We performed a comparison between AppNeta by Broadcom and ScienceLogic based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Monitoring Software 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."
"The main feature that we use is what they call Delivery, which is the testing of network paths end-to-end."
"We get complete, hop-by-hop visibility into the internet and we can know how much latency is taking place from one hop to another. That way, we know whether a particular hop belongs to the ISP, or that it is something owned by our own client's office, or is something to do with the SaaS network."
"This solution helps prove that, if we move to cloud, we'll still be as effective as we are on-premises."
"The solution's technical support is very good."
"A lot of times one of the AppNeta transactions showed that there is an issue, whereas everything seemed to be working properly. Once we dug into it, we realized that it really was highlighting a problem that otherwise we would not have seen."
"Delivery and experience are valuable. The usage in terms of the traffic application captures and other similar things is also valuable."
"The product helps us understand networks and user experience. It helps us to understand the issues."
"Best feature of all is detailed monitoring of services, processes, ports and SSL certificates and or web content."
"When it comes to features, the power pack is the most valuable."
"I'm satisfied with ScienceLogicfor for what they can offer today because they can offer both serverless connectivity and agent connectivity."
"It is simple."
"Science Logic provides distributed and all-in-one concept in monitoring, you can easily customize the features in this product."
"The most valuable features of ScienceLogic are AI and machine learning."
"The tool is quite easy to deploy, and it offers very good support."
"The flexibility to support most technologies. The way ScienceLogic gathers data from multiple sources is vital to our customers. As we work with new customers (often with different technology requirements), ScienceLogic is flexible enough to support our clients’ varying network needs."
"The technical support needs improvement."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"AppNeta by Broadcom needs to add more features to its dashboards. It also needs to work on providing out-of-the-box reports."
"Having to deal with configuring the end devices using a USB stick is a bit cumbersome. It would be nice if there was a better way of handling that."
"Cloud monitoring could be better. That's one of the biggest pain points for me. I have shared this feedback with them multiple times, but they're limited to some extent. That's one area where I've seen a problem."
"I think some of the product's documentation has shortcomings and needs improvement."
"I would like to see some advanced dashboard features. It could also be integrated with third-party tools. For example, an integration with a reporting solution would be helpful. Out-of-the-box, there are few dashboards or reports. What it does have is useful, but there should be additional dashboards."
"Instead of integrating with other people, they should expand their interior capabilities."
"They should try and make diagnostics run a bit quicker. When the problem occurs on a network, AppNeta runs automatic diagnostics on the end-to-end path. The path it was testing only to the destination, it now runs the same test to all of the devices and all the intermediate devices. Depending on the number of intermediate devices, it can take several minutes to run. If we're trying to find or diagnose a problem that only lasts two or three minutes, it may be that the diagnostics is still running by the time the problem is cleared. The only thing, which I have also mentioned to AppNeta in the past, is that there should be much faster and much more lightweight diagnostics, which can be completed within 30 seconds or one minute, rather than in 5 to 10 minutes."
"From a performance perspective, it needs to improve a lot."
"The product is not user-friendly."
"There are often bugs in new releases."
"They need a little more self-service."
"We want to understand: how does the back end work? What if some problem occurs? What we can do? They need to provide more information."
"ScienceLogic should provide detailed documents to customer as the current documents are not sufficient."
"ScienceLogic does not have application monitoring. We definitely need something integrated within ScienceLogic to monitor applications so that we don't have to rely on monitoring tools to monitor other applications. At least the ones that are market leaders, such as SAP, Oracle, and others."
"One important area we feel could be improved is the UI. It takes a lot of clicks to do very simple tasks."
More Juniper Mist Premium Analytics Pricing and Cost Advice →
AppNeta by Broadcom is ranked 20th in Network Monitoring Software with 17 reviews while ScienceLogic is ranked 14th in Network Monitoring Software with 42 reviews. AppNeta by Broadcom is rated 8.6, while ScienceLogic is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of AppNeta by Broadcom writes "Excellent support, easy configuration, and a reliable tool to know what the problem is and where the problem is". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ScienceLogic writes "Great integrations, power flow, and good support". AppNeta by Broadcom is most compared with ThousandEyes, DX NetOps, vRealize Network Insight, NETSCOUT nGeniusONE and PRTG Network Monitor, whereas ScienceLogic is most compared with Dynatrace, LogicMonitor, SolarWinds NPM, Datadog and Zabbix. See our AppNeta by Broadcom vs. ScienceLogic report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors and best Cloud 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.