We performed a comparison between Huawei eSight and LogicMonitor based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."eSight allows me to monitor and solve any problem in the backbone and any switch in real-time."
"We can scale the solution."
"I like the real-time location monitor or RTLS feature. It is similar to the monitoring feature in Cisco Prime."
"The most important features are alarm management and the visualization of the health of our network devices."
"We use Huawei eSight to monitor devices like Wi-Fi controllers, LAN switches, and routers."
"Huawei eSight provides businesses with monitoring capabilities of network devices across your network."
"The product is stable."
"I like that it supports all our Huawei devices. Unlike other network monitoring tools that monitor Huawei devices, it provides more details when it comes to monitoring or management. We can get complete details about the devices, and management is also simple."
"LogicMonitor saves time in terms of its ability to proxy a connection through a device. For example, if you are troubleshooting a device, which you may want to connect to, you can proxy this connection through the platform. As a support resource, I don't need to use multiple platforms to connect to a device to further investigate the issue. It is all consolidated. From that perspective, it saves time because a resource now only needs to use one platform."
"The solution’s overall reporting capabilities are pretty powerful compared to ones that I have used previously. It seems like it has a lot of customizations that you can put in, but some of the out-of-the-box reports are useful too, like user logon duration and website latency. Those type of things have been helpful and don't require a lot of, if any, changes to get useful content out of them. They have also been pretty easy to implement and use."
"The most valuable feature is the visualization of the data that it is collecting. I have used many products in the past and they tend to roll up the data. So, if you're looking at data over long periods of time, they start averaging the data, which can skew the figures that you're looking at. With LogicMonitor, they have the raw data there for two years, if you are an enterprise customer. If you are looking at that long duration of data, you're seeing exactly what happened during that time."
"It has improved our organization with its capacity planning. We have a performance environment that we use to benchmark our applications. We use it to say, "Okay, at a certain level of concurrency, we know where our application will fall over." Therefore, we are using LogicMonitor dashboards to tell us that we're good. Our platform can handle X number of clients concurrently hitting us at a time."
"LogicMonitor is good for getting a full view of your topologies. They have LiveMaps, which give you a visual representation of your infrastructure."
"The most valuable feature of LogicMonitor is the infrastructure monitoring capability."
"We get full visibility into whatever the customer wants us to monitor and we get it pretty rapidly. That is very important. Only having certain metrics that other platforms will give you out-of-the-box means you only get a small picture, a thumbnail picture. Whereas with LogicMonitor, you get the entire "eight by 10 picture", out-of-the-box. Rather than some availability metrics, you get everything. You get metrics on temperature, anything related to hardware failure, or up and down status."
"The dashboards are the big seller for us. When our customers can see those graphs and are able to interact with the data, that is valuable. They can easily adjust time ranges and the graphs display the data fast. We've used other tools in the past, where you'd say, "Hey, I want the last three months of data on a graph," and it would just sit there and crunch for five minutes before you'd actually see the data. With LogicMonitor, the fast reliability of those dashboards is huge."
"Something that could be improved is the lack of integration with Cisco switches. In the next release, I would like to see better reporting."
"The solution needs to improve it's user interface to make it more modern and stylish. They need to design proper menu positions, features, etc. Right now the layout is complicated."
"It is not a very flexible product."
"It will be better if they can make the simple network topology part more presentable. It would also be better if they had API integration and integration with third-party devices."
"The solution and the operating system come separately. It would be easier if we did not have to deploy anything. A bundle feature would be better."
"This solution could be improved by offering monitoring for all devices and not only Huawei devices."
"The price could be less costly."
"eSight has many features and options, but sometimes, we feel that it should be more advanced, like Cisco. It would be good if they can enable some automation part in eSight. Most of our customers want automation in their network. They don't want a dependency on everything. That's why the automation part must be improved in Huawei. It will be beneficial for customers. Cisco has different products, and there are multiple products for monitoring, automation, etc. In the software-defined network, Cisco has ACI, and VMware has NSX. Such options must be there in Huawei to move to a software-defined network. Unlike Cisco, in the case of eSight, there is only one product. I am not aware of any other product. It would be good to enhance it with at least some automation options so that we can use it effectively in the campus network or big data center environment. When I implemented this Huawei solution, I faced some limitations in particular areas like wireless scanning. This is another part that they can improve. Wireless reporting option is not as effective as other monitoring solutions. For a particular use case, if a customer is asking for some reports, sometimes they are not 100% satisfactory. The reporting structure must be improved."
"LogicMonitor should always improve AI because we are always striving for real intelligence. An additional feature we'd like to see in the next release of LogicMonitor is more in the area of identification of when the dominant workload is working. There are certain devices and applications that have cycles of their own. Some are used primarily during prime time, and some are used during the overnight timeframe, and better identification and classification of those workloads would be helpful. For example, we could then do some more planning about, for this particular set of devices, as it has a prime time environment, and we don't want to see a 24-hour average, as we want to see what is the 75th or 90th percentile utilization during the prime time when it is being used, whenever that prime time is."
"The only functional area I can think of that has room for improvement would be the dashboards. They could use a refresh. It would be nice if there were more widgets and more types of widgets."
"LogicMonitor has good features, but the ease of use is a little bit confusing. Additionally, we are looking for workflow automation, which is a little bit tricky for LogicMonitor."
"LogicMonitor should improve its logging features. It can become expensive and should be cost-effective. It would be great to see prebuilt templates for alerting methods in LogicMonitor that are similar to the prebuilt dashboards. Currently, users have to build their alerting configurations."
"It needs better access for customizing and adding monitoring from the repository. That would be helpful. It seems like you have to search through the forums to figure out what specific pieces you need to get in for specific monitoring, if it's a nonstandard piece of equipment or process. You have to hunt and find certain elements to get them in place. If they could make it a bit easier rather having to find the right six-digit code to put in so it implements, that would be helpful."
"One of the areas that I sometimes find confusing is the way that the data is presented. For example, a couple of weeks back I was looking at bandwidth utilization. That's quite a difficult thing to present, but they should try to dumb down how the data is presented and simplify what they're presenting."
"One thing that could be really better is the mapping. Auvik is really good at it. They have a really nice way to give you a visual representation of your network, but in LogicMonitor, this functionality is not as powerful and as good as Auvik."
"The ease of use with data source tuning could be improved. That can get hairy quickly. When I reach out for help, it's usually around a data source or event source configuration. That can get challenging."
Huawei eSight is ranked 54th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 8 reviews while LogicMonitor is ranked 13th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 25 reviews. Huawei eSight is rated 6.8, while LogicMonitor is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Huawei eSight writes "Useful RTLS feature and good support but needs automation options and better wireless reporting". On the other hand, the top reviewer of LogicMonitor writes "We went from nothing to full visibility across our internal and external estates of equipment". Huawei eSight is most compared with Cisco DNA Center, Zabbix, Cisco Prime, PRTG Network Monitor and SolarWinds NPM, whereas LogicMonitor is most compared with ScienceLogic, SolarWinds NPM, Zabbix, OpsRamp and SCOM. See our Huawei eSight vs. LogicMonitor report.
See our list of best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all IT Infrastructure 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.