We performed a comparison between SCOM and Zenoss Cloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Event Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"The single dashboard is a valuable feature."
"SCOM has helped us to monitor all the VMs in our environment, especially the Windows servers."
"The solution primarily drives system information, and I believe it works fine."
"The most valuable features for us are the monitoring, the health explorer, and the console."
"It is very good at monitoring Microsoft Server."
"Availability monitoring is the feature I have found most valuable, as well as the capacity and ability to send notifications."
"The advantages of SCOM are that it is definitely user friendly and a more appropriate solution for what we need."
"This solution allows us to standardize all of the reports for monitoring the network, so it helps a lot for auditing purposes."
"We have found the scalability capabilities to be okay."
"They have also accommodated many state-of-the-art technologies like Docker and ZooKeeper."
"What I like most about Zenoss Service Dynamics is that it monitors the devices and gives close to real-time alerts. For example, in case the device is not available, Zenoss Service Dynamics generates an alert so my team can resolve the issue."
"It's easy to use."
"The custom built integration is one of the most valuable features because you can see all the especially critical items."
"The most valuable feature is the flexible discovery mechanism."
"Its Docker Container concept is mind blowing. It is the first monitoring tool which comes with Docker features."
"The product offers good documentation that helps with initial training."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"The technical support needs improvement."
"Application monitoring must be improved."
"The solution should be more user-friendly and offer a better user interface."
"The solution can be improved by expanding to cloud usage."
"The management of the servers could be better."
"All of the areas of reporting are very bad and need to be improved."
"Non Windows monitoring is fairly weak. Network device monitoring is not reliable."
"We didn't know the solution enough, and therefore, it took a while to set everything up correctly. There was a learning curve."
"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."
"There is room for improvement with the administrative part. They introduced Control Center to manage things in Zenoss 5. The services that Zenoss provides remained the same, but the administrative part, since they introduced Docker, etc., has become a little complex"
"The AI aspect needs to improve."
"Now it is stable, but they should design threshold parameters in percentage instead of raw values."
"The inclusion of a feature to show a graphical view of the network would be a helpful improvement."
"It would be ideal if the product offered sound alerts."
"There was a problem with Zenoss and storage monitoring."
"As Zenoss Service Dynamics is more for network-centric devices and you want to monitor, for example, a server, its services, IP addresses, and interfaces, if it's a network and you're going to monitor multiple items, you'll be charged multiple times. This is what Zenoss Service Dynamics needs to improve to make sure that customers pay just one fee to monitor the entire server. What I'd like to see in Zenoss Service Dynamics in the future is a public cloud monitoring feature, particularly for the Azure public cloud. Another additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of the solution is integration with the Azure public cloud because I know that there are some services from Azure that Zenoss Service Dynamics is currently unable to monitor."
More Juniper Mist Premium Analytics Pricing and Cost Advice →
SCOM is ranked 3rd in Event Monitoring with 78 reviews while Zenoss Cloud is ranked 11th in Event Monitoring with 8 reviews. SCOM is rated 7.8, while Zenoss Cloud is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of SCOM writes "Has a good reporting engine, but its monitoring of the cloud-based environment could be improved". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zenoss Cloud writes "Generates close to real-time alerts so users can resolve issues, but needs more integration and public cloud monitoring features". SCOM is most compared with Dynatrace, Zabbix, Datadog, Nagios XI and ManageEngine OpManager, whereas Zenoss Cloud is most compared with Zabbix, Nagios XI, ServiceNow IT Operations Management and MYCOM OSI. See our SCOM vs. Zenoss Cloud report.
See our list of best Event Monitoring vendors and best Network Monitoring Software vendors.
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.