ovum decision matrix: selecting a virtualization and cloud management solution

Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a Virtualization and Cloud Management Solution, 2013–14

Reference Code: IT017-004164Publication Date: 26 Jul 2013

Author: Roy Illsley

SUMMARY

Catalyst

The role and purpose of IT in an organization is undergoing significant change, driven by the need for

businesses to become more agile and have greater control over cost levers when using technology.

This transformation of IT involves many different aspects, not all of which are technology-related, but

the one thing they all share is that IT modernization is about making changes to meet the current and

future demands of business. This report provides a side-by-side comparison of leading virtualization

and cloud management solutions, looking at IT modernization from a data center infrastructure

perspective, with the findings delivered as the Ovum Decision Matrix (ODM). It considers the

significance of management in the virtualization and cloud environments and how this influences the

way in which technology is deployed, used, and controlled.

Ovum view

The current state of the virtualization market is characterized by many proprietary technology stacks.

This is partially due to a lack of open standards, and the cloud computing market is similarly fragmented

with many different standards, platforms, and services. Ovum believes that the management layer is

now assuming the responsibility for providing interoperability between technology solutions, while at the

same time applying a business perspective. We also believe that as virtualization and cloud computing

expands its footprint, it will become increasingly vulnerable to fragmentation within the enterprise unless

all the elements can be unified and managed from a single control point.

Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a Virtualization and Cloud Management Solution, 2013–14 (IT017-004164) 26 Jul 2013

© Ovum. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited

One of the major benefits associated with virtualization is its ability to accommodate a flexible approach

to workload management and service availability. However, this flexibility comes at a price, effectively

adding a layer of abstraction that increases the complexity of dynamically managing the delivery of

services. The market is still evolving, and is characterized by proprietary technologies that only have a

rudimentary ability to support cross-platform interoperability. An often overlooked aspect of managing

virtual environments is the need for management tools to operate at a more granular level than their

physical environment counterparts. This more granular approach is further complicated by the need to

holistically manage the server, network, client, user, and storage elements.

When the cloud computing revolution is added to this already complex environment, it can quickly be

seen that orchestration becomes the new fulcrum for management and control. This fulcrum is now at

the center of a federated and fragmented IT supply chain, where applications, services, and

infrastructure are separated by location and ownership. While the nirvana of the cloud world is for any

workload to execute in any location on any platform, the reality is that the different standards make this

something that is currently only possible between technologies that have established working

relationships.

Key findings

• Ovum’s technology capability evaluations show that BMC and HP are clear leaders with strong

results, while CA Technologies, IBM, and VMware also scored well, giving a total of five vendors

classified in the technology capability leaders category.

• Ovum’s execution evaluations showed that only HP and Dell were classified in the leader

category, with eight vendors classified in the challenger category.

• Lifecycle management was the technology capability feature that showed the biggest variation

between vendors.

• Ovum’s market impact evaluation identified Microsoft, VMware, and Dell as leaders, mainly due

to the combination of revenue growth and market segmentation.

• All vendors in the report showed a consistent level of agreement in terms of their maturity, with

the average being over four years in the market.

• Ovum identifies infrastructure modeling and analysis as a key area of improvement for all

vendors.

VENDOR SOLUTION SELECTION

Inclusion criteria

The IT management market has many vendors that offer solutions to customers of all sizes. However,

the criteria to be included in this Ovum Decision Matrix are based on the ability to offer solutions for the

specific virtualization and cloud management aspects of data center management. It must be noted that

Fujitsu was unable to complete the evaluation process in time to be included, and Symantec declined to

take part in this edition of the Ovum Decision Matrix due to a recently announced change in its strategy.

In addition, Microsoft did not verify the detailed features matrix that was completed by the Ovum



analyst, although Microsoft was given the opportunity to comment on the final evaluation included in this

report.

The criteria for inclusion of a vendor in the Ovum Decision Matrix for Virtualization and Cloud

Management, 2013 are as follows:

• The vendor must be a global vendor and have customers in at least all three regions:

Asia-Pacific, EMEA, and North America.

• The vendor is a solutions vendor, and it must offer virtualization and cloud management

capabilities that enable management of platforms/infrastructure other than its own technology.

• If the vendor is a software vendor, the solution must be capable of managing more than just

server virtualization, and must cover at least three of the four main areas (server, storage,

network, and client/desktop).

• The vendor must have at least 500 customers, and they must be a mixture of mid-sized

enterprises (between 1,000 and 4,999 employees) and large enterprises (more than 5,000

employees).

