Auvik vs Cacti
A side-by-side comparison on deployment model, data residency, licensing basis and security coverage. Structural facts are verifiable against vendor documentation; the scored dimensions are our assessment.
Auvik
Auvik Networks
6.5
Average across eight dimensions
- Deployment
- SaaS only
- Licensing
- Per billable device
- Time to value
- Fast
- Segment
- SMB / MSP
- G2
- 4.5 (380)
Cacti
The Cacti Group
6.7
Average across eight dimensions
- Deployment
- Self-hosted
- Licensing
- Free
- Time to value
- Medium
- Segment
- SMB / education
- G2
- —
Score by dimension
| Dimension | AU | CA |
|---|---|---|
| Data residency control | 2 | 10 |
| Pricing value | 5.5 | 9.8 |
| Detection accuracy | 7 | 6 |
| Response speed | 7 | 5.5 |
| Ease of setup | 9 | 6 |
| Management UX | 8.5 | 5.5 |
| Integration depth | 7.5 | 6 |
| Security coverage | 5.5 | 4.5 |
What the comparison says
Auvik is SaaS only and Cacti is self-hosted. Where your obligations dictate residency, that difference tends to settle the choice before any score is read.
Auvik licenses on per billable device, Cacti on free. Neither bills on data volume, so the comparison is about what each licence includes rather than how much you send it.
Auvik leads on fault detection, alerting speed, ease of setup, management UX, integrations and device coverage. Cacti leads on residency and pricing value.
Auvik
- +Fastest time to value of anything in this table. Add a collector and you are running.
- +Automated topology mapping and configuration backup are genuinely strong.
- +Multi-tenant model is purpose-built for managed service providers.
- −SaaS only. Network data leaves your environment, which rules it out under residency constraints.
- −Per-billable-device pricing adds up across large or device-dense estates.
Best for MSPs wanting fast multi-client onboarding with no infrastructure to run.
Watch out No self-hosted option at all. That is a hard stop for regulated or air-gapped networks.
Cacti
- +Free, stable and extremely light on resources.
- +Long-established SNMP graphing with a large body of community templates.
- +Runs happily on modest hardware in small or isolated environments.
- −Graphing-first: alerting requires plugins and is not a core strength.
- −Interface and workflow are dated, and development pace is slow.
Best for Small or isolated networks needing long-term interface graphing at no cost.
Watch out Treat this as a graphing tool rather than a monitoring and alerting platform.
Evaluate nPro yourself
Free for up to 30 agents, no time limit, no credit card. Deploys on your own infrastructure in minutes.
More Auvik comparisons
More Cacti comparisons
Data last verified 2026-10-06. nPro publishes this comparison. Where nPro appears as one of the platforms listed, its card is marked and its scores are our own assessment. Third-party review scores are sourced from public vendor profiles. Structural facts are verifiable against each vendor's documentation: deployment model, licensing basis and residency.