We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

ManageEngine IT360 Competitors and Alternatives

Competitor
# Comparisons
Rating
Get our free report covering OpsRamp, and other competitors of ManageEngine IT360. Updated: September 2021.
540,984 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of ManageEngine IT360 competitors and alternatives

GB
Sr. Network Security Engineer at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 5
Builds and updates network topology in real time, making that information immediately available

Pros and Cons

  • "One of the best things about Auvik, and it's why it's one of my go-to products, are the remote access capabilities. Without a VPN and without any other way in, I'm able to get in and work on and troubleshoot my devices through the remote access console. It has multiple options for that and has been very useful and a huge time-saver. That's one of the killer features. It's one of my must-haves and that's why I like it so much."
  • "The automated, out-of-the-box device configuration backup capability is one of the key features for me in Auvik. To manage a network, one of my key requirements is to be able to rebuild that network if something catastrophic happens. Having up-to-date backups is a must, and this is a tool that I count on to get that right, and it has always performed as I expect."
  • "The logging features could be a little bit better polished, although that aspect is relatively new. It comes in as raw data, with different formats for different vendors. It's not immediately clear to people what's going on with some of that and you have to read through the codes. Some of the higher-end logging solutions, like Splunk, which is very expensive, can parse through it and correlate items better. Improvement to the logging features would be a value-add, but I'm still very happy that it exists."

What is our primary use case?

I do internal IT for a company and I use Auvik for most of my daily tasks as they relate to firewalls, switches, and routing.

How has it helped my organization?

The automation of network mapping enables junior network specialists to resolve issues directly and helps to free up senior-level team members to perform more involved tasks. It can be a key tool in environments where somebody who doesn't have a strong network skillset can go in and see, "Is it good, is it not?" and be able to make a decision on whether it needs to be escalated to me or not.

It also automatically updates network topology. One of the things that I really enjoy doing, when I first get into a new environment with it, is to watch it rebuild the map as it learns in real time. I can see its process and for me, as a very technical guy, that is one of the most entertaining things to watch, as it learns and updates the changes in a network in real time. It saves time maintaining network topology since the tool actually does it automatically. I have a high level of confidence that the information is correct, and it is immediately available. Just last week, I got a call from one of our internal auditors who needed to provide some information. He said, "Yeah, this usually takes a few weeks. Can you provide firmware information and serial numbers?" During our phone call, I was able to get into Auvik, pull the list, get it sent over to him and say, "Here you go. We're done."

Auvik has also decreased our mean time to resolution. Being able to go in and look at what's not broken, very quickly, and get that confirmed, means that I can look at what I actually need to fix. It eliminates a whole bunch of other problems and a whole bunch of checking. It has reduced our MTTR by up to 80 percent in some cases.

And because we've got it triggering PagerDuty alerts, if something problematic really fires off, I will know about it and be in the tool looking at what's going. I can say, "Hey, this is a problem we need to alert," or, "This isn't a problem and we just need to be aware," very quickly.

Another benefit is the TrafficInsights feature which shows network bandwidth usage without the need for expensive, in-line traffic decryption, and it does it very well. That is a very nice-to-have in my current role because we don't have issues with our network bandwidth. But in other environments that I've been in, where there were issues with bandwidth, it is a very well-put-together tool allowing me to find the answer and say, "This is what our problem is." It enables me to tell the business that we either need to spend more money on bandwidth, or we need to deprioritize a certain type of traffic. It gives that information in a format in which I can give it to somebody who is less technical than me. I can show them the graph and say, "This is what's going on and why."

TrafficInsights helps to show you where your system is experiencing performance issues around capacity and what is the busiest traffic. It can help improve network performance by letting me know exactly what's going on. It lets me see whether it is an application misbehaving, a lack of bandwidth, an upgrade that we need to make, or a configuration. It gives me these choices so that I know for real what's going on. In some cases, people "feel" that something is going on, but this gives me the facts to know what's going on. I would estimate TrafficInsights has improved our network performance by 50 percent.

