We performed a comparison between Microsoft Configuration Manager and ScienceLogic based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Server Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution has a very good set of features."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is patch management."
"Software deployment and WSUS are most valuable."
"It's a stable product."
"SCCM does everything from A to Z for a Windows operating system."
"This solution has made life easy with respect to patching, compliance, and OSD."
"The most valuable features are application deployment and task-sequenced imaging."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is it's incredibly simple to configure and execute changes in bulk, allowing for seamless deployment. With this solution, you can easily track the status of all modifications and send them with ease, making it a comprehensive and efficient solution for any necessary adjustments."
"It is very easy to configure because we are using an agent-less version. You can very quickly implement a collector for monitoring device servers."
"Dynamic Component Mapping is key and unique."
"It is simple."
"Best feature of all is detailed monitoring of services, processes, ports and SSL certificates and or web content."
"Science Logic provides distributed and all-in-one concept in monitoring, you can easily customize the features in this product."
"One of the valuable features is rapid dashboards."
"It has good monitoring capabilities across cloud environments, data centers, and hybrid environments."
"The best feature is the highly flexible graphs."
"In spite of us being a premier customer we find the support unsatisfactory."
"SCCM does not scale well, which is one of the reasons we are not going to continue to use it."
"The setup was complex and I faced a lot of problems initially because I was new to the solution."
"I would like to see an agentless version of the solution."
"The solution does not support remote devices so the CMG is still required."
"Marketing: Our management doesn't understand that there is a piece of software which helps them automate and manage the entire network, as far as operating systems on computers."
"The deployment process is lengthy and should be quicker to complete."
"The assets have reached their end-of-life, and patching them is a complex and laborious task. It would be highly advantageous if there were an integrated solution that provided distinct options for each end-of-life asset, streamlining the process and facilitating comprehension."
"The product must educate its strategic partners for deployment."
"ScienceLogic should provide detailed documents to customer as the current documents are not sufficient."
"They need a little more self-service."
"Admins do not have direct access to the reporting."
"From a performance perspective, it needs to improve a lot."
"I would like to see out-of-the-box standard dashboards for common services."
"The product is not user-friendly."
"They should improve their support process and add chat."
More Microsoft Configuration Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Configuration Manager is ranked 2nd in Server Monitoring with 78 reviews while ScienceLogic is ranked 6th in Server Monitoring with 42 reviews. Microsoft Configuration Manager is rated 8.2, while ScienceLogic is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Microsoft Configuration Manager writes "Affordable, easy to use, and easy to understand". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ScienceLogic writes "Great integrations, power flow, and good support". Microsoft Configuration Manager is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, ManageEngine Endpoint Central, BigFix, Tanium and Microsoft Intune, whereas ScienceLogic is most compared with Dynatrace, LogicMonitor, SolarWinds NPM, Datadog and Zabbix. See our Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. ScienceLogic report.
See our list of best Server Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all Server 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.