Exclusion criteria

The virtualization and cloud management market is considered a sub-category of the wider

infrastructure management market, and although Ovum accepts that for some vendors this is how they

have entered this market, it is not universally the case. Vendors and products excluded from the

analysis are determined according to the following criteria:

• The vendor‘s solution is only applicable to five of 10 different classifications in the features

matrix (performance monitoring, virtualization management, cloud management, infrastructure

modeling and analysis, financial management, delivery scale and manageability, security and

backup, provisioning and automation, lifecycle management, and reporting and integration).

• The vendor’s solution is more than 50% made up of partner solutions or third-party solutions.

• The vendor has no direct contact with end customers, with everything done through the channel

partners.

Methodology

Technology analysis

Vendors were invited to complete a virtualization and cloud management features matrix, comprising a

comprehensive spreadsheet listing product features that Ovum believes are required and desirable in a

virtualization and cloud management solution. However, because the coverage is so broad, Ovum does

not compare a single product in this Ovum Decision Matrix, but instead compares a vendor’s capability

across all its products in the virtualization and cloud management space. The features matrix is a

comprehensive technology questionnaire developed by Ovum analysts and containing hundreds of

different criteria. Ovum then applied weights to the entries by individual row and by section, based on

the importance of each criterion. The final ranking of vendors in the technology dimension of the Ovum



Decision Matrix for Virtualization and Cloud Management 2013–14 is based on the scores vendors

achieve from this analysis.

The criterion for a vendor to answer “yes” to a feature is that it must be available out-of-the-box in any

product within its range of products that are applicable to cloud and virtualization management. A

third-party provider, custom integration, or partnership is not sufficient to merit a “yes”. All vendors were

made aware of this prior to completion of the questionnaire, and before the publication of the report,

vendors were given the opportunity to review their submissions again to ensure there were no

discrepancies.

Execution

In the execution dimension, Ovum analysts review the capability of the solution around the several key

areas:

• Maturity: We assess the stage that the product/service is at in the maturity lifecycle, relative to

the maturity of the overall technology/service area.

• Interoperability: We assess how easily the solution/service can be integrated into the

organization’s operations, relative to the demand for integration for the project.

• Innovation: Innovation can be a key differentiator in the value that an enterprise achieves from a

software or services implementation, and this is assessed in this criteria.

• Deployment: Referring to a combination of assessed criteria and points of information, Ovum

analysts provide detail on various deployment issues, including time, industries, services, and

support.

• Scalability: Points of information are provided to show the scalability of the solution across

different scenarios.

• Enterprise fit: The alignment of the solution is assessed in this dimension, and the potential ROI

period is identified.

Market impact

The global impact of a solution is assessed in the market impact dimension where it is measured across

five categories, each of which has a maximum score of 10.

• Revenues: Each vendor’s global virtualization and cloud management technology revenues are

calculated as a percentage of that of the market leader. This percentage is then multiplied by a

market maturity value and rounded to the nearest integer.

• Revenue growth: We use this parameter to show the fastest growing solutions in the market.

Each vendor’s revenue growth is calculated as a percentage of the growth rate of the fastest

growing company in the market. The percentage is then multiplied by 10 and rounded to the

nearest integer.

• Geographical penetration: Ovum determines each vendor’s revenues in three regions: the

Americas; Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA); and Asia-Pacific. We assign three

weightings to the geographies (Americas, EMEA, and Asia-Pacific) where a solution has a

presence. These revenues are calculated as a percentage of the market leading solution’s

revenues in each region, multiplied by 10, and then rounded to the nearest integer.



• Vertical penetration: Ovum determines each vendor’s revenues in the following verticals: energy

and utilities; financial services; healthcare; life sciences; manufacturing; media and

entertainment; professional services; public sector; retail; wholesale and distribution;

telecommunications; and travel, transportation, logistics, and hospitality. These revenues are

calculated as a percentage of the market leader's revenues in each vertical, multiplied by 10,

and then rounded to the nearest integer. The solution’s overall vertical penetration score is the

average of these three values.

• Size-band coverage: Ovum determines each vendor’s revenues in three company size bands:

large enterprises (more than 5,000 employees), medium-sized enterprises (between 1,000 and

4,999 employees), and small enterprises (fewer than 1,000 employees). These revenues are

calculated as a percentage of the revenues of the market leader in each region, multiplied by

10, and then rounded to the nearest integer. The vendor’s overall company size-band score is

the average of these three values.

Ovum ratings

• Leader: This category represents the leading solutions that we believe are worthy of a place on

most technology selection shortlists. The vendor has established a commanding market

position with a product that is widely accepted as best-of-breed.