In multiple environments I've been in, we've been able to eliminate other tools and use Auvik as our single network management solution. In those environments, I've had up to five tools that I have been able to decommission by using Auvik. In that environment where there were so many tools in place, replacing them probably saved $100,000 a year.

What is most valuable?

Some of the key features that I get out of it are that it is a well-rounded monitoring solution, so I know when something fails—whether it's a device or a service on the device. But it also performs backup, in inventory, of some of the key things to control and manage the network.

And one of the best things about Auvik, and it's why it's one of my go-to products, are the remote access capabilities. Without a VPN and without any other way in, I'm able to get in and work on and troubleshoot my devices through the remote access console. It has multiple options for that and has been very useful and a huge time-saver. That's one of the killer features. It's one of my must-haves and that's why I like it so much.

In addition, for products in this category, Auvik's ease of use is one of the best. It's really built for people like me. I'm heavy into the parts of IT that are not server-related, including routing, switching, firewalls, et cetera, and it is organized for somebody like me. It is the network engineer's toolset. It gives me what I need upfront in a way that I understand well. Auvik speaks my language.

When it comes to its network discovery capabilities, It is the best that can happen. I've used it in multiple environments, and as long as I've got the right starter information, it can go find information in an hour that would otherwise take a person weeks. It's very good and very quick. I've been able to benchmark it against competitive tools and it is way more useful, giving me information that I actually need and can use.

The automated, out-of-the-box device configuration backup capability is one of the key features for me in Auvik. To manage a network, one of my key requirements is to be able to rebuild that network if something catastrophic happens. Having up-to-date backups is a must, and this is a tool that I count on to get that right, and it has always performed as I expect. I am able to very quickly and easily audit that the backups happen and I know that they're there. I can also restore to a previous point with very little hassle, if anything goes wrong. Compared to other backup solutions, it saves me 80 percent in terms of my time.

What needs improvement?

The logging features could be a little bit better polished, although that aspect is relatively new. It comes in as raw data, with different formats for different vendors. It's not immediately clear to people what's going on with some of that and you have to read through the codes. Some of the higher-end logging solutions, like Splunk, which is very expensive, can parse through it and correlate items better. Improvement to the logging features would be a value-add, but I'm still very happy that it exists.

There are a few edge cases where I have found support for devices to be a little bit lacking. I'm migrating away from Check Point right now and Auvik and Check Point do not get along at all, so it was very troublesome to get those put in place.

Another issue that I know is already in progress, but that will be very nice, is full integration with PagerDuty. I'm using email connectors right now that have a little bit of a lag, so once the APIs are in place between Auvik and PagerDuty, it will give me better alerting when something breaks. I know that's on the roadmap because I've talked to them about it.

For how long have I used the solution?

Between two different companies, I've been using Auvik for about three years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The availability is 99 percent. They do have maintenance windows where it's not available. I've been happy with their communication on the maintenance windows and they pick the times very well when it's not going to be available. I realize that everyone needs maintenance, but it works out very well.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I've used this for everything from companies that are in a single building up to a company that had offices in 20 time zones with almost 100 offices, some of them with 1,000 users, and it was able to scale up to that. I've never had worries about how big this can go.

How are customer service and technical support?

Their technical support is fair to good. There have been a few times where I've had to escalate to somebody higher, when I thought the lower-level person should have understood it, but I've always ended up with a good answer.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is straightforward and, as far as the product category is concerned, it's the most straightforward. I've used this in an MSP environment and I've done deployments into close to 30 companies with Auvik and it is, by far, the fastest way to do it for a fresh deployment.

We can get the initial install going in a few hours and we can be confident in the data in a week or two. Comparing that to other tools, it would be an initial deployment of a week or two and two months until we're confident with our data. It has probably reduced the time spent on setup by 90 percent. And when dealing with an MSP, it cuts down a client onboarding by at least a month, which lets revenue start coming in earlier.

