We performed a comparison between Azure Network Watcher and SCOM 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."
"What I like most about Azure Network Watcher is that it's focused more on the architecture. I also like that it has a packet capture feature that tells you how the packet travels and whether it's exiting Azure, etc."
"It provides good visibility."
"I like the visibility."
"The solution is good for monitoring device behavior."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Network Watcher is the cloud-native application firewall. It is helpful for securing databases."
"The most valuable features I have found are typology, visualization, and capture."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Network Watcher is using the gateways with the connections. The monitoring is useful for the logs and application insights into the data. The traffic filtering issues when it comes to deploying those applications are helpful."
"The ease of deployment, especially on Windows platforms, is valuable."
"The most valuable feature is the monitoring of Windows and Linux servers."
"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."
"Availability monitoring is the feature I have found most valuable, as well as the capacity and ability to send notifications."
"The monitoring features are the most valuable. We have seen a major benefit from that so far."
"SCOM has helped us to monitor all the VMs in our environment, especially the Windows servers."
"The most valuable feature is the extensibility, as there are really no limits as to what you can do with it."
"Being able to make and customize management packs and send out notifications is very valuable."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"Azure Network Watcher needs to have better documentation and it needs to capture information accurately."
"The initial setup and initial learning curve could be improved to be easier."
"Azure Network Watcher could improve by having other built-in applications. For example, an application to log activities for in and outbound traffic."
"The solution could improve by limiting the need to clarify the logs. When the clarification is minimized, it is better for everyone involved."
"Azure is good, however, the Fortinet GUI is more intuitive and I like it more than anything else."
"Lacks sufficient security features."
"I still use Wireshark and Azure Network Watcher to get the required data. My team captures the traffic from Azure Network Watcher, downloads it, then imports that traffic into Wireshark to get more details on the number of hits and replies, for example. If you can do that on Azure Network Watcher and have Wireshark built-in, that would make Azure Network Watcher better. If Azure Network Watcher has that functionality where you won't need a third-party tool to get what you need, that would be helpful. I'm also expecting more from Azure Network Watcher. It's more complex than knowing how the IP flows from its source to the destination. The tool also needs more open-source features, such as having some built-in Wireshark that improves monitoring for customers. Sometimes, you encounter a VPN tunnel, network, or routing issue, but finding out more about the blockage is challenging. Is it one hundred percent an Azure issue? Is it a peer issue? You don't get complete information from Azure Network Watcher, so you must use other tools and depend on your strategies to resolve a specific issue. If more features could be added in the next release of Azure Network Watcher, specifically ones you can find on open-source tools, then that would be a plus point for the tool."
"I would like to see in the future if we can troubleshoot as a firewall because it is equipment as a network player and some diagnostics."
"The console feature is very poor, and it would be very good for us if this were improved."
"The initial setup should be easier to complete."
"System Center just provided upgrade and update features for Windows clients, and Windows systems, and did not support Linux, Android, or iOS, and other operating systems. They need to provide better integration with other operating systems if they don't already."
"The price could be improved."
"The solution should be more user-friendly and offer a better user interface."
"Non Windows monitoring is fairly weak. Network device monitoring is not reliable."
"In a future release, they should add email notification alerts."
"Of course, price is always an issue with Microsoft and could be improved."
Azure Network Watcher is ranked 34th in Network Monitoring Software with 9 reviews while SCOM is ranked 10th in Network Monitoring Software with 78 reviews. Azure Network Watcher is rated 7.8, while SCOM is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Azure Network Watcher writes "Helpful database security, good support, and beneficial cloud-native application firewall". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SCOM writes "Has a good reporting engine, but its monitoring of the cloud-based environment could be improved". Azure Network Watcher is most compared with Microsoft Network Monitor, Nmap, PRTG Network Monitor, ThousandEyes and SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer, whereas SCOM is most compared with Dynatrace, Zabbix, Datadog, Nagios XI and AppDynamics. See our Azure Network Watcher vs. SCOM 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.