• Challenger: The vendors in this category have good market positioning and are selling and

marketing the product well. The products offer competitive functionality and good

price-performance proposition, and should be considered as part of the technology selection.

• Follower: Solutions in this category are typically aimed at meeting the requirements of a

particular kind of customer. As a tier-one offering, they should be explored as part of the

technology selection.

Ovum Decision Matrix Interactive

To access the Virtualization and Cloud Management Ovum Decision Matrix Interactive, an online

interactive tool providing you with the technology features that Ovum believes are crucial differentiators

for leading solutions in this area, please download the Ovum Decision Matrix Interactive tool from the

Ovum Knowledge Center. This tool allows Ovum clients to apply their own weighting of importance to

the Virtualization and Cloud Management feature list Ovum has defined, presenting information on a

tool that is best suited to their individual needs.

MARKET AND SOLUTION ANALYSIS

Ovum Decision Matrix for Virtualization and Cloud Management 2013

The Ovum Decision Matrix provides a summary of the market standing of the major virtualization and

cloud management vendors based on a quantitative assessment of their technology capabilities, market

impact, and ability to execute. It provides vendor selection guidance for enterprises looking to deploy

virtualization and cloud management solutions, and advises them about whether a vendor should be



shortlisted, considered, or explored further. The Ovum Decision Matrix is a three-dimensional chart

representing vendors’ scores in technology, market impact, and execution. Technology scores are

represented on the x-axis, with execution scores on the y-axis. The size of the bubble represents

market impact score relative to the market leader. This edition of the Ovum Decision Matrix includes 11

vendor solutions.

Figure 1: Ovum Decision Matrix: Virtualization and Cloud Management 2013

Source: Ovum



Figure 2: Expanded view of Ovum Decision Matrix: Virtualization and Cloud Management 2013

Source: Ovum

Table 1: Ovum Decision Matrix: Virtualization and Cloud Management 2013

Market leaders Market challengers Market followers

BMC

CA Technologies

HP

IBM

VMware

ASG

Citrix

Dell

Microsoft

NetIQ

Red Hat

Source: Ovum

Market leaders: BMC, CA Technologies, HP, IBM, and VMware

The market leaders BMC, CA Technologies, HP, IBM, and VMware all scored an average of over seven

out 10 across all three dimensions. HP was the clear leader with an average of 8.04, and the separation

between second and fifth in the leaders was very narrow, at just over 0.5 points. This group also

recorded an average of five category-leading scores across all the categories compared to the whole

group average of four, demonstrating that the leader category was consistently above average. The

leaders all shared one key attribute: all five were the only five vendors in the technical features



dimension (shown on the X axis) to score an average of over seven out of 10. It should be noted that

the performance of these vendors in the other dimensions (execution and market impact) was less

clearly defined, and this will provide an opportunity for the challengers to target developments to close

in on, or even overtake, the current leaders.

Market challengers: ASG, Citrix, Dell, Microsoft, and NetIQ

The market challengers ASG, Citrix, Dell, Microsoft, and NetIQ were separated by just over 1.0 point

and were a mixture of vendors with some strong categories and others that were comparatively weak.

ASG, for example, recorded six category-leading scores, and NetIQ recorded five. The other group of

vendors demonstrated a performance that was consistently in line with the whole group average.

Microsoft and Dell only recorded three category-leading scores, and Citrix recorded one, for example.

Ovum believes that all the vendors in this category have the potential to become a market leader, but to

do so they must either address the capability gaps, or improve their overall performance in line with

scores achieved by the market leaders. Overall the challengers were nearly one point on average

behind the leaders, but were 1.5 points above the average follower’s scores, so are definitely positioned

in the middle grouping, and clearly show that the market remains a three-tier market.

Market followers: Red Hat

The (only) market follower in the Ovum Decision Matrix: Virtualization and Cloud Management 2013–14

report is Red Hat. Ovum believes Red Hat to have some excellent features and strengths but it lacks

the comprehensive capabilities across all categories, and this was demonstrated by the fact that Red

Hat scored only one category-leading score, compared to the whole group average of four. Ovum

recognizes that Red Hat is developing its solution sets in this market, but overall it scored an average of

just below five out of 10, which was over 1.5 points below the whole group average of 6.67.