The implementation strategy depends on the size of the environment that we're going into, but we usually put in collectors at key locations and first let them do their discovery and see what's out there. Then we'll tune them down so that the collectors are monitoring from the right locations. But we like to get as much data in as possible, initially, and then tune downward.

As a cloud-based solution, it requires just about no maintenance and that's one of the other benefits of Auvik. With other solutions, we have spent more time updating and babysitting the servers and fixing our tools, instead of fixing our environment. That's a major plus.

What was our ROI?

When I was first evaluating it and we were going through pricing models, I was able to make the case that, for a team of five, this would be better than adding a person to the team when it comes to getting work done.

When I was new in this environment, I was trying to get a lot of stuff together. I brought Auvik as a solution to my supervisor and said, "This is what we used at my last company," and he was familiar with my last company. He viewed them as very good at what they do. I suggested we take a look at Auvik. As soon as he got the pricing during the first sales call around Auvik, he said, "Sold. Well worth that money." They didn't even have to finish the presentation. He saw what was being offered and he also based his decision on the fact that I'd used it before. The cost easily made it worth it in his mind for what it would provide to us.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The pricing is fair for the value and time saved that you get out of it. The larger you go, the more sense it makes per device, because as you hit different pricing tiers, it becomes much more affordable per device.

Auvik is billed by network device. They've got a very clear-cut definition of what is a device and what isn't a device, and that's very convenient. Anything like a server, or a phone, or an access point, is not billed but they are still captured for data, which is very useful. Auvik is very upfront that the solution is not a good server monitoring platform, but it's a fair server monitoring platform and that comes along for free with everything else. My server guys have another system they use for monitoring servers, but they find being able to look at Auvik as well has been a huge value-add.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I have used LogicMonitor, PRTG, the N-central suite, the ManageEngine suite, and the SolarWinds products.

In terms of the differences between those solutions and Auvik, I would summarize them this way: Auvik is a tool built for the network guys, primarily, whereas a lot of other tools are built for the server guys first and then add in network. It's a tool really built for what I care about and it values my time. I'm able to get it put in fast, I'm able to use it fast, and my information is fast. It lets me do more with less.

What other advice do I have?

Definitely go through the proof of concept testing. The results speak for themselves. It's a fully rounded product and everyone I know who has used it has been happy with it.

When you're first deploying it, understand how you need to set up your locations. Otherwise, you're going to end up redoing work. If you're in a larger environment, you need a little bit of knowledge about where things are to be able to put stuff in the right places. If you're small, you can just drop it in and be super-happy with what it gives to you.

Overall, compared to everything else out there, it's a solid 10 out of 10. I haven't found anything that gives me what I need better.

Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Flag as inappropriate
AashishGiri
Chief Technology Officer at Leads Innovation
Reseller
Top 10
Gives us a single, consolidated view of our system, network, and ITSM requirements, while helping us achieve ISO certification targets

Pros and Cons

  • "The role-based dashboards provide data points and charts and topology diagrams in a single window. It's like a spider web, where the application, connectivity, and everything is defined for each user of those applications."
  • "I would like to see an integrated view of Infraon IMS and Infraon Desk. It would be very helpful if that were integrated into the solution."

What is our primary use case?

We have been using it to monitor our data center services, including servers, storage, and all our security appliances. We have a 24/7 NOC operating at our data center and they have been using Infraon IMS extensively for network and data center monitoring.

We also are using Everest Infraon Desk to manage our assets, our incident management system, and our ticketing system, and it's helping us to achieve our ITSM rules.

It's on our own private cloud.

How has it helped my organization?

