Open vs End-to-End Systems: Integrator Statistics 2019

By IPVM Team, Published Nov 11, 2019, 08:19am EST (Info+)

Preference for open systems is on the decline, according to new IPVM statistics.

We asked integrators:

For video surveillance systems, do you prefer open architecture or end-to-end (i.e., cameras and recorders/VMS from different manufacturers or a single manufacturer for both)? Why? Who?

This is the successor to the Open vs End-To-End Solutions 2016 report.

In this report, we examine statistics based on responses from 150+ integrators and examine the trends they reveal.

Key ********

**** ************ ******* ******** *** ******* top ******, ***** ** **** ** the *********:

*******, **** ** **** ************* **** nearly **% ** ****. ***** ***-**-*** system ********** *** ****, *********** ********** a *** ** **** ****** ******* from *% ** **%.

*** *** ****** ***** ****:

  • **** *** **** ******** ***** *** giving *** **** ******** ********, ********* technical *******-******* ******* ******* ***** ****** into *** ************.
  • ***-**-*** *** ********* ***** *** **** of ********* *******, ***** ************* ****** and **** ** ******-******** **** ****** arise.
  • ******** *** *** **** ********* ***-**-*** system ************, *** **** ** ** 2016.
  • ********* *** **** *** **** ********* Open ****** *** (**** ** ****), while *** **** ***** ***** ***** many ***** ** * ********* ****** were ******* *** ******* *****/******* ********. Exacq *** ***** ** ***** **** as **** **** *** ***-**-*** *******.
  • *********** **** ********* **** ******* **** types ** ******* ************** ***** **** install ***-**-*** ******* *** ***** ******* (e.g. **** *********) ***** ********* *** flexibility **** **** ******* ***** *** valued ** ****** ***-*****.

Open - *********** ** ******* **** ******* / ***** ****-**

**** ** *** ********** ********* ********** using **** *******. *** **** ****** reasons *** ***** **** ******* **** flexibility, ******** ****-**, *** ***** *** best ********* ******** ********* ********** ** the ************:

  • "*** ******* ******* *** *******/****, ***** is ** **** ************. ******* ** good *** **** ******* ** *** bring ** ***** ****** ** *********. Even **** ** ** ** **** companion ****** ** ***'* ** ********* cameras ** **** *** ** ** another ******** *** *** ****'* ****** into ****."
  • "**** ************ **********. ** **** *** an ********** *** ** (*** ** payed ***) *** **** ** **** right ****** *** **** ***** **** and ****. ** ****** ****** (*******, Meraki ***) ********** *** ****** ***** to *****..."
  • "**** **** ** **** *** ******** if *** ** ******** ** ***** Locked. ********* ** *** ********* *** NX ******* **** **** ***** ** other ***** ** **** ** **** brand **** ** *** ***'* ***** what ********* ****."
  • "*** **** **** ***** ************* ** makes **** **** *** ****** ********* model ** ******* *** *** **** suited *** *** ******* ************, ** choose **** ** ********** *** **** which *** **** ********* ****** *** end ****."
  • "****. * **** ** ** **** to ****** ******* ** ******** ** best *** *** ********* *** *****. For ******* **** **** ******* ***** to *** ********* ****** ***** * can **** ** ****** ******* *** additional ****** ** *** *** ****."
  • "**** ************ *** ****. * **** to **** **** *********** ***** * can, ***** ***** ********** * ***** UX ** *** ****** ****. * can't ****** ** **** **** ****** in ** * ****** ************. "
  • "** *** **** ************ *** **** up *** **** ******* **** **** VMS *************. ** **** ** ** use *** **** ******, ** ** not ******* ***** *** ********."
  • "**** ************ ** ******* *** ****-** to * ****** ************ *** ** be **** ** *** ********* ******** for ********* ************/*** *****."
  • "** **** *********** *******, ** *** clients **** **** ********* ****** ** their *******."
  • "**** ****, *** ******* **** *** proven ** **** **** ********. **** and ********* **** * ***** ****** to ****** **** *******"
  • "**** ************ ** ** *** *** most ******* **** **** *** ****** HD ************* ******** *****-***********"
  • "**** ************. **** ** *** ******** has *********** ** ******** ******** ********** "
  • "**** ************. * ***'* ***** **'* an ***** ** **** *** ******* communicate ** *** ****** ****** *** want ** ** * ****** ****** aka ********."
  • "** ******** ** **** **** ************ with ******* ****** ***** *** *** will ** *********"
  • "***, ***** **** ** **** *** best ****** *** * ********* ****** much *** ** ***** ****** *****. Milestone ** *** ** **"
  • "****, *** ***** ****** *********** ***** the **** ****** *** ***** ***********/********"
  • "** ****** **** ************, ***** ******* Security ****** ** *** ***, **** using ***** ************* *** *******/****** ********."
  • "**** ************. **** ** *** ******** that ** *******, ********** *** ****** projects, >*** *******, **** **** * mix ** *************."
  • "**** ************ ** ***'* *** ****** the **** ******** *** **** *********** Milestone & *****"
  • "****. **** ** *** * *** of ******* ********* ** *****, ******, lighting, ***. **** ***** ***** ** one ***** *** ***** ****** ** the ****** ***** ** ****** ********."
  • "**** ************ ****** *** **** *********** to *** *** *** ***** ***** and ****** * ****** ***/** ****** approach ** ****** ******** *** **********"
  • "** *** ********* **** ** **** architecture ** *** ******."
  • "******* **** ************! ***-**-*** ********* *** more ********* *** **** ********"
  • "**** *** **** *********** ** ****** choice ****** ******** *** ****** ** secure"
  • "**** ************ ** ****** **** ** play **** ** ********* *********"
  • "**** ******* *** *** ******* ** freely ****** ********."
  • "**** ************, ******** *** **********"
  • "********* - ** *** ******* ****** hik ** **** *** ** ****** use ***** ***** ***"
  • "**** ************. * ** *** **** all ******* ** *** ** **** manufacturer."
  • "**** ************. ** ** *** *** end-to-end *** ** ******* ** *** client."

