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."
"We are able to go in and actually leverage the thick client for a nice easy drag and drop solution."
"You can scale it pretty much however way you want to as long as you have the servers to throw at it."
"It's easy to push out across numerous servers. Very scalable."
"One of the things that I like about DX Infrastructure is that the topology is good enough to see what is happening in the infrastructure. You also get alerts if something is happening in the network. There are many features and benefits. It is serving our customers in knowing exactly how their network is performing in terms of reliability. It also helps them in planning the capacity. They know how much bandwidth the branches are consuming."
"Monitoring infrastructure and business applications are the most valuable features."
"I recall the initial setup being straightforward."
"Great out-of-the-box capability."
"DX UIM is scalable."
"Its ITSM and EMS combination is really amazing. There is no need to purchase two products, one for ITSM and a second for EMS/NMS."
"Power packs."
"When it comes to features, the power pack is the most valuable."
"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."
"Dynamic Component Mapping is key and unique."
"One of the valuable features is rapid dashboards."
"Science Logic provides distributed and all-in-one concept in monitoring, you can easily customize the features in this product."
"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."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"The dashboards need to be improved."
"How we can get more native information from CA's solutions."
"Currently lacks a mobile application which would be helpful."
"There is also room for improvement in the reporting. It is not really good enough, according to our customers. So what we now usually do is use Power BI to get them the kinds of reports they want."
"It needs a little bit more functionality in the Admin Console."
"CA UIM needs some improvement with performance reporting (if we compare it to CA eHealth)."
"The other element is that there are no real templates, out of the box. Let's go with an example where we do have the probe, which is great, and we do have a really nuanced customer with a small set of devices that maybe not a lot of other customers use. There might not be a template in place, so effectively we have the tool in front of us but we still need to develop a solution. So it would be really nice to see a little bit more of something like a central repository of templates that we could use. That would help us expedite our onboarding process."
"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."
"The product is not user-friendly."
"From a performance perspective, it needs to improve a lot."
"One important area we feel could be improved is the UI. It takes a lot of clicks to do very simple tasks."
"They should improve their support process and add chat."
"It doesn't have the complete application-level topology. It could have service topology and business service monitoring. I would like to see how business service monitoring will function with agent-based installation, and how flexible and business-oriented it is for service modeling and service infrastructure. I have a lot of experience in using business service monitoring, service topology, and service hierarchy functionalities in similar products from BMC and Micro Focus (OpenView), and I want to see how these functionalities will look like in ScienceLogic."
"ScienceLogic could improve the implementation, it could be made easier."
"They should improve database issues in HA and Failover mode, and provide documentation for all users , even if they are not customers."
"They should add CLI command modes and scripts for high performance."
More DX Unified Infrastructure Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
DX Unified Infrastructure Management is ranked 38th in Network Monitoring Software with 120 reviews while ScienceLogic is ranked 12th in Network Monitoring Software with 41 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 Nagios XI, whereas ScienceLogic is most compared with Dynatrace, LogicMonitor, SolarWinds NPM, Datadog and Zabbix. 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.