We were using a lot of open source products to manage our ITSM. We didn't have asset management. We needed to have a network monitoring solution and we needed to have a system monitoring solution. We were using a lot of tools in our data center. That meant that our NOC and system guys had to maintain all these different kinds of devices, and maintaining those products was a headache. With Everest, we have a single, consolidated view of our system, our network, and even our ITSM requirements, like asset management, change management, and incident management. We are even using their ticketing system for our organization. It's been a great help for us in terms of managing our ITSM policies. 

In addition, it has helped us to achieve our ISO certification targets for which we need to maintain all incident management and incident reporting. We can also find an SLA report for our appliance.

We have also tested the workflow management, to try to find dormant VMs, machines that haven't had any traffic or that are not being used by customers; or if there are any VMs that are using very high CPU or memory or choking our network bandwidth. We're also monitoring NetFlow to see the traffic behavior of the VMs: What kind of traffic have they been using? We're using these workflows and NetFlow monitoring tools to zero in on the VMs, if there are any infections going on or if there are any management activities going on that have been using our infrastructure.

What is most valuable?

What I really like about it are the details that it provides whenever we click an icon or any of the objects on the dashboard. We get a detailed description. We're running 200-plus VMs in our infrastructure. If I click on any of the symbols I can see detailed information about a VM: the traffic, the resources utilized by that VM, and whether the SLA is being met by that VM and the services. That is visible on the dashboard. It's just a few clicks and you get all the details as required.

There are role-based access policies defined for our employees. For example, at the L1 level, we define the policies that they can view and the devices they can access. They can only view them, they cannot edit. Our higher-level guys can edit, add devices, and they can create multiple dashboards as required. This is important because each person in our NOC or our data center has specific, targeted goals. Some of the network admins only require seeing network traffic utilization. Some will require port utilization. They may require specific ports and specific devices to monitor a single application.

For example, we have a database system and we need to monitor the underlying network infrastructure related to it, as well as the application related to it. We created a customized dashboard and handed it to the application custodian or database custodian of that system so that he can get an overview of the condition of all the infrastructure that he is using.

We have set a role-based access policy for network admins and network operators so they will only be monitoring VPNs, network device connectivity, and all the tunnels. We are connected with multiple internet service providers, so we can monitor which of them is using a lot of traffic and where the traffic is coming from. 

The role-based dashboards provide data points and charts and topology diagrams in a single window. It's like a spider web, where the application, connectivity, and everything is defined for each user of those applications.

The granularity that Infraon IMS provides to us is really spectacular. If we see a VM in what may be an unhealthy state, we drill down and see what the issue is, whether it's a memory issue or a CPU issue, what time it was triggered, and how it was recovered. All these kinds of measurements are available via drill-down from an events list base.

In addition, the GUI is very interactive and customizable, because the dashboards are customizable. There are two parts to the GUI. One is the operation part where we can see reports and customize them. The other is the admin part where you can add devices. That has to be very quick because we are adding new devices every day, and it is very helpful. We are pretty satisfied with the GUI.

We were also amazed by the reporting capabilities. Previously, we were using open source monitoring systems, like Nagios and Cacti, and we were having a hard time with them. You need to customize each and every module and every parameter to generate an intuitive report view and a summarized query. So getting analytics or doing capacity planning was difficult. With Infraon IMS we're happy with the number of reports and the granularity. And its summarized view of the infrastructure helps us in planning.

What needs improvement?

In terms of improvements, I would like to see an integrated view of Infraon IMS and Infraon Desk. It would be very helpful if that were integrated into the solution.

In terms of additional functionality, a feature they may have but that I haven't been able to find is the ability for a manager to see all the tickets of his subordinates. It would be good if a manager could see every incident ticket, even those not assigned to him. That way, a manager could see every incident ticket that has been opened in the organization and assign them to individuals.

For how long have I used the solution?

We've been using Infraon IMS for more than six months.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I have not seen any hiccups since the deployment. There haven't been any issues.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We have not scaled it that much, but per the information that I have, and from what we have seen in the infrastructure and system, increasing resources or trying to add modules is not too difficult. Because we were not previously using NetFlow monitoring, we added a small module for NetFlow monitoring, and the system was scaled out for the database sizing to retain the NetFlow sizes. It was straightforward.