MARKET LEADERS

Market leaders: technology

Figure 3: Ovum Decision Matrix: Virtualization and Cloud Management 2013 market leaders:technology

Source: Ovum

In the technology features dimension, BMC and HP were the clear leaders with both scoring an average

of over eight out of 10, and both being the only two vendors to score in every category within the

dimension above the category average. VMware and IBM complete the leader’s category, both

averaging just above 7.6 for the technology features dimension. There were only six vendors that

recorded category-leading scores, and four (BMC, HP, IBM, and VMware) were the overall leaders as

well as the technology features dimension leaders. However, ASG recorded three category-leading

scores, and NetIQ recorded one. This dimension also saw four maximum scores for NetIQ in

performance monitoring, HP in financial management, and ASG and VMware for security and backup.



Market leaders: execution

Figure 4: Ovum Decision Matrix: Virtualization and Cloud Management 2013 market leaders:execution

Source: Ovum

The execution dimension shows one clear leader: HP, with three category-leading scores, and IBM a

close second, with two maximum leading-category scores. However, NetIQ, which was less than one

point behind the leader, achieved three category-leading scores overall. CA Technologies and Dell

performed strongly, although they only achieved one category-leading score each, with both vendors’

average score placing them close to NetIQ in a small group that was less than one point behind the

leaders. The interoperability dimension has five vendors with the maximum category score (HP, NetIQ,

IBM, Citrix, and ASG), while the maturity, deployment, and enterprise fit dimensions have only a single

vendor with the leading score. Ovum believes that execution was a relatively high-scoring dimension,

with the average score at 6.45, and the difference between the top score and the second lowest score

at just over 25 percentage points, making execution the closest dimension from a scoring perspective.



Market leaders: market impact

Figure 5: Ovum Decision Matrix: Virtualization and Cloud Management 2013 market leaders:market impact

Source: Ovum

The market impact dimension was the only dimension where every vendor recorded a category-leading

score. It showed CA Technologies as dimension leader with an average score of 8.04, but it only

achieved one category-leading score. VMware and Microsoft achieved three category-leading scores,

while HP, Dell, and ASG each recorded two category-leading scores. These vendors all recorded an

average score of over seven points. Five vendors recorded the top score for revenue, with only HP

generating a leading score for both revenue and revenue growth.



VENDOR ANALYSIS

ASG: Ovum recommendation: Challenger

Figure 6: ASG radar diagrams

Source: Ovum

Ovum SWOT Assessment

Products part of this evaluation

CloudFactory

Strengths

ASG scored consistently well in all categories and was market leader in six of the 21 individual

categories. ASG scored three of these leadership positions in the features dimension where it has a

particular strength in the security and backup sector, scoring 100%. Ovum believes that security will

increasingly become a differentiator in the cloud management space. In this report, this capability had a



standard deviation of 2.8, and at least one vendor was below one standard deviation, while ASG was

more than one standard deviation above. The other key strengths of ASG were in automation and

lifecycle management, both of which are fundamental capabilities that both cloud and virtualization

technologies exploit.

In terms of execution, ASG was leader in the interoperability section. ASG has a mature offering that

shows good examples of innovation and showed an average rating in terms of scalability. In terms of

market impact, ASG shows good revenue growth, and an excellent geographic and vertical market split.

Weaknesses

In terms of execution, ASG was the weakest in the enterprise fit category, where compared to some of

its rivals, the ROI was longer. In the features dimension, ASG scored low in the cloud management

section, which was mainly due to its lack of external capabilities in terms of monitoring and managing

public cloud providers.

Opportunities

Ovum positions ASG in the challenger category because its overall performance was solid, and

although it scored six leadership scores across all categories, it did not rank in the leader category for

any one of the three dimensions. Ovum believes that if ASG can strengthen some of its weaknesses in

the features dimension (cloud management and delivery, scale, and manageability) and continue its

revenue growth, then its total revenue will increase. This combination could move ASG in to the

leadership category.

Threats

ASG was the weakest in the IT revenue section, which can in part be explained by ASG’s lack of

marketing of its capabilities in this area. ASG is well known for its governance, risk, and compliance

management but less so for virtualization and cloud management.



BMC: Ovum recommendation: Leader

Figure 7: BMC radar diagrams

Source: Ovum



Cloud Lifecycle Management, BMC Cloud Operations Management

Strengths

BMC is the clear leader in the features dimension, and while it only scored three leading scores in all

the individual categories, two of these were in the features dimension. BMC’s second lowest score in

the features dimension was in delivery, scale, and manageability, but this was the sector’s leading score

so cannot be considered a weakness. BMC had a maximum score in the cloud management feature,

which demonstrated the breadth of integration BMC has with public cloud platforms as well as private



cloud technologies. Ovum believes that this feature will become of increasing importance, particularly

as we do not expect a single cloud standard to be agreed within the short to medium term, if ever.