End-To-End - **** ****** ********

***-******* ** ********** ********* ***** * preference *** ***-**-*** *******. **** ***** that * **** ** ******-******** *** lower ****** ** ************* ****** ******* cameras *** *********:

  • "*** ** *** - ********. ** have ****** **** *******, *********, ***** and **** ****. ***** ** ****** finger-pointing **** * ****** *****'* *******. When *** ******** ***** *** *** a ****** *** ** ****** *** integration ** * *** ****** *** the *** ***** *** *** ** breaks *** ****** ***********."
  • "* ****** *** *** ****** ************ for ****. ******* *********** ** ******, usually *** ***** ** **** ******-******** to ************* **** ****** ***'* **** as ******** ** **********. "
  • "** ** *** * ****** ** years **** ** **** ******** ** end-to-end ********* ** ** ********** ** increased **** ** ******* *** ********** with **** ************ *******. ********, ***-**-*** allows *** ****** ******* *** ****** problem ******* ******** **** *** ****** as *** **** ** *** ****** from *** ************ ** *** *****"
  • "** ****** *** *** ** *** solution **** ********, ******* **** ** face *************** ** **** **** ** contact *** ******. ** ********, ** are ***** **** ***** ********* ******* team."
  • "*** ** ***. *** **** ** lose ******** ** **** ***** ***** open ************. **'* **** ** *********** to ********* ******* ****** *** *********** problems. ******* **** *** ****,** * camera ** ******* *** *** *********** is ** ****** ********** ** ******* a *** *******."
  • "* ***** **** * ****** *********** would ** ******. *** ********** ** the ******** ******* **** **** ********** when *** *** *** ******. *** the ****** ** **** ********* ** detect **** ***** ************* ******."
  • "****** *********** *** ******* *** ***. Avigilons ******* ** ***** *** ****** are ******* *** ****** ********. ********* firmware ******* ** ******* *** ****** out **** *** ****** ******** ******* changes. ****-*********, ** *******, ********* **** well, ****** **** ** ********."
  • "** *** **** ***** **********, **** to ******* *** ************* ***** **** where ***** ** *** ******"
  • "*** ** *** *** **** ********. Cuts **** ** "*** *** *** problem, *** ******" **** ******* **** support."
  • "****** ************ *** *** *******, **** are *** **** ************. ** **** Verkada *******."
  • "*** ** *** **** ************. ****** to ******* *** *********"
  • "****** ************ *** ****** ***********, **** maintenance *** **** ********"
  • "** *** ********, ** ** **** to **** **** ***** ******* ** much ** ********."
  • "******** ******* **** ******** *** ** still *** *****"
  • "****** *** **** ******* *** ***. Easier ** ****** *******."
  • "*** ** ***. **** ******** **** compatibility."