Regarding expanding use of the solution, because we are providing services to our customers, we want to create a type of tenant-based model and sell it to our customers.

In addition, as of now we are only monitoring the infrastructure that we are handling, like data center services, meaning our infrastructure. We're planning to enhance it so that all our data center colocation customers can also have their own ITSM tools.

How are customer service and technical support?

As far as I know, the experience with their technical support has been very wonderful. Whenever we have had any queries, they have responded promptly. The technical guys are in touch with our project team all the time. Whenever they need any plugins or tweaks, they have been helped by the Everest technical team.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We were using open source tools, like Cacti and Nagios, and we were using another solution for our ticketing system. We decided to switch because there are limitations with open source. We had to have a dedicated team assigned to the open source solutions and that team had to manage the system. There was a lot to tweak with open source, per our organization's requirements. 

We had Cacti for network monitoring to provide a graphical representation. For SLAs we needed to maintain a Nagios system where we had to add all our devices and network monitoring tools. We were also using a separate asset management tool which was not fully functional. It was a separate system and we needed to train our guys on multiple systems. It was a pain for the operation team, and the NOC team also had to look at different consoles and different solutions to find any compliance issues.

And the ticketing system also created a lot of impact, because previously we were using a plain vanilla ticketing system that was open source and not very feature-rich. It was just a basic ticketing system, and generating reports to get any analytics on incidents required a lot of manual work.

With Infraon IMS what we have found is a single pane of glass to view all our network monitoring requirements for our NOC system. 

How was the initial setup?

The setup was pretty straightforward for our team because Everest sent a guy who helped us to develop the infrastructure and that helped a lot when it came to the initial deployment.

They required some VM cloud infrastructure information, like space and sizing. We had to prepare those machines before deploying the solution.

We had our guys trained on it within a week or so. They understand the architecture, as there are a lot of components built into this solution. There are databases, collectors, and some network connectors. But it's pretty easy to learn Infraon IMS because there aren't too many components that you need to set up.

Within a month or so our ticketing and NMS were already deployed.

As of now, our whole NOC team of 10 to 15 guys is using the solution. Our system team, which has about another eight people, is also using it, as are the executives to generate asset, compliance, and SLA reports.

What about the implementation team?

We assigned two of our staff to the deployment, one from the network team and one from the system team, and the Everest guys were aligned with that. They helped our team to get it deployed and, in the next month, we rolled it out to production.

What was our ROI?

We have not done an ROI calculation yet, but I'm seeing a lot of impact as a result of the deployment of this infrastructure, with our guys needing less time to manage the NMS solution itself. We have a technical pool that manages our system and the operations of the data center. When they need to spend all their time managing the NMS system, we're losing all that time. Now, they don't need to focus on the management tools. They can monitor another customer and do other work. It's saving a lot of time for them, something like 20 to 30 percent of their time.

We had a lot of tools and products in the data centers and we were getting bogged down. All these solutions required resources and our guys needed to be trained on them. Whenever someone would leave, we needed to train the newer guy. It was creating a lot of havoc.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The pricing is reasonable, given the features that they provide. There have not been any additional costs beyond the standard fees.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We looked into ManageEngine, PRTG, and other tools. But for our infrastructure and our scale, we required something that could be scaled out and something that was customizable. We also needed something to provide us with ITSM tools, a help desk with workflow and a ticketing system.

We also evaluated Zabbix about a year and a half ago but the deployment cost was very high. It was going to take more than two months to deploy. Our guys were not so aligned with or trained on Zabbix. They would find it very difficult to manage all the plugins. So we opted not to go with open source.

