We compared SCOM and Zabbix based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
Based on the user reviews, SCOM is praised for its monitoring capabilities, ease of use, and seamless integration with Microsoft products. Users report positive experiences with SCOM's customer service, promptness, and efficiency. Meanwhile, Zabbix stands out for its robust performance, customization options, and customer service excellence. Users appreciate Zabbix's ability to monitor various parameters with ease and its user-friendly interface. However, users have suggested improvements in areas such as interface intuitiveness, documentation support, customization options, and integration capabilities.
Features: Based on user feedback, SCOM is praised for its robust monitoring capabilities, real-time alerts, seamless integration with other Microsoft products, and efficient troubleshooting capabilities. On the other hand, Zabbix stands out with its ease of monitoring and tracking various parameters, extensive customization options, and user-friendly dashboards facilitating data management and visualization. Overall, both products offer valuable features but with different strengths and focus areas.
Pricing and ROI: SCOM's setup cost has been found to be manageable and not requiring significant investments, according to user feedback. The licensing is straightforward and flexible, offering convenient usage. On the other hand, Zabbix offers a reasonably priced solution with a straightforward setup process. The licensing model is flexible and accommodating for different business needs., The feedback from users highlights the differences between SCOM and Zabbix in terms of return on investment (ROI). Users express satisfaction with Zabbix's performance, capabilities, and customization options, emphasizing its ability to monitor and analyze network and server performance, detect issues in real-time, and optimize resources for enhanced operational performance.
Room for Improvement: SCOM users have suggested enhancing the interface to be more intuitive, improving reporting capabilities, integrating with other software, and enhancing performance and stability. On the other hand, Zabbix could enhance its user interface, improve documentation for troubleshooting and setup, provide easier customization options, and better integration with external systems.
Deployment and customer support: The reviews for SCOM indicate varying timeframes for deployment and setup, with some users taking three months for deployment and others taking a week for setup. However, one user mentioned taking a week for both deployment and setup. On the other hand, the reviews for Zabbix show some users spending three months on deployment and an additional week on setup, while others required a week for both. It is important to consider the context in which the terms are used., SCOM's customer service and support have received positive remarks, with users describing it as prompt, helpful, and knowledgeable. On the other hand, Zabbix's customer service and support are highly praised and regarded as excellent, with users appreciating their expertise and strong commitment to resolving issues efficiently.
The summary above is based on 34 interviews we conducted recently with SCOM and Zabbix users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"The single dashboard is a valuable feature."
"The solution's reporting engine has given me detailed information on which applications or services I've either failed or about to fail in terms of the predictive makeup on Azure cloud."
"SCOM's most valuable features are the network path feature, reporting, and integration with business intelligence."
"It is a user-friendly product that requires almost no maintenance."
"The solution is scalable. If you want to monitor more you have to buy more licenses, but you can add on. We don't plan to increase usage."
"The stability has been great."
"SCOM has helped us to monitor all the VMs in our environment, especially the Windows servers."
"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."
"Zabbix is good for discovery."
"The features I found most valuable are the user interface and a wide range of network devices that are easy to configure."
"The solution is open-source, easy to manage, and user-friendly making it easy for anyone to use."
"I'm supervising all the IT departments, and Zabbix seems quite good for them. It provides graphics and information in real time. We get alerts about crashes on the system, enabling us to quickly repair issues. We can easily find devices with problems."
"We have found that Zabbix is more easy to use than other applications."
"It can send messages to our ticketing system."
"The performance and bandwidth are valuable features."
"The template system in Zabbix is very beneficial as it saves time in configuration."
"The technical support needs improvement."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"It could use some system enhancements, such as better dashboards."
"The interface is a little bit cumbersome and certain actions could be simplified."
"In a future release, they should add email notification alerts."
"The solution should be more user-friendly and offer a better user interface."
"It lacks certain details that other products do better, like granular access and better application monitoring."
"It'll help if they can provide real-time or closer to real-time 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."
"Third-party tools have had to be created to make SCOM management pack creation more efficient and effective. However, this weighs down the application as it just adds a resource requirement, which is ballooning the size of the necessary storage and all that for essentially substandard components."
"I would like to better be able to monitor Oracle processes."
"Outside of the normal standard monitoring, I would like to extend patching, importing patching, and supporting patching for Windows Servers."
"The System Center Operations Manager can be improved."
"I am having difficulties connecting it to Grafana, as well as some of the other plugins like Kibana."
"To improve Zabbix, adding more features to support the monitoring of modern workloads like containers would be beneficial."
"The user web interface is a little bit too basic, we need to link Zabbix to Grafana to have more options, such as graphs and charts. The interface needs to be improved. Additionally, there could be better integration with Grafana API."
"We had some scalability issues with a large number of nodes."
"They should open an SSH session from the web interface."
More Juniper Mist Premium Analytics Pricing and Cost Advice →
SCOM is ranked 10th in Network Monitoring Software with 78 reviews while Zabbix is ranked 1st in Network Monitoring Software with 101 reviews. SCOM is rated 7.8, while Zabbix is rated 8.2. 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 Zabbix writes "Allows any number of customizations but lacks functionality for finding root causes". SCOM is most compared with Dynatrace, Datadog, Nagios XI, ManageEngine OpManager and AppDynamics, whereas Zabbix is most compared with Centreon, Checkmk, Nagios Core, Amazon CloudWatch and LibreNMS. See our SCOM vs. Zabbix report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors.
We monitor all Network Monitoring Software 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.