We performed a comparison between DX Unified Infrastructure Management 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."
"It is easy to implement but requires good planning."
"I definitely appreciate the flexibility and ease of use. We've been using UIM for almost three years now. It's pretty much point and click, very easy to use. And we've had no problems scaling it to our own environment."
"The feature that we've found to be very helpful is the way the solution categorizes the devices to identify groups, groups of devices and clusters. This allows us to be aware of their position within the topology."
"Monitoring infrastructure and business applications are the most valuable features."
"I recall the initial setup being straightforward."
"It is very scalable."
"Great customized dashboards and drill down reports with auto serve analytics."
"It gives us visibility inside applications. It helps us to dig down and find the root cause of any issue within the network."
"The best feature is the highly flexible graphs."
"It is very easy to configure because we are using an agent-less version. You can very quickly implement a collector for monitoring device servers."
"Science Logic provides distributed and all-in-one concept in monitoring, you can easily customize the features in this product."
"Provides agentless monitoring so there's no need to install the agent on each server."
"The solution provides good infra-monitoring features."
"ScienceLogic allows us to create and customize a user-friendly dashboard."
"I'm satisfied with ScienceLogicfor for what they can offer today because they can offer both serverless connectivity and agent connectivity."
"The most valuable features of ScienceLogic are AI and machine learning."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"It is a little complex to use versus other softwares."
"I'm very happy with DX Unified Infrastructure Management, but what could be improved is its user interface because currently, it has many wide spaces. All the information you need is in DX Unified Infrastructure Management, and it's a reliable tool, and though that's more important than the gaps in the user interface being smaller or wider, those gaps still need some improvement. I know the team is working on it. My company had some backend problems with DX Unified Infrastructure Management in the past that have now been solved. The setup for the tool also needs improvement because it's complex. Another room for improvement in DX Unified Infrastructure Management is its technical support because it's sometimes not as knowledgeable or responsive. What I'm suggesting to be added to the tool is an open-standard ELK Elastic-based database where you can put in all data, so that you can use the data in other systems as well."
"It needs a little bit more functionality in the Admin Console."
"They need to continue to advance the filter capabilities, and provide more input fields."
"A useful feature to have would be automatic configuration per standard by new robots that check in for any particular customer."
"In the UMP, certain devices will show up multiple times and they don't correlate correctly. That's one of the issues."
"The only challenge that I have with this solution is the reporting part. The users are not really comfortable with the kind of reports they are getting. Sometimes, they want to see reports in their own format. Customizing those reports with Jasper is not very easy. It could be because of the knowledge gap. If you have the knowledge of how Jasper can be configured to suit customer requirements in terms of reporting, it is good. There was a time a customer complained about one issue related to Netflow analysis. Broadcom has a separate model for that, but the customer wanted everything bundled together. It could also have IP management so that I am able to see or analyze IPs so that the IPs that are already in use don't get assigned."
"We had to do some work to make what was more of a business class solution work at an enterprise level."
"One important area we feel could be improved is the UI. It takes a lot of clicks to do very simple tasks."
"It was challenging onboarding users."
"The product must educate its strategic partners for deployment."
"ScienceLogic should provide detailed documents to customer as the current documents are not sufficient."
"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."
"From a performance perspective, it needs to improve a lot."
"The product is not user-friendly."
"I would like to see out-of-the-box standard dashboards for common services."
More DX Unified Infrastructure Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
DX Unified Infrastructure Management is ranked 37th in Network Monitoring Software with 120 reviews while ScienceLogic is ranked 14th in Network Monitoring Software with 42 reviews. DX Unified Infrastructure Management is rated 8.2, while ScienceLogic is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of DX Unified Infrastructure Management writes "Easy to set up, simple to use, and offers great technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ScienceLogic writes "Great integrations, power flow, and good support". DX Unified Infrastructure Management is most compared with DX SaaS, DX Spectrum, SCOM, ManageEngine OpManager and SolarWinds Server and Application Monitor, whereas ScienceLogic is most compared with Dynatrace, LogicMonitor, SolarWinds NPM, Datadog and ServiceNow Discovery. See our DX Unified Infrastructure Management vs. ScienceLogic report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors, best Cloud Monitoring Software vendors, and best Server Monitoring 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.