With Infraon, we get a one-stop view of all infrastructure and every ITSM requirement that we have, from a single vendor and solution. It had good reviews in the international market also. We came across it because we had proposed it to one of our customers and we saw that the customer was very happy. While managing the system, we found that it is a very helpful tool.

What other advice do I have?

We don't use Infraon IMS to automatically trigger processes to help resolve issues when it detects compliance violations, but we have triggered reports. We don't want any automation as of now, so we are only using manual intervention to take any actions. We need to be sure about our workflows. Once the actions are tried and tested then we will put in the automation.

The biggest lesson I have learned is around the consolidation of all our NOC and ITSM requirements in a single solution. We were only looking for an NMS solution, but they provided us with a workflow, automation, a ticketing system, and an incident management system. It has been a revelation for us.

Overall, it's a wonderful one-stop ITSM solution for infrastructure.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Private Cloud
Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor. The reviewer's company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Reseller.
Flag as inappropriate
Randy Newman
Lead Network Engineer / Solutions Specialist at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 5
Enables us to be more proactive in seeing and understanding issues before they have a larger impact

Pros and Cons

  • "The alerting and the customized alerting are the most valuable features. We can set thresholds at multiple levels to alert us to issues that might start happening before they happen."
  • "The biggest area of improvement is with mobile. I'd love to see them improve the mobile app side. That's something I've mentioned to them on multiple occasions. It's one thing to be sitting in front of my computer when a problem or an alert comes up."

What is our primary use case?

We host data centers and transit providers to enterprises, other hosting providers, end-users, and so on. We utilize LogicMonitor for monitoring our infrastructure and for monitoring our servers for some of our software on a proactive basis. We like the depth of LogicMonitor given that it can alert us to problems before they happen, rather than after they happen. We'd like to be more proactive than reactive.

Our collectors are hosted on-prem and we're using LogicMonitor's SaaS platform for our results.

How has it helped my organization?

It has improved my organization by maximizing uptime. That's of the utmost importance to us because the business that we're in is to maximize our uptime. LogicMonitor has enabled us to be more proactive in seeing and understanding issues before they have a larger impact.

With previous tools that we've used, they didn't have in-depth capability. They alerted us when something was down, instead of being alerted before it went down because thresholds were being met.

In some cases, we have used its ability to customize data sources. There are some cases where we've had to either adjust what's already there or come up with a new data source that would allow us to see into whatever it is that we're looking at. I find customized data sources to be prevalent through more of a customized software or app technology. Given that we're more hardware-based except for adjusting what's already there, we don't do a lot of customization.

In terms of having control over our environment, being proactive has been the clear precedent for our needs, given the ability to customize the data source, adjust thresholds and make it so that not only can we see the current utilization, but also be met with levels of thresholds so that we can see things before they happen.

LogicMonitor has also reduced the number of false positives compared to how many we were getting with other monitoring platforms. We see it from within our environment, not from outside of our environment. Sometimes outside of our environment, there may be routing issues with other providers that prevent an outside monitoring system from reaching us, which would in turn create false positives because these items aren't really down.

We have seen a 10 to 15% decrease in false positives. 

What is most valuable?

The alerting and the customized alerting are the most valuable features. We can set thresholds at multiple levels to alert us to issues that might start happening before they happen. For instance, I'd like to know that I'm at a certain level of memory usage or that a certain port or interface is at a certain percentage level of use. That way I could be prompted ahead of time that it is at 65%, for example, and then get another alert at 80%. We can see things escalating prior to them going completely down or fully utilized.

Additionally, with the alerting, not only does it alert on the software itself, but then the capability to alert via different types, whether it be a text message, a phone call, an email, to be able to assign groups, to be able to assign times in which people will get alerted to things are incredible features that we, as a company, utilize a lot.

We use LogicMonitor's dashboards and they give us a "one-look" to see our most important instances customized to our needs, and we have the ability to have other dashboards that are more specific and drill down into certain devices.

