In managed network services, outsourcing is on the rise.
Gartner highlights this in the latest Magic Quadrant dedicated to the market. It urges close attention: outsourcing the delivery function tends to extend response times.
SLA levels have scarcely evolved in recent years, even as suppliers tout the benefits of their AI-enabled operations (AIOps).
The integration of AI building blocks has a more noticeable impact: it stimulates customer interest in co-management. Agent-based approaches are beginning to spread, at least for network configuration and the supervision of dynamic routing.
In recent months, vendors have prominently highlighted their NaaS options. These take multiple forms, from a monthly subscription bundle (design, installation, equipment rental, monitoring) to packages that let you add or remove services or adjust SLAs. Overall, these offerings suffer from a lack of tariff transparency and tend to restrict the client’s ability to modify service levels.
17 providers, 9 “leaders”
The Magic Quadrant for managed network services positions providers on two axes: “Execution” (quality of products/services, pricing, customer experience…) and “Vision” (go-to-market strategy, innovation, business model…).
The situation on the axis « Execution » :
| Rank | Provider | Year-over-year change |
| 1 | XTIUM | + 1 |
| 2 | HCL Technologies | – 1 |
| 3 | NTT DATA | + 6 |
| 4 | Tata Consultancy Services | + 4 |
| 5 | Hughes Network Systems | – 1 |
| 6 | Comcast Business | + 8 |
| 7 | Microland | – 4 |
| 8 | Systal Technology Solutions | + 3 |
| 9 | Accenture | = |
| 10 | Sify Technologies | = |
| 11 | MetTel | – 5 |
| 12 | Wipro | – 5 |
| 13 | Telefónica | – 1 |
| 14 | DXC Technology | new entrant |
| 15 | AT&T | = |
| 16 | Lumen | = |
| 17 | Kyndryl | – 4 |
On the axis “Vision” :
| Rank | Provider | Year-over-year change |
| 1 | Systal Technology Solutions | + 8 |
| 2 | NTT DATA | + 5 |
| 3 | Microland | + 2 |
| 4 | HCL Technologies | – 1 |
| 5 | XTIUM | + 1 |
| 6 | Hughes Network Systems | + 2 |
| 7 | MetTel | – 6 |
| 8 | Tata Consultancy Services | + 3 |
| 9 | Accenture | – 7 |
| 10 | Sify Technologies | + 2 |
| 11 | Wipro | – 7 |
| 12 | Lumen | + 5 |
| 13 | Kyndryl | – 3 |
| 14 | Telefónica | + 1 |
| 15 | AT&T | – 1 |
| 16 | DXC Technology | new entrant |
| 17 | Comcast Business | – 4 |
SLAs: Not Accenture’s strong suit
Gartner notes for Accenture a high level of automation in the delivery process, which speeds up provisioning and incident remediation. It also praises a more ambitious agentic roadmap than most competitors—covering remediation and contextual changes—and a ZTNA offering that is more complete, managing edge and OT deployments with SLAs.
Beyond not differentiating by service type (LAN, WAN, security), Accenture’s SLAs omit KPIs such as site availability. And the remedies for non-compliance are lower than at many other providers. As for the user portal, it can offer only a partial view of application performance. Accenture also does not stand out for its security roadmap, relying largely on advances from third-party providers.
A fragmented customer portal at HCLTech
Gartner commends the thoroughness of HCLTech’s continuous service-management improvement plan. It also notes progress—already achieved and planned—in AI/automation, as well as the quality of SD-WAN and CASB processes relative to peers.
HCLTech, however, lags in first-contact resolution. Its customer portal requires switching between several interfaces. NAC provider support is limited.
Hughes, lagging on threat detection
Across LAN, WAN and security, Hughes offers lower prices than most competitors. Its WAN roadmap is “more ambitious” than average, aiming to leverage AI for network visibility and usage prediction. It also scores well on NAC integrations.
Hughes, however, has fewer OEM SD-WAN junctions than most others. It also shows a lag in threat detection, and its portfolio does not yet include tools for monitoring the digital experience.
Restrictive pricing model at Microland
Gartner regards Microland’s customer portal as “above average” (navigation, customization, network/security visibility). Its LAN and WAN roadmaps are among the most ambitious, complemented by a particularly comprehensive ZTNA offering (micro-segmentation, DLP, etc.) and integration with a wide range of SASE solutions.
Compared with rivals, Microland adopts a more restrictive pricing model for MACD operations (Move, Add, Change, Delete), including automated actions. Its SD-WAN roadmap is less exhaustive, and its industry-focused strategy omits finance.
Minor evolutions at NTT
NTT stands out for its first-contact resolution rates and automation. Its pricing is below average for LAN, WAN and security. It also provides a more complete view of monitoring performance.
Its latest advances in CASB and threat detection were deemed minor relative to other providers. Its portal could be more user-friendly, and planned upgrades do not seem to substantially improve the situation, according to Gartner. NAC integrations are also limited.
Higher-than-average prices at Sify in the network domain…
Sify stands out on WAN, with additions that improved visibility into hybrid environments, automated configuration and agent-based incident resolution. Incident classification is more structured and detailed than among peers. Also a strong point for its security roadmap, blending unified policy management with adaptive ZTNA.
In LAN and SD-WAN, prices are higher than most providers. Its first-contact resolution and automated-resolution rates sit among the lowest in the Magic Quadrant. Sify also does not allow NAC integration with other security tools, such as EDR, WAF and SIEM.
… and Systal shines on security
Systal is “above average” in incident management and alert automation. It also scores well on its security roadmap, particularly for threat research. Its customer portal—navigation, customization, incident management, network visibility, analytics tools—and the associated roadmap are strong assets.
Security pricing is higher than for most peers. As with Accenture, SLA breach credits are modest. Geographic deployment is limited (primarily Europe; the roadmap is heavily oriented toward the USA).
Tata lacks transparency on SLAs
More comprehensive than most rivals in LAN and WAN roadmaps (technology and delivery), Tata is usually cheaper overall. It also scores well on several security aspects (ZTNA, CASB support, NAC integration, availability).
The customer portal requires switching between multiple interfaces. Public disclosures of SLA credits for non-compliance are not provided, complicating the assessment of commitments. And Tata’s growth ambitions outside India (its domestic market) do not target a specific region.
WAN Roadmap not differentiated for XTIUM
XTIUM (ATSG’s new brand) has the advantage of automated platform capabilities, plus a high first-contact resolution rate. LAN management investments have been substantial over the past year. On security, it stands out for service availability management and data integrity.
In the public description of its offerings, XTIUM does not clearly articulate the benefits, according to Gartner. SLAs are not differentiated across segments, and remedies are modest. The WAN roadmap focuses on security, with no planned enhancements for visibility or governance.
* To appear in the Magic Quadrant for Network Services, a vendor had to report at least 80% first-contact resolution, with at least 25% of those resolutions being automated.