*** - ******* ** ***-**** ************

* *********** ******** **** ****, ***-******* of ********* ********* ******* ** **** Open *** ***-**-*** *******. *** ****** was ********* ******* ** *** ************ of *** ***-****, **** ***-**-*** ******* being ********* *** ******* *******, *** Open ****** **** *** ******, **** complex ********:

  • "**** ** **** ***** ***** **** has **** *** ****. ********* ** the ******* *********** *** ********* *** development ***** ******** ****** ********* ****** features **** ******** ************* **** ****** open ************. *** ***-**** ******** ****** end-to-end **** ** *********. *********** ******* camera *** ******* **** ** **** at ****. "
  • "**** ** ** ******* ** *** installation. ***** **** ******* ********* ******* (thermal, ***, ***.) **** ****** **** a *** ******** ** ****** ******** events (*********). ****** *** ** **** with * * ****** **** ******** (Axis *********)"
  • "***** ******* (*.*. *** ****** ******) single ************, ***** *** **** ** installation *** ***. *** ****** ***** based ** *********** ************ *** **** best ****** *** ******* ************. ********* VMS. ****, *****, *********. ****: **** retail *** ** *** *** ********* not ********* ** ********* "
  • "****** *** ******** ** **** *** answer ***** ** ********* **** ****. At **** **** * **** *******, but ** ** ****** **** **** be *** **** ****** ******* *** Milestone ******** ** ******** *** ** are *********** ******* ****. **** *** non-integrated ******* (***) *** ********* *** the *******."
  • "** **** *** ***-**-*** ********* **** Avigilon; **** ***** ********* ** ******* we're ********* ***** ****** **** ** Hanwha *******. *** ******* ******** ** have *** **** ******* **** ****** WAVE ******** *** ****** *******"
  • "******* ** *** *******. ******* ******** tend ** ****** ****** ******* (*********, Hanwha) ***** ****** ** **** *********** setups ******* ********* ******* ******** ******* (Milestone)"
  • "******* ** **** ** ******. *** large *******, * **** ** *** a ***. **** * *** *'** often *** *** ***** *******. **** been ***** *****, *** ******* *** a ****** ***********. ***** ******* (cameras) *'** **** ********** *** **** with ** ***. ******* *********"
  • "** *** ****. ** **** **** Exacq **** ********* ** **** *******, we **** *** ******** ***-**-***. ** have ******** **** **** ***** *******(*********) and ********* *******, **** *** ** the **** ***** ** ** ********* using ***** ***. "
  • "** ******* ******, *** *** ******* that *** ** *** **** **** as ******** *** ***** ****. ** larger ********** ***** ***** ** **** traffic *** ** **** ** ******** check/playback ** ****** * *** **"
  • "**** ***** *********** ********* **** ******* - * ****** ************ ******* **** play ******** ******. *** *** **** DW ******** ****** *** ****** ***** nice **** **."
  • "******* **** *** ****. **** ***** to ****** **** ******** ** **** done **** **** *** ** *** solutions... ****** ***** ****"
  • "** ****** ** **** ****** ******** Avigilon ** ***** & ******** ********/**** or ******* *** **** ******** ***** on *********** *********** *** ******** ******."
  • "** **** ***** *** **** ********** and ** ***. *** ****** ******** we **** *** ********* *** ****"
  • "*** ***** *********** ******* ** *** in *** ***. *** *****-**** ** large ********** ******* * *** ** often ******."
  • "** ****** *** ** *** *** some ********** **** *** **** ************ especially ** *** ****. ***, ****, Hanwha, ***"
  • "**** ************ *** **********. *** ** end *** ***********"
  • "**** ** ***** *******. **** **** - ***** ***. **** ********* *** small *******."
  • "****, ** *** ******* ** ***-**** needs"

Smaller *** ** *** **** ***-**** ****

***-**-*** ******* **** *** **** **** for ***** *********, ********* **** ***-**** NVRs *** *******:

  • "******* ******* ***-**-***, ****** ** *** up *** ********, *******."
  • "******* ** *** *******. ******* ******** tend ** ****** ****** ******* (*********, Hanwha)"
  • "** ******* ******, *** *** ******* that *** ** *** **** **** as ******** *** ***** ****."
  • "**** ***** *********** ********* **** ******* - * ****** ************ ******* **** play ******** ******."
  • "***** ******* (everything *** **** **** ** ***. usually *********"
  • "*** ***** *********** ******* ** *** in *** ***"

*** *** ***** ********** **** *** ** *** *************** ******* *** ********** ** ***** an *** ********* ********* ***** ****** and ******* ** *** ** ***** requiring ***** ***** ***********.

Comments (24)

Brien Kui

11/12/19 04:06am

It sounds more related to being down to purpose rather than what Integrators really prefer. After all, Integrators integrate. Its also good to note that these statistics can possibly also indicate that large corporation projects are down from previous estimates. (If only this can also be researched and provided as well?) After all, the global economy is going down due to the US-China trade wars with both sides selling to different or opposing markets.

