the ten vendors were between .5-1 employee for both initial setup and supporting a single application, with an average of 1–1.5 employees for expanding ADDM support for 15 applications. When asked about skill sets, Figure 1, the spread was telling; however, a growing roll of automation is significantly beginning to make a dent in the complexities of ADDM deployment across the broader market, but especially in performance-optimized ADDM solutions.

81.82%

63.64%

36.36%

27.27%

18.18%

18.18%

18.18%

18.18%

9.09%

9.09%

9.09%

0.00%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Systems administrators

ADDM administrator (person directly responsible for operating your tool)

Network Operations

Application developer/ owner

Security administrators

CMDB/CMS service modeling lead

Configuration managers or process owners

Systems integrator

Asset manager/ administrators

Consultant (vendor)

Other (Please specify)

Consultant (other)

% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)

Figure 1: Skill sets required for ADDM deployments varied significantly, as domain expertise is still often a valuable addition. However, automation in discovery is beginning to play an ever more important role, especially among performance-optimized ADDM solutions.

Page 6: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 4

EMA also looked at administrative values such as keystrokes required for scheduling updates, CI integration policies for ADDM/CMDB administration, and automation in support of administrative requirements. Figure 2 shows how ADDM vendors as a group are progressing towards more advanced levels of automation to minimize administrative overhead.

81.82%

81.82%

81.82%

72.73%

63.64%

45.45%

45.45%

27.27%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Automated, scheduled CMDB updates

Automated alerting for performance and/or capacity issues

Automated alerting to CI stakeholders (either directly or through CMDB or Service Desk integrations)

Automated configuration (either directly or through integration)

Automated, scheduled asset audits

Automated alerting for security issues

Automated administrative data quality checks

Automated, scheduled security audits

% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)

Figure 2: Automation is significantly enhancing ADDM potentials across market, minimizing administrative overhead and optimizing dynamic currency and functional extensions.

Cost and packaging tradeoffs also showed signs of change, especially in the growth of SaaS-based options. SaaS versus on-premise versus appliance issues were examined below. EMA also looked at maintenance costs, which typically ranged in the 19–22% range for most major platform investments, but in a growing number of instances were substantially less, especially with SaaS deployments. In fact more than a third required no maintenance fees.

Page 7: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 5

ArchitectureThere are multiple tradeoffs in terms of agent versus agentless discovery, and EMA took a careful look at how each vendor planned and optimized to one or both options. Our evaluation in terms of tradeoffs is reflected below (under “Tradeoffs); however, Figure 3 shows a promising level of variety and innovation as ADDM vendors move towards both broader functional reach, and more efficient deployments.

9.09%

27.27%

9.09%

27.27%

27.27%

0.00%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Exclusively agent-based

Exclusively agentless

Primarily agent-based

Primarily agentless

A fairly even mix of agent and agentless

Other (Please specify)

Column %

Figure 3: As ADDM solutions evolve, they are providing greater variety of choice in agent-based and agentless discovery.

When it came to agentless discovery capabilities, the nine vendors with at least some support for agentless showed a striking level of versatility, as can be seen in Figure 4.

80.00%

80.00%

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

60.00%

60.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

WMI

SNMP statistics

Flow-based analytics

IP ping sweep

MAC address

Port-level interrogation

Observed transaction analysis

Code analysis

Layer 2 discovery

Other (Please specify)

% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)

Figure 4: Agentless ADDM showed impressive breadth and versatility with dominant support for WMI, SNMP and flow-based analytics.

Page 8: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 6

EMA looked at scalability – in terms of CI counts that ranged from less than 50,000 CIs to more than 10 million CIs – with needless to say a corresponding range of targeted environments and markets. However, most ADDM vendors gravitate towards larger enterprises or otherwise complex environments where the value of capturing interdependencies is dramatic and clear. Domain breadth is also key as ADDM support for all three use cases can profit from enriched insights into domains. These can be either natively discovered or imported through integrations with third-party tools or from the vendor’s own portfolio. Figure 5 shows how the ten vendors, collectively, stacked up in terms of overall domain-related outreach. EMA also looked in much more depth at application components, network components, and virtualized infrastructure for a much closer drilldown.

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

90.91%

81.82%

81.82%

81.82%

81.82%

72.73%

72.73%

72.73%

54.55%

45.45%

36.36%

27.27%

9.09%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Applications out-of-the-box

Applications – custom

Application-to-infrastructure interdependencies

Application-to-application interdependencies

Infrastructure-to-infrastructure interdependencies

Systems discovery

VM and virtualized system discovery

Storage

Peripherals and desktops

Network discovery (Layers 2/3)

Broader support for mixed (network and or storage) virtualized environments

Virtualized applications

Asset inventory integrations

VDI environments

Mainframe

Security-vulnerability-related discovery

Other types of discovery (Please specify)

% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)

Figure 5: Native domain-related reach across the ADDM vendor community not surprisingly focuses on applications first, and then infrastructure, with strong support for systems, virtualized infrastructure and solid storage and network outreach. (Note network was

limited by requirements for Layer 2 which are not as broadly supported across all vendors.) This chart reflects native domain outreach.

Page 9: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 7

In general, outreach can be expanded through integrations either within the vendor’s own portfolio, or else through third-party sources. Figure 6 highlights third-party outreach, which was similar to integrations within vendor portfolios in scope, but prioritized, not surprisingly, network versus application integrations.

80.00%

70.00%

70.00%

70.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

50.00%

50.00%

50.00%

40.00%

40.00%

40.00%

40.00%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Network performance management products

Application performance and/or availability management products

Systems performance management products

Asset management/ cost/capacity for services over infrastructure

Service desk/ Service catalog

Compliance and audits

Network configuration management products

Systems configuration management products

Security and risk management tools

Support for data mining and OLAP

Application development tools

Disaster recovery capabilities

LDAP directory services

Business planning systems

% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)

Figure 6: Third-party integrations can go a long way to extend ADDM vendor outreach, as is highlighted above. Data for integrations within a single vendor portfolio parallel these priorities, but with applications taking the lead.