As a provider, we do a lot of bandwidth, transit, and transports. We like to see bandwidth utilization on the interfaces. That's the favorite and the most used out of all of our dashboards.

The reporting features are fantastic. We utilize our reporting to look back at historical data that gives us an idea of what's happened in the past so we can look into the future as to needs and expectations.

We haven't really had an issue where we've lost contact with LogicMonitor. They're pretty good about letting us know about maintenances ahead of time. Other than that, I think I've seen it maybe once where we've been alerted that the collectors can no longer speak and that was not a problem with LogicMonitor, but an issue that we were having with routing.

LogicMonitor has consolidated the monitoring tools we need. In the past, we've used PRTG, MRTG, Cacti, as well as more public use types of tools that we've put together. LogicMonitor has given us the ability to see into all of that within one tool.

It has not helped us to automate. We are not that complex of an environment where when we do add additional devices, it's simple enough to add them manually. Our device count does not grow that exponentially. When we add a device, it's a purposeful add and it takes us all of three seconds to add it into the LogicMonitor environment.

The automated and agentless discovery, deployment, and configuration features are one thing that we've had to do in the past with some of our other monitoring. We installed an agent that adds another layer to a device. In this case, for example, the ability to allow an IP address for the collector through a firewall and for LogicMonitor or for the collector itself to be able to reach out makes things so much easier.

There's less to have to deal with. That goes for having to support the platform as well, knowing that it's a simple collector is fantastic and not having to support a whole other platform that goes with it.

LogicMonitor monitors most devices out-of-the-box. We use pretty straightforward devices from Cisco to Juniper to Arista, and all of the hardware capabilities are shown. Again, a lot is shown within LogicMonitor that we haven't seen in other platforms.

What needs improvement?

The biggest area of improvement is with mobile. I'd love to see them improve the mobile app side. That's something I've mentioned to them on multiple occasions. It's one thing to be sitting in front of my computer when a problem or an alert comes up. It's a completely different thing when I'm remote from my computer and it would be nice to be able to have the same dynamic capabilities in an app as it would from the desktop.

But otherwise, at the moment, what there is, is very sufficient for our purposes. My biggest thing would be to focus on the app side of things.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using LogicMonitor for close to three years now.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

So far the stability has been great. We have not had one issue that I'm aware of with LogicMonitor being down. With just the collectors on-prem, it really makes this platform an agile solution that's very lightweight.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Given the fact that it is so agile and so lightweight, it makes it very simple to add additional collectors when you need them to handle whatever you throw at it and however many devices you want to throw at it. It really is simple. Then as you go through the adding of devices, you can select which collectors you want them to utilize. It makes for very simple departmentalizing.

Devices wise we're probably somewhere in the 500 device range. We plan to increase usage as we expand. We have around 20 users. Everybody is IT level, from help desk to network engineers, to some of our management. Our network engineer department handles deployment and maintenance. 

How are customer service and technical support?

The technical support has been fantastic. Anytime I've ever had a question, they've been there to support me in whatever way. Through to the end, they make sure that we are satisfied. If I have a question about how to do something, they're there to help me. If I see an error, which is fairly rare, they're there to help me to assist in that. They've been great.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Before LogicMonitor, we used multiple solutions. Most of them were third-party, open-source. A lot of them were more community-based projects. Support was a little more time consuming given that you couldn't pick up the phone and call somebody. It's something we would have to post and ask questions of others in the community. 

We switched to LogicMonitor because we needed something that was more in-depth and something that could give us a better view. LogicMonitor covered all of that. Between alerting, graphing, and dashboards, it's really an all in one solution.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was very straightforward. The building out of the collectors was very simple. The ability of those collectors to then contact LogicMonitor was very straightforward. And the ability to add devices was extremely easy.

The initial deployment took maybe an hour.

Our implementation strategy was to make sure that we're covered under all bounds, in a public-private and windows based environment. We knew we had to set up multiple collectors and for all of those to talk back to LogicMonitor, which were all seamless. I don't think we had a problem stepping through that once.

