"Because it's Windows-based, it actually reports quite well. It reports everything you can think of on the Windows server and allows you to monitor anything. It's excellent for those in the Windows world as it's very good at it."
"It is a user-friendly product that requires almost no maintenance."
"It is very good at monitoring Microsoft Server."
"I like some of their newer features, such as maintenance schedules, because SCOM records SLA and SLO time."
"The most valuable feature is the extensibility, as there are really no limits as to what you can do with it."
"It's easy to use."
"We have found the scalability capabilities to be okay."
"The advantages of SCOM are that it is definitely user friendly and a more appropriate solution for what we need."
"The solution is great for monitoring. If something is going wrong, we can immediately find the root cause."
"The most valuable feature is application monitoring."
"Monitoring of processes and services is the most valuable feature. It is not necessarily just the server alone in terms of the CPU or the memory. We can go in-depth into services and processes."
"The solution has good alerts. Notifications are sent via email to technicians. You can filter the kinds of alerts you want to receive as well. It's excellent."
"It's good at monitoring system-specific things like ports, services."
"The most valuable feature is the Access Rights Manager."
"The initial setup was relatively easy, and we didn't have to install anything. All we had to do was put on the devices we wanted to monitor."
"They can focus more on cloud monitoring instead of on-premise monitoring. We should be able to monitor cloud-related applications. They can include this feature in the next release. If it is in the cloud, we can have scalability by using Kubernetes. The container is containerized, packaged, and managed using Kubernetes. This feature is not there in SCOM. Going forward, if they can focus on that, it will be great."
"The management of the servers could be better."
"It'll help if they can provide real-time or closer to real-time monitoring."
"There are some negative points about this product. Sometimes, the capabilities of the software don't appear, and you can't directly see the results. You have to wait for a long period to refresh the policy to push it to the software or other patches."
"The solution should be more user-friendly and offer a better user interface."
"It would be a much better product if Microsoft provided management packs with the product."
"I would like to see them improve their network monitoring."
"The configurations could be better. There are multiple tests where you can do something, but they can be a trigger as well. The overriding methodologies are not that easy. The configurations are difficult. The configuration and thorough day-to-day operations to get them to the level you want takes some time. It's very difficult."
"Support for the IBM Mainframe is needed."
"In terms of the dashboards on offer, they should work to improve them. The types of dashboards that you get in terms of the graphs on offer aren't ideal right now."
"Reporting is the only thing with which we currently have challenges. They have this in two ways. There is the report writer, which is the backend, and we also have web reports, which are on the console. So, they have removed the report writer for the backend reports, and we are making use of the web console, but most of the users are not finding it very interesting to use the frontend reports. I would like them to bring back the report writer. That's the key area within it to improve on the reporting. If they can bring back the report writer, then most users will actually be comfortable. I have some customers who are trying to export their report to an Excel format, but it is not possible because they said any report that has been done from the web console cannot be exported to Excel, but most of the customers need to export their reports to Excel. That's one area they need to work on."
"It lacks a user experience for measuring things like the end-to-end time for which a user waits for a specific response in the system. In the application layer, it has some very basic stuff. You have to build your own with manuscripts and things like that."
"I would like to see support for non-Windows or non-Microsoft domains, especially Apache and other non-Windows servers."
"The stability, flexibility, and ease of use could be improved."
"The templates could use improvement. Currently, they are quite complex. They should have drag-and-drop functionality instead. It would make it easier to use."
SolarWinds Server & Application Monitor (SAM) delivers powerful application and server monitoring capabilities for IT pros, enabling them to diagnose and troubleshoot performance issues faster. Do not let slow applications and downtime impact your end-users and business services. Pinpoint the root cause of application issues across various layers of the IT stack. SolarWinds SAM is affordable and easy to deploy, use, and customize. You can automatically discover your system's environment and start monitoring in about an hour. No professional services or consultation needed.
SCOM is ranked 1st in Event Monitoring with 14 reviews while SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor is ranked 7th in Server Monitoring with 7 reviews. SCOM is rated 7.8, while SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of SCOM writes "Feature rich, scalable and user-friendly, but open-source products are free and do the same thing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor writes "Has good configuration capabilities and very good monitoring". SCOM is most compared with Zabbix, Dynatrace, Nagios XI, PRTG Network Monitor and LogicMonitor, whereas SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor is most compared with Azure Monitor, Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager and Datadog.
We monitor all Event Monitoring reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.