Weaknesses

BMC’s area for improvement is in terms of infrastructure modeling and scenario analysis. While its

performance was solid, it was nearly two points below the leader’s score. BMC’s weakest dimension

was execution, where on average it was over two points behind the dimension leader.

Opportunities

Compared to its main rivals, BMC demonstrated an average execution capability, which was supported

by the fact it did not score any leadership scores or any category lowest scores in the execution

dimension. However, BMC’s average score for the execution dimension was slightly below the average

for all vendors, by 0.5 points. Market impact was another solid performance, with one leadership score

in terms of revenue growth and a slightly above average total score (approximately 0.4 points). BMC

recently moved from a public company to a private company and Ovum believes this will allow it to

develop its solutions with a more long-term vision. However, Ovum is waiting to hear what BMC’s new

owners’ plans are for the company.

Threats

BMC did not obtain many individual category leadership scores, but its overall performance was one of

a solid, all-round capability. BMC excelled in the features dimension where it was the clear leader with

an average score of 8.41 out of 10, and two individual category-leading scores (out of 10 in total).

BMC’s performance in execution and market impact was less spectacular and more in line with the

average. However, on balance, BMC has been categorized as a leader because it provided two solid

dimensions and one clear leadership dimension. Ovum believes that BMC must be mindful that

execution and market impact represent the biggest threat to its leadership position.



CA Technologies: Ovum recommendation: Leader

Figure 8: CA Technologies radar diagrams

Source: Ovum



Converged Infrastructure Management

Strengths

CA Technologies performed consistently across all three dimensions and recorded three leading

category scores, one of which was a maximum score. CA Technologies was particularly strong in

security and backup, infrastructure modeling and analytics, lifecycle management, and financial

management in the features dimension. CA Technologies’ other category-leading scores were in

enterprise fit, size band, and revenue, which Ovum believes is partially due to the impact of the Nimsoft

acquisition, which has given CA Technologies a more balanced reach.



Weakness

CA Technologies did not have any major weaknesses, and it was more a case of comparative

weakness alongside the other leading vendors. Its performance was solid and above average overall,

but was over one point behind the leader in the features dimension.

Opportunities

CA Technologies appears to have all the ingredients required for a virtualization and cloud management

solution, but appears to be slightly behind the major competitors in terms of advanced features

capability. Ovum understands that CA Technologies has recently appointed a new CEO and some major

transformations are under way in the company. We also believe that CA Technologies has an excellent

roadmap to develop its solutions capabilities.

Threats

CA Technologies recently began to report its performance in a different way, splitting out the mainframe

business from the x86 business. Ovum thinks this a brave move because the mainframe business is a

solid, dependable, if slow, growth market that contributes much of CA Technologies’ revenue. The threat

for CA Technologies is that if it fails to deliver growth above the sector average in the x86 business, the

financial markets will consider it a mainframe business and this could impact the perception of x86

buyers.



Citrix: Ovum recommendation: Challenger

Figure 9: Citrix radar diagrams

Source: Ovum



CloudPlatform

Strengths

Citrix scored well in virtualization management and financial management, coming in with above

average category scores. Citrix scored considerably better in the execution and market impact

dimensions where it recorded two leading scores: a maximum for interoperability and a high score for

revenue growth. Overall, Citrix’s performance in these two categories was in line with the average.



Weaknesses

Citrix’s features dimension average score was three points below that of the category leader and nearly

one point behind the average score. Ovum identified its overall features dimension score as being

impacted by not having any capability for lifecycle management. Ovum believes that Citrix has the

ingredients to address these weaknesses, and understands many of these concerns are in the process

of being addressed through the integration and development of acquisitions Citrix has made.

Opportunities

Citrix demonstrated its solutions were developed in line with other vendor solutions available in the

market. Its overall performance was patchy, showing some areas with good capability and others below

average. Ovum believes that Citrix needs to complete the integration of its recent acquisitions and fill

the gaps in its cloud and virtualization capabilities exposed in this report.

Threats

Citrix exhibits some positive capabilities in certain key areas, but is let down by gaps in its current

offering and a reliance on third-party products in certain categories. Overall, Citrix’s average score was

within the 5.5 to 6.5 range identified as the challenger category. Citrix exhibited some common traits of

the challenger category, such as its features and capabilities being over two points behind that of the

leaders on average. However, Citrix scored better in terms of execution and market impact, where it

was in line with the average. Ovum believes that Citrix is in transition and while its current solutions are

broadly in line with the market average, we understand that work is in progress to close this capabilities

gap with the market leaders.