On another note, open ended systems are still the way to go. I mean look at the number of products out there and the vast amount of drivers required to function alongside any VMS not to mention the different products offered in different regions of the world as well. There are no CCTV equivalent Microsoft Server where we install and it settles incompatibilities by themselves. Perhaps this is the holy grail everyone is waiting to emerge?

Agree
Disagree: 2
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Undisclosed Manufacturer #1

In reply to Brien Kui | 11/12/19 06:07pm

open ended systems are still the way to go. I mean look at the number of products out there and the vast amount of drivers required to function

That's a confusing comment. The whole value proposition of end to end is that drivers, driver updates and camera/VMS compatibility are never (or rarely) in jeopardy.

Open ended requires perpetual dependence on the camera driver team as well as the VMS driver team. ONVIF is moving to minimize that dependence but will always be at the mercy of the camera manufacturer's compliance with ONVIF.

Agree: 2
Disagree: 2
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny: 1

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed Manufacturer #1 | 11/12/19 06:44pm

Open ended requires perpetual dependence on the camera driver team as well as the VMS driver team.

End-to-end requires perpetual dependence on the end-to-end provider to continue to develop new cameras and VMSes, no?

For sure, you are dependent either way but with the end-to-end model you are dependent on one party whereas in the open model you can count on many, yes/no?

Agree: 2
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Avatar

Ross Vander Klok

IPVMU Certified | In reply to John Honovich | 11/12/19 06:50pm

A huge yes to that. With end to end, it only takes one company screwing up to ruin your day/year.

Agree: 2
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Undisclosed Manufacturer #1

In reply to John Honovich | 11/12/19 07:27pm

Agree but I'd suggest last sentence should read, "but with the end to end model you are dependent on one party whereas in the open model you have to count on many.

An end to end provider would typically ensure compatibility on new releases (they have their own quality assurance in place). Open model leaves more room for gaps in compatibility. Some of those gaps can be lengthy, time consuming, head banging and expensive.

I'm not suggesting open is worse just that there is more room for incompatibility and finger pointing (as IPVM latest survey suggests). Downtime also increases loss of credibility of the integrator with the end user. Seen it and lived it.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed Manufacturer #1 | 11/12/19 07:45pm

"but with the end to end model you are dependent on one party whereas in the open model you have to count on many.

Sure, but with the open model, you may count on many but have dozens to choose from.

An end to end provider would typically ensure compatibility on new releases

And if they don't, what do you do? And if the end to end provider does not want to add in a certain feature or model, what do you do?

Agree: 2
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Undisclosed Manufacturer #1

In reply to John Honovich | 11/12/19 08:04pm

Drop back 10 and punt! Ha!

I guess we're diving into a game of percentages/chances. I'm generally more confident that end to end will deliver a consistently more reliable connection and lower maintenance requirement even if at loss of certain functionality.

Alternately, if a certain functionality is critical to a successful detection or verification scenario, then the risk of connection incompatibility must be weighed accordingly.

After all said and done, one must weigh the value of a camera's capability to do the job required versus the value of making sure it works.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Brien Kui

In reply to Undisclosed Manufacturer #1 | 11/13/19 02:23am

This is a subjective point actually depending on which side of the fence you are on. I lean on product agnostic since every manufacturer does try to highlight themselves. But having said that, there are no one perfect product or solution that is able to cater to any situation or requirements or budgets. Open ended systems offer you freedom to choose and built and manage budgets. Thats not to say niche systems are bad as they provide assurance over their products and solutions but its also the same argument when security principles enter play when one shouldnt put all their eggs in 1 basket.

Not going to enter a debate here (we have US elections coming up to fill up that need ;)), but in the end, my point is that such trends boils down to the economy that decides which side of the fence the market is leaning on.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Avatar

Ross Vander Klok

IPVMU Certified | 11/12/19 01:09pm

The comments supporting both open and end to end were pretty enlightening to me. I understand the reasoning for an end to end system more than I have before just by reading through them. I am still opposed to it as an end-user, but I get it.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Undisclosed Manufacturer #1

In reply to Ross Vander Klok | 11/12/19 07:34pm

My perception over the last handful of years is that "end to end" is often convoluted or mistakenly associated with "proprietary."

They are not the same (unless you're talking Verkada or Miraki)!