Page 10: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 8

The CMDB ConnectionAll vendors in this EMA Radar have demonstrated at least architectural capabilities for CMDB integration. For many, CMDB integration is centric to their story, and in some cases a fully embedded part of the solution. However, among the performance-centric ADDM solutions, CMDB focus varied from core (e.g. with Neebula and ManageEngine) to marginal or yet-to-be-deployed (e.g. with Riverbed and AppEnsure, due in this case in large part to AppEnsure’s newness in the market). On a per-use-case basis CMDBs were viewed as paramount values for change management and change impact management, of critical importance for service-aware asset management, and of real value for service impact and performance management.

Given this diversity, it wasn’t surprising that most ADDM vendors supported data synchronization, either natively or through a CMDB (this was about 50/50). Data reconciliation strongly favored CMDB integration by more than two to one. And data normalization relied on CMDB integration at more than three to one. Figure 7 shows CI states supported at least in part via CMDB integration.

63.64%

54.55%

45.45%

36.36%

27.27%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Actual (as discovered)

Desired

Historical/past

None, we don’t depend on integrations for CI state support

Other (Please specify)

% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)

Figure 7: Integration with CMDBs can significantly enrich the breadth of CI states supported through ADDM solutions beyond “Actual/Discovered” and “Historical” to “Desired/Approved,” as well as “Other” states such as “Future/Planned.”

Page 11: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 9

Functional Power and OutreachOne testament to the strengths of the ADDM vendors in this EMA Radar is that all of them can discover more than 50 third-party applications out of the box, and the great majority can discovery more than 100 third-party apps without customization. Frequency of updates is also moving with nearly three quarters supporting near real-time updates and 100% able to support run-time changes based on policy-triggered updates, from, for instance, vMotion occurrences.

Figure 8 shows a similar power in terms of ADDM outreach when it comes to natively capturing interdependencies for third-party applications. Similar breadth was also indicated for custom applications.

100.00%

100.00%

90.91%

90.91%

72.73%

72.73%

72.73%

63.64%

36.36%

36.36%

18.18%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Application-to-database interdependencies

Application-to-application interdependencies

Application-to-middleware

Support for automated discovery of services (coarse-grained services comprised of multiple fine-grained

services) and their dependencies

Automatic association of discovered applications to up-stream and downstream infrastructure elements

Transactional awareness

Association of applications to transactions

Identification of application processes and sub-processes

Native support for SOA registry/ repository

User presence (activity) on a component

Pre-deployment support for applications

% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)

Figure 8: Native capabilities for ADDM interdependencies for third-party applications out of the box have evolved to become rich and varied, with an average across all ten of 7.5 per vendor. Custom application support showed a similar breadth.

Page 12: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 10

Automation is also key for the ADDM environment, empowering both actions and triggering alarms and process automation for remediation and governance. Figure 9 shows that automation is yet another growing area of ADDM market attention.

90.91%

81.82%

81.82%

81.82%

72.73%

72.73%

63.64%

54.55%

45.45%

45.45%

36.36%

36.36%

27.27%

18.18%

0.00%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Role-based access controls including read-only

Device-specific discovery updates

Application-specific discovery updates

VMotion specific updates

Automated discovery triggered by events/alerts

Automated discovery triggered by workflow, or other process automation capabilities

Overall update scheduling

Process workflows to support active remediation for performance issues

Report generation to support compliance audits

Software asset-reports, updates

Alarm notification for out of compliance changes

Pre-deployment validation of compliance for planned changes

Process workflows to support active remediation for change/configuration issues

Organizational- or other logically defined updates

Other (Please specify)

% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)

Figure 9: Automation can support a wide range of use cases including the three overall use case areas in this EMA Radar. Once again, data here shows a trend towards rapid innovation with more than 8 automation integrations per vendor on average.

Page 13: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 11

In the end, all technology is an enabler for people – stakeholders, executives and sometimes even consumers – to work more effectively. ADDM vendors are well along in expanding their reach to support a broader set of constituencies within and across use cases, as can be seen in Figure 10.

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

90.91%

81.82%

81.82%

81.82%

81.82%

72.73%

72.73%

72.73%

72.73%

72.73%

63.64%

54.55%

54.55%

36.36%

36.36%

36.36%

27.27%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Application management

Systems management

Service management

Network management

Application developer

Infrastructure engineer

Network engineer

Configuration and change management

Q/A Test

Infrastructure architect

Service portfolio planning

IT asset management

C.A.B. review

CIVP of Operations

Other executive

Executive/business – non IT support

IT financial planning

Security officer

Financial management (non IT)

Other (Please specify)

% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)

Figure 10: Breadth as well as depth in role support is also critical for ADDM investments, which are among other things critical in supporting cross-functional views with a common grounding. The average breadth of role support

per vendor tallied 13, with a clear focus on applications, systems and service management as leads.

Page 14: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 12

TradeoffsNo design analysis can be perfect, as each design targets use cases and priorities that are endemic to itself. To create rules, as is necessary here, is automatically to become “partial” to one type of investment or another. So in order to help you better assess the “rules of the game” as they apply to this ADDM Radar, here are just a few guidelines.

Performance Optimized versus Multi-Use CaseMulti-Use Case: ADDM first became an area of extreme innovation almost ten years ago, with the initial tidal wave of interest in CMDB deployments and the need to capture service-related interdependencies more effectively than from mere hearsay. That initial crop of entrants pretty much all got acquired and became foundational technologies to leading platform solutions such as IBM, HP and BMC. As a group, these were focused on capturing configuration-related changes as well as application-to-infrastructure residency, with updates most frequently on a 24-hour basis.