Dell: Ovum recommendation: Challenger

Figure 10: Dell radar diagrams

Source: Ovum



Foglight, ASM (Active System Manager), AppAssure, NetVault, vRanger, Sonicwall, WSM (Microsoft

Windows Server Management), KACE, vWorkspace, OpenManage, and Enstratius

Strengths

Dell’s performance was one of a solid balanced performance across all three dimensions. It was slightly

below the average score for the features dimension, above average for both execution and market

impact, and recorded three category-leading scores overall. Dell did not have any leading category

scores in the features dimension but showed a particular strength in provisioning and automation where

it was nearly two percentage points above the average score. Dell was also strong in performance



monitoring and virtualization management. Ovum believes that all three of these are essential

management capabilities in a cloud and highly virtualized environment.

Weakness

Dell’s area for improvement was in terms of its cloud management capabilities, particularly how it

integrates to the many different public cloud providers. This has been addressed by its recent

acquisition of Enstratius. Dell has rebranded its Multi-Cloud Manager and the product enables

organizations to deploy and manage private, public, and hybrid clouds across more than 20 leading

cloud providers. Its current area for improvement is its reporting and integration with service

management, which Ovum expects to be resolved in due course.

Opportunity

In terms of execution, Dell performed very well with an overall average score of seven, which meant it

was second in the vendor rankings for execution. While it only achieved one leading score for its

capability in delivering innovation, it was consistently appearing as number two or three in the other

categories. In the market impact dimension Dell scored two leading scores for revenue and size band,

and its average score was above the average by over half of one percentage point. Ovum believes that

Dell needs to build on these strengths to fully exploit its opportunity.

Threat

Ovum places Dell in the challenger category because its features dimension average score was 2.5

percentage points behind the leader, and while its execution and market impact were both above

average, it was felt that Dell needs to address a couple of areas of its features capability before it can

be considered a potential leader.



HP: Ovum recommendation: Leader

Figure 11: HP radar diagrams

Source: Ovum



CloudSystem Matrix

Strengths

HP scored seven individual category leader scores across the three dimensions and was a clear leader

in one dimension, second in another, with a slightly below average score in the third. In terms of the

features dimension, HP recorded three leading scores and was above average in the other seven

categories. HP was particularly strong in financial management, with a maximum 10 out of 10, but also

had leading scores in virtualization management, and reporting and integration. Ovum believes these to

demonstrate a strong bias toward understanding the business perspective of cloud and virtualization



management, and using its solution to articulate that value. HP scored an impressive 8.21 average for

the features dimension which gave it a ranking of second overall in this dimension.

Weaknesses

HP was weakest, but still above average, in terms of delivery, scale, and manageability in the features

dimension. HP’s weakest dimension was market impact, where it was slightly below average and nearly

two points behind the market leader.

Opportunities

HP was the clear leader in the execution dimension with three leading scores out of the six categories.

HP was a leader in the interoperability, innovation, and scalability categories, scoring above average in

the remaining three categories. The weakest category for HP was its revenue growth, which was

significantly lower than many of its competitors, but this was the only cause for concern.

Threats

As the overall leader on combined scores, HP is classified in the leader category. While it was strong in

both the execution and features dimension, its average performance in market impact reduced the gap

between it and its next closest competitor. Ovum believes that HP’s growth in this market will be a

significant factor in its maintaining its leadership ranking.



IBM: Ovum recommendation: Leader

Figure 12: IBM radar diagrams

Source: Ovum



IBM includes many of its individual solutions under the SmartCloud Orchestrator suite, but also markets

the individual solutions as best-of-breed. The IBM list therefore includes the main SmartCloud

Orchestrator as well as the individual products. IBM SmartCloud Orchestrator 2.2, IBM Tivoli Network

Manager v3.9, IBM Tivoli Business Service Manager v6.1, IBM Endpoint Manager for Lifecycle

Management v9.0, IBM SmartCloud Virtual Storage Center v5.1, IBM Tivoli Netcool Configuration

Manager v6.4, IBM Virtual Desktop v6.6, IBM Endpoint Manager for Lifecycle Management v9.0, IBM

Systems Director Active Energy Manager v4.4, IBM SmartCloud Application Performance Management

v7.6, IBM SmartCloud Provisioning v2.1, IBM Tivoli Omegamon XE for z/OS v5.1, IBM Tivoli Monitoring

for Virtual Environments for Citrix Xenserver v7.2, IBM Tivoli Storage Manager Suite for Unified

Recovery v6.3, IBM Tivoli System Automation for Multiplatforms v3.2, IBM Security Virtual Server



Protection v1.1, IBM Endpoint Manager for Mobile Devices v9.0, IBM Endpoint Manager for Software

Usage Analysis v9.0, IBM Endpoint Manager for Lifecycle Management v9.0, IBM Endpoint Manager

for Mobile Devices v9.0, and IBM SmartCloud Control Desk v7.5.

