We performed a comparison between Avada Software Infrared360 and SCOM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Datadog, Dynatrace, New Relic and others in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability."It allows non-technical users to inspect their individual components within the total infrastructure without disturbing other components and without bothering the technical teams."
"It's what we use for monitoring our MQ system, so the features that they provide are just really, really good."
"We have easily created use case testing harnesses for specific flows that incorporate various message types."
"The administration piece makes it very easy to do MQ administration. It gives us a lot more flexibility and capabilities."
"Monitoring that ties into our incident management system"
"It has role-based access to queues, giving us more insights into problems."
"It has good graphs of what is going on within the operating system."
"They have great integration with the active directory."
"The solution primarily drives system information, and I believe it works fine."
"SCOM's most valuable features are the network path feature, reporting, and integration with business intelligence."
"It works better than other products I’ve used – namely SolarWinds, which is cumbersome and error prone for web app monitoring. SCOM is not."
"The advantages of SCOM are that it is definitely user friendly and a more appropriate solution for what we need."
"The product’s auto-remediation feature helps with automation."
"I like some of their newer features, such as maintenance schedules, because SCOM records SLA and SLO time."
"The UI can be cumbersome - but we are still using the Viper interface and we have not had the time to check out the Alloy interface which is supposed to be much improved."
"We are still working with the FTE/MFT subscription monitoring and reporting functionality. That is an area in which we would like to see further development taking place."
"The user interface could be sexier and more ergonomic. The competing products have similar problems."
"We desire a dashboard that could accumulate BOQ lengths per tenant on one screen for all tenants."
"Some of the graphics in the interface could be improved. It's pretty basic. Some interfaces are not up to what you're used to seeing on other, more Windows-like tools."
"One area where they could improve is with their documentation. Some sections are not up to date with new release information and providing additional samples in some areas would be very helpful."
"I would like to see them improve their network monitoring."
"The price could be improved."
"It would be a much better product if Microsoft provided management packs with the product."
"The solution’s initial setup is difficult."
"The solution should be more user-friendly and offer a better user interface."
"It could use some system enhancements, such as better dashboards."
"On-prem network monitoring is something that could be improved drastically."
"Non Windows monitoring is fairly weak. Network device monitoring is not reliable."
Earn 20 points
Avada Software Infrared360 is ranked 68th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability while SCOM is ranked 3rd in Event Monitoring with 77 reviews. Avada Software Infrared360 is rated 8.8, while SCOM is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Avada Software Infrared360 writes "An offsite team performs a daily infrastructure health check and sends reports to the technical/management teams. ". 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". Avada Software Infrared360 is most compared with IBM MQ and Dynatrace, whereas SCOM is most compared with Zabbix, Dynatrace, Datadog, AppDynamics and Nagios XI.
We monitor all Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability 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.