More recently, important new entrants such as ServiceNow and ASG further helped to evolve the multi-use case option, which, along with innovations from HP, IBM and BMC has become more real-time, easier to deploy and in some cases fully SaaS-enabled, while still enriching its core, CMDB/CMS roots. In some instances, the move to support performance, as well as change and asset, has taken on largely equal weight.

Performance-optimized ADDM: About five years ago, the industry began to see a new crop of ADDM solutions more focused on performance interdependencies, transactional awareness and more real-time dynamic currency. Many of these also supported CMDB integrations; all were highly automated, and to some degree were complementary to ADDM-related investments from the first wave. The vendors selected here all show multi-use case relevance and at least architectural potential for CMDB/CMS support – some more richly than others. The vendors in this category are also raising the bar on in-depth transactional awareness; dynamic, operational insights into application-to-application and application-to-infrastructure interdependencies; and higher levels of automation in terms of discovery and currency.

Which one is right for you? The goal of this EMA Radar is to provide you with a landscape in which to find one, or multiple, design points optimized to your needs. As the ADDM market progresses, EMA is increasingly seeing both groups evolving to harvest strengths from each other, and in this respect, becoming more alike. On the other hand, at least for the foreseeable future, there will be numerous situations where a complementary relationship between two separate ADDM packages may be the right choice. While this may create a divide with added administrative challenges in the longer term, in the near term it may be the better option for covering all three use cases. Once again, the goal of this EMA Radar is to provide you with the data you need to make the right choice—both near-term and longer-term as your needs evolve.

Other Tradeoffs•Agent versus agentless – Of the vendors in this EMA Radar, two are primarily agent-based, three

are 100% agentless, and the rest exhibit some mix. EMA evaluated each solution in context, while recognizing advantages in having both options, especially when it came to harvesting other agent-based data. The unique discovery approaches of each vendor are made explicit in each profile, as all have well thought-out design points inherent to themselves. Once again, these should be evaluated carefully in terms of your individual priorities, versus a generic right/wrong approach.

Page 15: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 13

•Opex versus capex – While opex costs in terms of administrative overhead generally overshadow capex costs in terms of raw purchase in the ADDM marketplace, one of the limitations of the bubble chart design is to give both equal weights. However, the pentagons and the individual profile specifics, as well as some of the highlights brought forward in this report summary, should make it clear when, as in a few cases, capex costs may be high, but opex exceedingly low. It should be added that this is also, generally, a formula for positive customer reactions. EMA validated opex realities, as well, through targeted deployment interviews.

• SaaS or on-premise or appliance – Once again this is an area of significant change in the ADDM marketplace, as EMA is seeing dramatic shifts in terms of improvements in ease of deployment and a move to SaaS. In general, SaaS had the upper hand when it came to ease of deployment, although virtual appliance packaging also showed strong promise. Functional options were measured regardless of packaging. One inherently popular option among adopters was to allow IT a choice between on-premise and true SaaS with full preservation of modeling and other investments.

•Do it yourself versus integrations for discovery – Based on dialogs with real customer deployments, little pleases more than an ADDM solution that can take advantage of other pre-existing investments and bring added value across the board. This is, admittedly, partly a psychological plus, as IT organizations like to see new investments that make pre-existing solutions look smarter. It can also be a political plus in terms of getting stakeholders on board more easily, especially when truly cross-domain insights are required. These integrations can be within a single portfolio, or with third-party solutions, or with both. On the other hand, fully integrated solutions that “do it all themselves” also have a positive value and can draw positive customer reactions in terms of speed of deployment and consistency in value. Not surprisingly, EMA saw more of a focus on harvesting third-party investments, in particular, among the multi-use-case ADDM vendors with broader cross-domain and more varied stakeholder concerns.

•Do it yourself versus integrations for function – Since ADDM solutions are enablers first and foremost, functional integrations were paramount in assessing each solution on a per-use-case basis. Analytics, for instance, whether for change, performance, capacity or asset-related insights, were paramount here. CMDB/CMS integrations were also viewed as critical, especially for change, change impact and service-aware asset management. This was a deliberate “rule” priority for this EMA Radar based on the broader ADDM market, how it has evolved, and how it continues to be evolving. However, once again, the individual profiles are intended to give fully balanced insights based on vendor priorities in function and direction.

Page 16: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 14

Introduction to the Vendors•AppEnsure – Santa Clara based AppEnsure is a newcomer to the ADDM market and to this Radar

Report. Its ADDM product, also called “AppEnsure,” is primarily targeted at performance and to a lesser degree, change and asset management. AppEnsure achieved a Value Leader in service impact and performance management, and was one of the very top vendors in ease of administration and resource efficiencies. AppEnsure’s auto discovery design provides excellent application coverage; among the best in this EMA Radar. AppEnsure uses an auto discovery design, discovering application flows and mapping topology and user response times from these flows to create the application topology and update that topology in near real time as changes occur – all without user configuration steps. This allows for excellent “out-of-the-box” support for a large number of applications including custom apps. AppEnsure won this EMA Radar’s Newest Innovator award.

•ASG – EMA has witnessed a growing trend towards SaaS among ADDM vendors, as well as a move to integrate multiple discovery systems into a common view, but only ASG’s DDM/Trackbird has combined both. This is why ASG won the Most Improved award since the December 2010 EMA Radar for ADDM report (when ASG won another award for Best Vision and Design). ASG offers a solid set of options for assimilating third-party solutions, advanced data normalization, powerful CMDB/ADDM integration, and broad use-case adaptability. ASG-DDM/Trackbird was a Value Leader in service-aware asset management and change impact management, and a Strong Value in performance management. ASG is also distinctive in its strong support for custom applications, lifecycle application interdependencies (including development and DevOps), and integrated automation.