Strengths

IBM scored five individual category-leading scores, which included two maximum scores. IBM was

strongest in the features dimension where all its scores were above the average, and it recorded three

leading scores. IBM was also strong in virtualization management, infrastructure modeling, and lifecycle

management. Ovum believes that these three aspects make IBM particularly robust in the private cloud

management market. Overall, IBM’s features dimension score was 0.7 points behind the dimension

leader’s score, but over one point above the average score.

Weaknesses

IBM was weakest in terms of delivery and cloud management. In both of these IBM still scored more

than the average, but its weakness in cloud management is due to its only supporting three public cloud

offerings: IBM’s own public cloud, AWS, and OpenStack. Ovum believes that while this meets most of

the needs of customers, IBM is missing other cloud platforms that organizations may be using:

Microsoft Azure, Google, and CloudStack.

Opportunities

IBM scored less well in the market impact dimensions where it was over 1.2 points behind the

dimension leader and scored one maximum score. IBM was strongest in interoperability and maturity,

but scored less well in scalability for the execution dimension. In terms of market impact, IBM scored a

maximum for revenue and enterprise fit. It also scored highly in how its business is split by vertical, but

scored less well in revenue growth and size band.

Threats

IBM was a leader in the features dimension, with an average score of almost eight out of 10, but did

less well in the market impact dimensions. Its overall performance placed it in the leader category.

Ovum believes IBM has a strong private cloud management and virtualization solution, with an average

rating in terms of the public cloud. Ovum believes that IBM must equal the degree of public cloud

integration of its main rivals if it is to retain its leadership rating.



Microsoft: Ovum recommendation: Challenger

Figure 13: Microsoft radar diagrams

Source: Ovum



System Center 2012

Strengths

Microsoft scored three category-leading scores in the market impact dimension and none in the other

two dimensions. Microsoft was strong in terms of financial management, security and backup, and

lifecycle management in the technology dimension, where it scored above average, but achieved an

overall technology dimension score of just below average. Microsoft scored well in terms of revenue,

revenue growth, and geographic split in the market impact dimension, where it was a clear leader.



Weaknesses

Microsoft’s biggest weakness was the comparative lack of breadth of support for management of public

cloud solutions. Ovum believes that the ability to manage an enterprise’s federated cloud environment

from a single console is an objective of many CIOs.

Opportunities

Microsoft’s performance was mixed, with two average performances and one well above average.

Ovum believes that Microsoft has the ingredients to become a leader in virtualization and cloud

management, but needs to address interoperability issues, with partners providing capabilities in the

storage management area where is particularly weak compared with its competitors.

Threats

Microsoft has been undergoing a major reorganization of its operating businesses over the past few

years, and Ovum believes that it now needs to communicate its new vision to its core management

audience. While we do not see Microsoft’s position being threatened in the short term, the increasingly

heterogeneous nature of the IT supply chain means Microsoft cannot rely on its traditional customer

base in the long term. Ovum believes that Microsoft must embrace more interoperability and position its

self as the supplier of heterogeneous cloud brokerage solutions. Otherwise, its competitors will begin to

capture some of its market.



NetIQ: Ovum recommendation: Challenger

Figure 14: NetIQ radar diagrams

Source: Ovum



Cloud Manager

Strengths

NetIQ performed solidly across all three dimensions with five category-leading scores in total. However,

approximately 50% of its scores were on or below the category average. Overall, NetIQ was just below

the average in the features dimension, but it did record a leading maximum score in the performance

monitoring category. Ovum believes that NetIQ has some excellent individual capabilities, such as

performance monitoring, security and backup, and infrastructure modeling.



Weaknesses

Market impact was NetIQ’s weakest dimension, with one leading category score: geographic split, but

its overall score for market impact was over two points behind the dimension leader. NetIQ was also

weak in the features dimension in the financial management and cloud management category.

Opportunities

NetIQ was strongest in the execution dimension, where it had three category-leading scores in

interoperability, deployment, and enterprise fit, and was less than one point behind the dimension

leader’s score. We believe that NetIQ could build on this and develop a significant point of difference

between it and the other major vendors by marketing its cross-technology integration capabilities and its

service provider heritage.

