Syncsort Network Management: the cheaper monitor, used as leverage.

Syncsort Network Management, from Precisely (formerly Syncsort), simplifies the management of z/OS networks by integrating monitoring, tracing, reporting, security alerting, and performance management into a single browser based interface. The IP Monitor component builds a comprehensive real time picture of network activity, reporting on IP traffic so teams can anticipate problems and recover services. It is reachable from any web browser with no plug ins or dedicated client. The product also carries a Trace and Solve component for deeper diagnostics, and the whole suite covers the operational ground of the established mainframe network monitors.

As a Precisely mainframe product, capacity based licensing on MSU is the common pattern, sized to the LPARs where the monitor runs, though the exact metric should be confirmed in your own schedules. What is explicit and consistent is the pricing posture: Precisely positions the product as a lower cost alternative to NetView and NetMaster, so the commercial case is built on undercutting the incumbent for comparable function. That makes the licensing conversation less about the metric mechanics and more about the displacement economics, what you pay here against what the legacy tool costs.

The economics, not the metric mechanics, drive this one. See the MIPS to MSU conversion question.

The first driver is the licensed capacity footprint, the LPARs where network monitoring is genuinely needed, which should be scoped to operational reality rather than the whole estate. The second is the comparison point, since the product's value is defined relative to what NetView or NetMaster costs you today, so the incumbent's pricing sets the savings ceiling. The third is the migration cost if you actually switch, because the automation, runbooks, and integrations built on the incumbent monitor have to be rebuilt or replaced, and that effort offsets some of the headline saving. The net case is the Syncsort price plus migration against the incumbent renewal.

A capacity based monitor has a contained but real exposure pattern. Common traps we see at pattern level:

The levers work on the footprint and the displacement economics. The five that pay:

Here Syncsort Network Management is itself the alternative, the challenger to the established NetView and NetMaster monitors. The incumbents remain credible options, especially where deep automation and integrations are already built on them, so the realistic decision is not whether Syncsort works but whether the saving clears the switching cost of rebuilding what runs on the incumbent. For estates with a heavy NetMaster footprint, see the Broadcom (CA) hub for the incumbent side of the negotiation. The practical play is to price Syncsort as a genuine candidate, use it to reset the incumbent economics, and migrate where the net case is clearly positive.