• BMC – BMC Atrium Discovery and Dependency Mapping scored consistently among the top two vendors in functionality for change management and change impact analysis, as well as service-aware asset management, where Atrium Discovery and Dependency Mapping achieved Value Leader rankings. In change management and change impact analysis, BMC was the leading vendor in combined functional and architectural scores. BMC’s very real strengths in service impact and performance management were not evaluated as they are not primarily focused through BMC ADDM. BMC has the most extensive interoperability options to third-party software of any vendor in this EMA Radar, and uniquely shows value in security-related compliance audits. The vendor has also developed a user community around creating patterns for new interdependencies that are available in a rapidly expanding library with fully supported monthly updates.

•HP – Once its history is considered, it’s not surprising that HP’s Universal Discovery has the highest score for “stronger features, architecture and integration” when averaged across all three use cases. When HP introduced its Universal Discovery (UD) capability in July of 2012, it brought together two critical ADDM-related capabilities. The core foundation was HP’s Discovery and Dependency Mapping Advanced Edition (DDMA), which was a Value Leader in the 2010 EMA Radar for ADDM. But now, fully integrated with this, is HP’s Discovery and Dependency Mapping Inventory (DDMI), which provides added insights and efficiencies, especially in the area of service-aware asset management. HP’s Universal Discovery comes fully integrated with HP’s UCMDB, which enables significant added strengths in integrations, the management of policies, and support for a distinctively rich set of CI states. And finally, Universal Discovery is extended into the performance arena via HP’s Run-time Service Model (RtSM) with a richly bi-directional integration.

Page 17: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 15

• IBM – If you are looking for a consistent and versatile ADDM performer, with a powerful mix of advanced functionality and compelling affordability, then IBM Tivoli® Application Dependency Discovery Manager (TADDM) is for you. With a solid Value Leader position in both change and asset management, and a Strong Value position near the cusp of Value Leader for performance management, IBM is the most consistent strong performer across both axes in this EMA Radar. IBM got a lead on the ADDM market early on, when it acquired one of the industry leaders, Collation, back in 2005. Since then, IBM has made ADDM a far more integrated part of its portfolio, with strong support for both classic service management via TBSM, as well as native integration with the CMDB in IBM’s SmartCloud Control Desk.

•ManageEngine – ManageEngine’s IT360 product is the most cost-effective ADDM solution in this year’s EMA Radar report. It primarily targets mid-tier businesses with a set of tooling that offers all of the basic capabilities for performance, change impact and asset management at an extremely competitive price. ManageEngine is an economic Value Leader in service impact and performance management in this Radar. IT360’s well thought-out reporting and visualization helped the product achieve Strong Value in both asset and change impact management. Among comparably sized vendors ManageEngine offers the broadest coverage of all three aspects of ADDM. ManageEngine won this Radar’s Vendor on the Move award because of its near-term plans to automate updates between its application discovery and its CMDB. These improvements should make a dramatic difference, especially in its change management position, where EMA expects the vendor to emerge as a cost-effective Value Leader.

•Neebula – If your IT organization is seeking an ADDM solution with strong performance and business impact management, and solid support for change impact and asset management, all optimized to leverage your existing monitoring investments, Neebula ServiceWatch should be at the very top of your list. Neebula’s discovery requires only a single application entry point per service and lets ServiceWatch discover and map the full application topology into meaningful business service context. This allows for excellent “out-of-the-box” support for a large number of applications including custom apps. In some deployments, ServiceWatch functions as a CMDB with asset, service desk and other integrations directly. Neebula was a strong Value Leader in service impact and performance management, and a well-positioned Strong Value in both other use cases, making it one of the most singularly balanced performers in this EMA Radar.

•OpTier – No other vendor, in this Radar or elsewhere, has come close to OpTier in understanding how the transactional stage supports balanced insights into both IT service and business performance. OpTier’s APM solution, which is now available both on-premise and as a fully mature SaaS offering, is complemented by its Advanced Analytics Module optimized for analyzing business outcomes as they can be viewed through the transactional window. OpTier was a Value Leader in service impact and performance management with the highest overall score in Functionality and Architecture, and a Strong Value in change management and change impact analysis, as well as service-aware asset management, where its well established CMDB support provides added use-case advantages.

• Riverbed – AppMapper Xpert ranked as a Value Leader in service awareness and performance management in this EMA Radar, with strong function and integration within their own product suite coupled with low operational costs. The product achieved Strong Value in Change Impact because of its visualization capabilities and its rich integrations across Riverbed’s portfolio. AppMapper Xpert offers a rules-based discovery engine that utilizes an application entry point

Page 18: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 16

and then progressively evaluates observed relationships and components for possible inclusion in a business service. AppMapper Xpert was a Targeted Value in asset management where, coupled with other Riverbed integrations, it can provide a foundation for discovering IT investments and linking them to service delivery requirements. Riverbed’s product is available both as a SaaS and on-premise offering and uses both agent-based and agentless technology.

• ServiceNow – ServiceNow Application Dependency Mapping (ADM) leads the pack in cost-effective versatility, ease of deployment and effective, in-built automation. ServiceNow ADM is a Value Leader in change management and service-aware asset management, and a Strong Value in performance management. ServiceNow’s agentless discovery is fully SaaS-enabled and not only “integrated” with its CMDB, the ServiceNow solution is all the same code base, so its ADDM capabilities can be natively leveraged across its entire portfolio. ServiceNow’s “single platform” idea, which has always been at the heart of the vendor’s design philosophy, plays especially well to ADDM, where interdependency insights can natively impact so many use cases, applications and values.