Threats

NetIQ is categorized as a challenger: it performed solidly overall and demonstrated some

market-leading capabilities, but it also exposed some comparative weaknesses. Ovum believes that

NetIQ represents a good all-round performer and is worthy of inclusion in any vendor shortlist for a

virtualization and cloud management solution, and is particularly strong in the virtualization

management market.



Red Hat: Ovum recommendation: Follower

Figure 15: RedHat radar diagrams

Source: Ovum



CloudForms

Strengths

Red Hat was a new entrant to the Ovum virtualization and cloud management report, replacing some

larger well-known vendors. Overall Red Hat showed some good individual capabilities but lacked the

maturity and depth of some of the longer established vendors in this space. Red Hat achieved one

category-leading score and seven category scores over or equal to the average. The features

dimension demonstrated that Red Hat’s strengths were in virtualization management, financial

management, and integration.



Weaknesses

Red Hat was particularly weak in security and backup as well as infrastructure modeling. Overall, Red

Hat’s average score for the features dimension was over two points below the average, but this was

adversely affected by some categories where Red Hat does not have comprehensive solutions. Ovum

understands that Red Hat has developed a clear roadmap for CloudForms and plans to address these

gaps.

Opportunities

Ovum believes that Red Hat is a potentially disruptive vendor in this space with its open source

heritage, and is committed to developing its capabilities or integrating third-party solutions to strengthen

its offering. Red Hat was below average in the execution dimension but scored well in terms of

interoperability and maturity, with scalability its lowest score. Red Hat’s strongest dimension was market

impact, where it achieved one category-leading score for size band coverage, with its overall score in

line with the average.

Threats

RedHat showed some good capabilities, but this was interspersed with capability gaps, which reduced

its overall performance. Ovum classifies Red Hat as a follower, but understands that there is a

development plan to address many of the gaps. If this plan does not materialize, Ovum believes that

Red Hat’s market growth will be impacted as organizations look to adopt hybrid cloud computing

principals.



VMware: Ovum recommendation: Leader

Figure 16: VMware radar diagrams

Source: Ovum



vCenter, vCloud Director, vCenter Operations Manager, vCenter Configuration Manager, vFabric

Hyperic, vCenter Infrastructure Navigator, vCenter Chargeback Manager, and Horizon

Strengths

VMware scored five leading category scores and was in the leader category for two of the dimensions:

features and market impact. VMware is particularly strong in terms of performance monitoring, financial

management, reporting and integration, and security and backup in the features dimension. VMware

was strong in terms of revenue growth, geographic split, and vertical split in the market impact

dimension, and achieved a maximum score in maturity in the execution dimension. Ovum believes



VMware is a leader in the private cloud market, and the vendor has recently launched its public cloud

offering.

Weaknesses

VMware did not have any specific weakness, and any weaknesses identified have been of a

comparative nature. These areas include the level of interoperability with public cloud solutions.

VMware has stated that capabilities to address the cross-platform management of cloud environments

are on its roadmap.

Opportunities

VMware recently launched its public cloud offering based on its successful private cloud technology.

Ovum believes this is a long overdue entrance to this market where many enterprise customers are

looking to adopt hybrid clouds with an ability to elastically expand resources from those constrained

within the enterprise to secure public resources as and when needed.

Threats

VMware is a very strong competitor in the private cloud, and a new entrant to the public cloud market.

Ovum believes that OpenStack in particular represents a significant threat to VMware, alongside, in

more general terms, the ability to manage other public cloud offerings. Many of VMware’s major

competitors have developed broad multi-platform management support capabilities that provide CIOs

with a single tool for the fragmented and federated cloud environments they need to manage. VMware

has recognized this and has a strategic plan to become a multi-technology cloud management provider.

APPENDIX

Author

Roy Illsley, Principal Analyst, Software

[email protected]

Ovum Consulting

We hope that this analysis will help you make informed and imaginative business decisions. If you have

further requirements, Ovum’s consulting team may be able to help you. For more information about

Ovum’s consulting capabilities, please contact us directly at [email protected].

Disclaimer

All Rights Reserved.



mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by

any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission

of the publisher, Ovum (an Informa business).

The facts of this report are believed to be correct at the time of publication but cannot be guaranteed.

Please note that the findings, conclusions, and recommendations that Ovum delivers will be based on

information gathered in good faith from both primary and secondary sources, whose accuracy we are

not always in a position to guarantee. As such Ovum can accept no liability whatever for actions taken

based on any information that may subsequently prove to be incorrect.