What was our ROI?

We have absolutely seen ROI because it has provided us with the ability to see things before they become a bigger problem. When things become a bigger problem in our environment, that means people are down and that particular customer or customers are losing money. We go back to maximizing uptime. As long as we can maximize our uptime for us and the customers, then everybody's happy.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

It's worth the money. I found LogicMonitor to be a good partner for our business. I really consider it a partner because it does so much for us in the background.

I don't find there to be a lot of additional overhead given the ease of the installation and the ease of use. Really, it's just day-to-day usage. I don't find there to be a whole lot of overhead.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

There were a few solutions that we took a look at. SolarWinds was one of them, ManageEngine was another. Some were a little too convoluted. Some were a little too expensive. We found LogicMonitor to be right in that sweet spot where it had all the features we were looking for and at the right price point.

What other advice do I have?

My advice would be to try it, give it a chance. Its depth and ease of use are well worth whatever fees we are paying. We've found it to be completely invaluable to our environment and our use case.

I would rate LogicMonitor a ten out of ten. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
EW
Owner at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 5
Good integration with Microsoft Active Directory, very easy to extend to other sites, and very stable

Pros and Cons

  • "I enjoy its integration with the Microsoft Active Directory functions, which means users, computers, or other group policies can connect with Windows Active Directory."
  • "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."

What is our primary use case?

We work with our global team to produce software delivery packages and patches. We push the changes to the servers as well as to the computers of the end users.

What is most valuable?

I enjoy its integration with the Microsoft Active Directory functions, which means users, computers, or other group policies can connect with Windows Active Directory.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using this solution for five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is very stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We can easily scale-up when we have a new global site. It is just so easy to extend this solution to other sites, which is an advantage. 

On the IT side, we have 30 people working on this platform, and on the user side, we have 600 people. We use it every month to push down new patches.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We used LANDESK and Manager Engine. Both of these solutions are similar to SCOM and suitable for the simple purpose of management. 

SCOM is just one user interface. It is a Microsoft service user interface. However, it is not user friendly like Manage Engine, which has a self-service desktop where users can log in and change their password themselves. The software also sends out an automatic notification. Manage Engine has a user-friendly interface.

How was the initial setup?

It is very complex to install because you have to plan the whole deployment. You have to design the central server, the deposit server, and the domain. It is a little bit complex as compared to other common server installations. The deployment took two months.

What about the implementation team?

We have a consultant.

What other advice do I have?

This is a good software. I would definitely recommend this software.

I would rate SCOM an eight out of ten.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
GK
Deputy Manager - Infrastructure at a retailer with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
Good for monitoring but complicated to configure and it needs to be more customizable

Pros and Cons

  • "The most valuable feature is monitoring."
  • "Having a more customizable interface and dashboard would be an improvement."

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use Zabbix for monitoring our infrastructure.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is monitoring.

What needs improvement?

Having a more customizable interface and dashboard would be an improvement.

The interface could be more user-friendly because it is can be really complicated if an end-user has to configure it. The administrator usually has to take care of that.

I would like to see more SNMP and storage support.

Application monitoring should be included in the future. I would like to see voice telephony monitoring and database monitoring.

The reporting functionality is limited.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working with Zabbix for the past four years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

This is a stable product.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We have had no problem with scalability. The only people who use it are the IT staff, which is between 10 and 12 people.

How are customer service and technical support?

As we are using the free version, we do not have a support contract.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

We are using the free, open-source version.

What other advice do I have?

This is not a product that I recommend. Instead, I recommend using SolarWindows or ManageEngine for monitoring because there are more features on Zabbix with limited usability. Reports are also limited. Basically, you get more features in SolarWinds or ManageEngine.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Get our free report covering OpsRamp, and other competitors of ManageEngine IT360. Updated: September 2021.
540,984 professionals have used our research since 2012.