Page 19: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 17

Change and Change Impact ManagementChange and change impact management are at the very heart of ADDM for both multi-use-case and performance-optimized solutions. The core idea of ADDM is to provide insights into where interdependencies fall so that when something changes (intentional or not) it’s easier to understand the consequences.

The Change and Change Impact Management Bubble Chart shows strong advantages to multi-use case ADDM, but with a critical and meaningful presence across the performance-optimized community. This is in large part because fully integrated CMDB/CMS support was ranked as central here, as were some of the process automation and governance features associated with service desk values. However, also critical were at least reasonably dynamic insights into the impacts of changes on performance, and performance-driven alerts to support requirements for triage after changes were made to the overall environment. Finally, in association with change, planning based on utilization and capacity data was considered an extra value when it could be integrated into the totality.

2013 EMA Radar for ADDM: Change Management

VENDOR

STRENGTH

VALUE RATING

AVERAGE EXCEPTIONALBASIC

AV

ER

AG

EE

XC

EP

TIO

NA

LB

AS

IC

RESOURCE EFFICIENCY Lower Time, Effort and Cost

Stro

nger

Fea

ture

s, A

rchi

tect

ure

and

Inte

grat

ion

SO

LU

TIO

N I

MP

AC

T

STRONG VALUE

VALUE LEADER

LIMITED VALUE

TARGETED VALUE

STROSTSTROSTRSTROSTROSTROTRR NG VNG VG VNG VNG VNG VNG VVALUEALUEALUEALUEALUALUEALUEALUEUESTRONG VALUE

VALUVALUVALUVALUVALUVALUVALAL E LEE LEE LEE LEE LEE LEE LEE LEADERADERADERADERADERADERADERADERADEVALUE LEADER

LILIMILIMLIMILIMIMIMITED TED TEDTEDTEDTE VALUVALUVALULVALUVALUVALUVALUUEEEEEEEELIMITED VALUE

ATARGTARTARGTARGARGAR ETEDTEDDETEDETEDETEDE VALVALVALVALVALVAVA UUEUEUUEEETARGETED VALUE

2013 EMA Radar for ADDM: Change Managem

EAVERAGE EXCEPTIONALBASIC

EA

VE

RA

GE

EX

CE

PT

ION

AL

BA

SIC

forr AADDM: Changge Managgem

AppEnsure

ASG

BMC HP IBM

ManageEngine

Neebula

OpTier

Riverbed

ServiceNow

AppEnsure

ASG

BMC HP IBM

ManageEngine

Neebula

OpTier

Riverbed

ServiceNow

Figure 11: The Change and Change Impact Management Landscape

Page 20: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 18

A closer look at how change and change impact analytics were evaluated can be seen in Figure 12. It should be stressed, as was mentioned in the tradeoffs, that “if/then” analytics could come in at multiple levels. The first and most basic was simply visual insight into where and how planned changes might impact business application systems, as well as other potential infrastructure interdependencies. The next level, communicated through interviews with the vendors, involved more advanced analytic requirements to assess the impacts of changes, often with insights into capacity. Similarly, trending could range from basic historical reporting, to more a more analytic basis for looking at patterns, baselines, and other factors. As a rule, most ADDM vendors support basic levels of if/then and trending directly, although through integrations, these can be significantly enhanced – especially in targeted areas such as optimizing virtual infrastructures or data center consolidation.

100.00%

85.71%

85.71%

85.71%

85.71%

71.43%

71.43%

71.43%

71.43%

71.43%

57.14%

42.86%

0.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Analytics/reports to support the impacts of change on overall service availability

Analytics/reports to support the impacts of change on specific systems components

Analytics/reports to support the impacts of change on network components

Analytics/reports to show owners for changes

Analytics/reports to support C.A.B. review

Analytics/reports to support the impacts of change on virtualized systems

Analytics/reports to support the impacts of change on database components

Analytics/reports to support the impacts of change on storage components

Analytics/reports to support the impacts of change on business or user-experience metrics

Analytics/reports to support Dev/Ops requirements

Analytics/reports to show customer impacts of changes

Analytics/reports to support dynamic optimization of the infrastructure

Other (Please specify)

% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)

Figure 12: Integrations can significantly extend the reach of change impact analytics for ADDM investments as shown above. EMA asked about both pre-production and production-level change analytics, as well as analytics delivered natively versus through integration. Above

is the chart showing how integrations can extend ADDM analytic values for change and change impact management in production.

Page 21: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 19

Service Impact and Service PerformanceService impact and service performance not surprisingly favored performance-optimized ADDM. Here real-time currency was at a premium. And as mentioned in tradeoffs, here EMA deliberately prioritized transaction-aware insights that could in turn relate to business outcomes versus more bottoms-up, infrastructure performance. Higher levels of automation in discovery with native integrations for performance management solutions are also typical of the Value Leaders in this use case.