Agree: 2
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Avatar

Ross Vander Klok

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Undisclosed Manufacturer #1 | 11/12/19 08:10pm

Very good point, but aren't most end to end solutions also often proprietary? I would argue Avigilon was proprietary and still is to some point since it requires extra hardware for the analytics to work.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Undisclosed Manufacturer #2

11/13/19 06:22am

Good report. However it is focused more on openness of camera & software side only. It would be interesting to know the feedback of SIs and end users for "openness" or "end to end offering" of various software applications such as VMS/VA/AI/ANPR/FRS/Forensics etc!!

Application being the main driving force now a days, it is important to know if SIs/End users like a fully integrated software platform offering unified yet modular capabilities OR different applications integrated using traditional APIs/SDKs.

In addition, the definition of software openness with regard to its "agnostic" characteristics of "open to OS, Open to database, open to browser interface etc etc" needs to be taken into consideration. We all know..just being ONVIF compliant doesn't mean "openness"in true sense.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Undisclosed Integrator #3

11/13/19 05:28pm

You have to know the pros and cons of both. Being an SI you don't have time to do all the research of who works well with who but if you can find time and interview your local reps and weed out their BS, and/or hold them accountable open is best.

But when you're a SI that just blindly trusts what the manufacturers say, you're done for. Example, Avigilon VMS, 100 camera install, one of our reps made sure to ask if Axis multi sensors are supported. Avigilon says yes, at the same time does not mention each sensor is a license cost. That sure took away margin for us. Of course the Axis didn't work well either on the Avigilon VMS and it was a year round back and forth with Avigilon/Axis/End User. Total mess. I blame our rep to believe what Avigilon says, again though, he didn't really have time to dig in details.

That being said, Avigilon is great, IF you ONLY use their cameras. Great AC, IF you use theirs. Great all around IF you use theirs. Avigilon has its place, just do your homework.

Agree: 1
Disagree: 1
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Michael Miller

In reply to Undisclosed Integrator #3 | 11/13/19 05:52pm

Avigilon now only charges one license for multi-head cameras I would have to check the release notes but I saw it in one of the ACC7 releases. We use Axis cameras on ACC without issue and we even have the analytic events and motion detection v4 working in ACC.

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 2
Unhelpful
Funny

Undisclosed Integrator #3

In reply to Michael Miller | 11/13/19 06:42pm

A very noteworthy change, thank you.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Michael Miller

In reply to Undisclosed Integrator #3 | 11/13/19 06:46pm

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

Undisclosed Integrator #3

In reply to Michael Miller | 11/13/19 06:53pm

Good move by Avigilon.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Undisclosed Manufacturer #4

11/13/19 09:06pm

I'm interested in learning if end users have a preference, and if so, what.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Avatar

Ross Vander Klok

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Undisclosed Manufacturer #4 | 11/14/19 01:35pm

I prefer to go with open. Use AXIS cameras and you can pretty much integrate seamlessly with any VMS. Something goes wrong with that VMS, it doesn't develop fast enough or whatever, just go with another one. Obviously not a quick, easy decision or process to switch VMS' but at least you have the option.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Avatar

John Bazyk

Command Corporation
IPVMU Certified | 11/13/19 09:13pm

I used to be an advocate for end-to-end solutions. There are some real advantages to a fully enclosed system. However, I have changed my view over the last few years. It is more challenging to deploy an open system. It requires more skill to deploy and maintain for the customer. At the end of the day, you have options though. If one customer wants one feature set and another wants something else. You can get it to them. We use Spectrum as our core VMS. From there we can do just about anything we want including integrating it with intrusion, access control, and fire alarm systems.

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

Undisclosed #5

12/15/19 04:35pm

As end user on multi residential highrise complex building i prefer end-end option cause when there is a problem i don’t want the people blaming each others about compatibility , firmware updates etc.. ‘Since our needs are not so much sophisticated but lots of cams end-end option is the best i think mostly for reliability.
Also when we shop for a complete system (vms+some analitics+cams +icloud etc.. )

the end-end company has an advantage cause they can show us there product all together in a real environment or in a show center wish is more reassuring for a non- tech person.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed End User #5 | 12/15/19 04:47pm

#5, thanks for the feedback! Have you picked something yet? if so, what?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Undisclosed #5

In reply to John Honovich | 12/15/19 05:14pm

No not yet, right now looking between Inaxsys, Avigilon and SensTar but i need also to take in consideration compatibility with some of our existant system in some of our buildings, final goal being to centralise in one monitoring station so analytics will be need cause of large numbers of buildings and cam.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Undisclosed End User #5

In reply to Undisclosed End User #5 | 01/19/20 02:05pm

"in one monitoring location" not station.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts reporting, tutorials and software funded by subscriber's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.
Loading Related Reports