2013 EMA Radar for ADDM: Performance Management

VENDOR

STRENGTH

VALUE RATING

AVERAGE EXCEPTIONALBASIC

AV

ER

AG

EE

XC

EP

TIO

NA

LB

AS

IC

RESOURCE EFFICIENCY Lower Time, Effort and Cost

Stro

nger

Fea

ture

s, A

rchi

tect

ure

and

Inte

grat

ion

SO

LU

TIO

N I

MP

AC

T

STRONG VALUE

VALUE LEADER

LIMITED VALUE

TARGETED VALUE

STROSTSTROSTRSTROSTROSTROTRR NG VNG VG VNG VNG VNG VNG VVALUEALUEALUEALUEALUALUEALUEALUEUESTRONG VALUE

VALUVALUVALUVALUVALUVALUVALAL E LEE LEE LEE LEE LEE LEE LEE LEADERADERADERADERADERADERADERADERADEVALUE LEADER

LILIMILIMLIMILIMIMIMITED TED TEDTEDTEDTE VALUVALUVALULVALUVALUVALUVALUUEEEEEEEELIMITED VALUE

ATARGTARTARGTARGARGAR ETEDTEDDETEDETEDETEDE VALVALVALVALVALVAVA UUEUEUUEEETARGETED VALUE

2013 EMA Radar for ADDM: Performance Manage

EAVERAGE EXCEPTIONALBASIC

EA

VE

RA

GE

EX

CE

PT

ION

AL

BA

SIC

ADDDM: Performance Manage

AppEnsure

ASG

HP

IBM

ManageEngine

Neebula

OpTier

Riverbed

ServiceNow

AppEnsure

ASG

HP

IBM

ManageEngine

Neebula

OpTier

Riverbed

ServiceNow

Figure 13: Service impact and performance management prioritized real-time, transaction-aware insights into application and business services

Page 22: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 20

Once again, EMA looked at native and integrated capabilities (both third-party and from within a vendor’s own portfolio) to evaluate overall ADDM strengths in performance. As per these charts, the results show an average of more than seven performance-analytic strengths per vendor.

100.00%

100.00%

90.00%

90.00%

90.00%

90.00%

80.00%

70.00%

0.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Real-time analytics driven insights into service performance for diagnostics

Analytics for capacity planning and optimization

Queries based on topology or relationships

Cross-domain service impact analysis on request (not real time)

Cross-domain root cause analysis on request (not real time)

Change impact/ service impact analysis

Real-time analytics-drive insights into service performance for business impact - Which of the

following types of reports and analysis can your solution

Time based analysis (e.g. today versus last week)

Other (Please specify)

% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)

Figure 14: Service impact and performance management depends on either native or integrated support for a wide range of analytic values. Figure 14 highlights integrated capabilities

Page 23: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 21

Service-Aware Asset ManagementService-aware asset management or “next-generation asset management” involves managing and optimizing assets across domains as performing contributors to service delivery. In the most advanced instances, this can even include off-premise service provider interdependencies as well as a full range of on-premise infrastructure, software and application insights. Service-aware asset management makes use of a full range of associated capabilities all of which can profit from ADDM insights.

2013 EMA Radar for ADDM: Asset Management

VENDOR

STRENGTH

VALUE RATING

AVERAGE EXCEPTIONALBASIC

AV

ER

AG

EE

XC

EP

TIO

NA

LB

AS

IC

RESOURCE EFFICIENCY Lower Time, Effort and Cost

Stro

nger

Fea

ture

s, A

rchi

tect

ure

and

Inte

grat

ion

SO

LU

TIO

N I

MP

AC

T

STRONG VALUE

VALUE LEADER

LIMITED VALUE

TARGETED VALUE

STROSTSTROSTRSTROSTROSTROTRR NG VNG VG VNG VNG VNG VNG VVALUEALUEALUEALUEALUALUEALUEALUEUESTRONG VALUE

VALUVALUVALUVALUVALUVALUVALAL E LEE LEE LEE LEE LEE LEE LEE LEADERADERADERADERADERADERADERADERADEVALUE LEADER

LILIMILIMLIMILIMIMIMITED TED TEDTEDTEDTE VALUVALUVALULVALUVALUVALUVALUUEEEEEEEELIMITED VALUE

ATARGTARTARGTARGARGAR ETEDTEDDETEDETEDETEDE VALVALVALVALVALVAVA UUEUEUUEEETARGETED VALUE

2013 EMA Radar for ADDM: Asset Manageme

EAVERAGE EXCEPTIONALBASIC

EA

VE

RA

GE

EX

CE

PT

ION

AL

BA

SIC

foorr ADDM: Asset Managgeme

AppEnsure

ASG

BMC HP IBM

ManageEngine

Neebula

OpTier

Riverbed

ServiceNow

AppEnsure

ASG

BMC HP IBM

ManageEngine

Neebula

OpTier

Riverbed

ServiceNow

Figure 15: Service-aware asset management enables an IT organization to manage and optimize its assets across all domains from a lifecycle perspective in support of service delivery

Page 24: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 22

The data below (Figure 16) shows how ADDM vendors can extend their reach and value in service-aware asset management through integrations, ranging from basic inventory support, to software and software license management, to Green IT and virtualized systems tracking. EMA also evaluated native capabilities as well as integrations for the ADDM community in this use case.

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

85.71%

85.71%

71.43%

57.14%

0.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Basic inventory

Software asset management (custom)

Software asset management (COTS)

Software license management

Hardware usage and maintenance

Other asset-related compliance reporting

Service portfolio planning

Analytics for capacity planning and optimization

Lifecycle asset management and planning

Virtualized systems tracking

Green IT initiatives

Other (Please specify)

% Valid Cases (Mentions / Valid Cases)

Figure 16: Once again, integrations can extend value significantly for ADDM vendors, this time in service-aware asset management

ConclusionAs the ADDM market evolves, there continues to be some solutions of note outside of the ten vendors represented here. Perhaps the most notable standout is CA’s Configuration Automation which provides dynamic insights optimized, in particular, for change and configuration management with fully native CMDB integrations. Another example, to emphasize variety, is Network Instrument’s ADDM capability optimized for network engineers and network planning, but without current CMDB integration capabilities (a requirement for participation in this radar). And finally, a brand new innovator that only came to EMA’s attention after completing this Radar, VNT, with IlluminIT, that shows strong promise as a middle ground between performance-optimized and multi-use-case ADDM solutions. The message to take away is one of diversity, innovation and change, as ADDM technologies continue to evolve.

However, given its breadth and depth, one should view this EMA Radar as hands-down the best place to begin your search – both as a way of gaining insight into ten industry-leading solutions, and as a platform for criteria and analysis in selecting what’s best in ADDM for you. Once again, the goal isn’t

Page 25: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 Report Summary & ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 23

to provide you with linear “winners” and “losers,” but to give you more meaningful insights into design, cost, functionality and administrative tradeoffs across a richly innovative and progressive set of vendors. This is true in many respects for larger, platform solutions just as it is for smaller new comers.

This EMA Radar has also been built around a premise that ADDM in many respects provides the key to the future of service management as it begins to unite real-time service performance issues with more process-defined change, configuration and asset management values. Industry dynamics in cloud, including new evolving standards like Topology and Orchestration Specification for Cloud Applications (TOSCA) should actually play to and enrich these trends in the coming years. While the need for IT to have a better “model” of its services as they relate to business values and business outcomes will be yet another driver.

EMA looks forward to the time when it can once again do a Radar with ADDM solutions even more united than today’s in “performance-optimized” and “multi-use case” as ADDM service modeling becomes a yet more pervasive and fundamental enabler for optimizing IT services, and the infrastructure investments supporting them, to business results.

Page 26: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 24

ManageEngine ProfileIntroductionManageEngine’s IT360 product is the most cost-effective ADDM solution in this year’s EMA Radar for ADDM report. ManageEngine is a division of privately held Zoho Corporation—as Zoho’s more enterprise-oriented arm. It primarily targets mid-tier businesses with a set of tooling that offers all of the basic capabilities for performance, change impact and asset management at an extremely competitive price. While IT360 may not have all of the features and capabilities of some other competitors it can be a perfect fit for many customers, including large enterprises, which make up approximately one-third of ManageEngine’s customers.

ManageEngine is an economic Value Leader in service impact and performance management in this EMA Radar. ADM offers strong function and integration within the vendor’s own product suite coupled with low acquisition and operational costs. IT360’s well-thought-out reporting and visualization helped the product achieve Strong Value in both asset and change impact management. Among comparably sized vendors ManageEngine offers the broadest coverage of all three aspects of ADDM.

ManageEngine’s product is available only as on-premise offering and uses only agentless technology. An agentless-only approach precludes some access to deep information about systems or applications, but makes the product simpler to deploy and maintain. This is in keeping with the company’s stated goal to offer significantly comparable function to other tools at a much lower price.

EMA Recognition Award: Vendor on the MoveManageEngine has near-term plans to automate updates between its application discovery and its CMDB, which may be available as early as Q1 next year. These improvements should make a dramatic difference, especially in its change management position, but also in delivering more dynamic and seamless insights between performance and change. ManageEngine also has longer term plans to enhance its application discovery process towards a more complete set of automated insights into application-to-application and application-to-infrastructure interdependencies.

Page 27: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 25

Service Impact and Performance Management – Value LeaderIT360 sweeps the network for devices and applications based on preset policies. IT360 also offers out-of-the-box support for more than one hundred applications across all popular platforms. The product offers approximately 150 reports, among the most supplied by any vendors in the EMA Radar for ADDM. For service impact, reports include real time analytics for business impact and problem diagnostics. Reports for cross-domain root cause and time based analyses are also supported for improved debugging and time to problem resolution.

VALUELEADER

Page 28: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 26

Change Management and Change Impact Analysis – Strong ValueManageEngine’s change management capabilities were not leading in this radar, but include sufficient capability in change management to most customers. IT360 drives significant value from its low cost for acquisition. Administrative overhead was higher in change management and asset management because of the lack of automation between its application discovery and its CMDB. With the near-term automation enhancements mentioned above, ManageEngine should become a leader in administrative efficiencies in these use cases, as well.

Among ManageEngine’s primary capabilities for change management are its reports and visualization covering important all critical lifecycle stages. These include inventories of applications and services mapped to systems for an easy understanding of impacts resulting from changes in system availability or configuration.

IT360 supports CMDB import and export to augment its reporting. Change analysis is mostly through visual inspection and comparison which is likely adequate for small or less complex environments but may be problematic for large or complex environments. However the vendor does have near-term plans to automate this process—as per its “Vendor on the Move” Award. Support for change-related automation includes import of information from other discovery tools and service desk/service catalog information. This will move ManageEngine squarely into the Value Leader category once it’s available.

STRONGVALUE

Page 29: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 27

Service-Aware Asset Management – Strong ValueIn asset management ManageEngine’s function and capabilities rank at the top of the comparably sized vendors. These coupled with low cost drives significant customer value. IT360’s asset management supports all domains including peripherals with all major functionality. Beyond basic inventory information it includes software asset management, license management compliance reporting and hardware usage and lifecycle; making it among the more extensive in asset management coverage in this EMA Radar. However ADM’s currently primarily manual CMDB integration limits its service-aware asset management benefits somewhat. Once again, this should change with near-term automation-driven enhancements.

Deployment and Administrative EfficienciesManageEngine’s extensive out-of-the-box templates for application dependency discovery augmented by wizards allow IT360 to be ranked among the middle of the pack for resource utilization. The large number of preconfigured reports reduce the customer needs to develop comparable reports for tracking, reporting and analysis. IT360 has role-based access controls that help reduce errors being introduced through changes through segmenting operational controls.

STRONGVALUE

Page 30: Ema Radar Addm

About Enterprise Management Associates, Inc.Founded in 1996, Enterprise Management Associates (EMA) is a leading industry analyst firm that provides deep insight across the full spectrum of IT and data management technologies. EMA analysts leverage a unique combination of practical experience, insight into industry best practices, and in-depth knowledge of current and planned vendor solutions to help its clients achieve their goals. Learn more about EMA research, analysis, and consulting services for enterprise line of business users, IT professionals and IT vendors at www.enterprisemanagement.com or blogs.enterprisemanagement.com. You can also follow EMA on Twitter or Facebook.

This report in whole or in part may not be duplicated, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or retransmitted without prior written permission of Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All opinions and estimates herein constitute our judgement as of this date and are subject to change without notice. Product names mentioned herein may be trademarks and/or registered trademarks of their respective companies. “EMA” and “Enterprise Management Associates” are trademarks of Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. in the United States and other countries.

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. EMA™, ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES®, and the mobius symbol are registered trademarks or common-law trademarks of Enterprise Management Associates, Inc.

Corporate Headquarters: 1995 North 57th Court, Suite 120 Boulder, CO 80301 Phone: +1 303.543.9500 Fax: +1 303.543.7687 www.enterprisemanagement.com 2631-ManageEngine-SUMMARY.111913

Page 31: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 29

ManageEngine has some automated capabilities today such as automated discovery based on workflow, overall schedule updates and device specific updates. Automated discovery triggered by events and alerts is not available today but is in the company’s roadmap. The company feels that they have covered many of the functional requirements through templates and manual efforts and has a vision to now automate many tasks in priority order of their cost to users. This is the next big step for ManageEngine and we fully agree with this direction.

Cost AdvantageManageEngine’s IT360 is far and away the lowest priced on premise offering in this radar. Prices are often hard to compare directly across vendors as many use different metrics so we used sample configurations. In these cases IT360 was the lowest priced offering by a healthy amount. Its deal size for many customers starts around $10,000 and is based on the number of servers. Maintenance charges run 19% to 22% per year. As mentioned earlier the product has relatively low resource requirements with a company vision of reducing these further over time through automation.

Architecture and IntegrationIT360 shows well in architecture and integration. The product uses agentless support with a good mix of discovery techniques including flow-based analytics, SNMP, MAC address, WMI and Layer 2 statistics. Observed transaction and code analysis are not supported. ManageEngine has very complete out-of-the box application coverage through preconfigured templates.

ManageEngine has very good integration within their own product suite and offers some integration to many third-party products to extend their capabilities and domain coverage. The product has excellent scalability in some areas such as support for more than 10,000 attributes out of the box and has deployments that have over 50,000 attributes defined. IT360 supports most of the popular virtualization environments such as VMware ESX and Microsoft’s Hyper-V. Citrix Xen will be supported within a few months of publishing this report.

FunctionalityManageEngine functionality has been largely addressed in context of the use-cases earlier. One interesting feature not discussed is an integrated project management tool. This feature was added at the request of several customers as a way of keeping track of progress and completion of IT related tasks where discovery and validation was important such as migration to OS patch levels or a new level of an application across servers or desktops. It is an interesting example of listening to and responding to customer feedback, and yet another case where IT360 contains a sufficient amount of function to eliminate the need for a more extensive or specialty tool.

Vendor StrengthManageEngine as a division of Zoho Corporation has strong financial standing having been profitable from their beginnings and being self-funded. ManageEngine has a very large installed base of 70,000 deployments spread across almost every country. The company’s success reflects an effective organizing principle—of offering significant function for a very affordable price.

Page 32: Ema Radar Addm

EMA Radar™ for ADDM: Q4 2013 ManageEngine Profile

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 30

Strengths and LimitationsStrengths:•ManageEngine is the cost-value leader overall across all three use cases.

•ManageEngine strength in reporting and integration coupled with the lowest costs in the EMA Radar for ADDM place them in the Value Leader category for the performance management use case.

• IT360 addresses all three primary ADDM uses cases well with a vision of improving resource requirements through automation.

•The product supports over 100 applications out of the box through preconfigured templates; another example of a solution built with the customer in mind.

Limitations• IT360 does not yet have automated updates between its ADM capability and its CMDB, which

limit its value, especially in change management and asset management. However this is about to change shortly—the reason for its “Vendor on the Move” Award.

•The reliance on scripts for application dependency discovery for custom applications can be labor intensive and potentially problematic though certainly not insurmountable.

Customer Comments • “ManageEngine’s tagline is to have ninety percent of the function at ten percent of the price of other tools

and they adhere to that.”

• “We do not use even all of the function that IT360 provides, so why would we pay more for even more things we will not use? It fits our needs very well.”

• “ManageEngine is very responsive to our needs and transparent about where things stand in terms of product direction and development.”

Page 33: Ema Radar Addm

About Enterprise Management Associates, Inc.Founded in 1996, Enterprise Management Associates (EMA) is a leading industry analyst firm that provides deep insight across the full spectrum of IT and data management technologies. EMA analysts leverage a unique combination of practical experience, insight into industry best practices, and in-depth knowledge of current and planned vendor solutions to help its clients achieve their goals. Learn more about EMA research, analysis, and consulting services for enterprise line of business users, IT professionals and IT vendors at www.enterprisemanagement.com or blogs.enterprisemanagement.com. You can also follow EMA on Twitter or Facebook.

This report in whole or in part may not be duplicated, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or retransmitted without prior written permission of Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All opinions and estimates herein constitute our judgement as of this date and are subject to change without notice. Product names mentioned herein may be trademarks and/or registered trademarks of their respective companies. “EMA” and “Enterprise Management Associates” are trademarks of Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. in the United States and other countries.

©2013 Enterprise Management Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. EMA™, ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES®, and the mobius symbol are registered trademarks or common-law trademarks of Enterprise Management Associates, Inc.

Corporate Headquarters: 1995 North 57th Court, Suite 120 Boulder, CO 80301 Phone: +1 303.543.9500 Fax: +1 303.543.7687 www.enterprisemanagement.com 2631-ManageEngine-SUMMARY.111913