We performed a comparison between Oracle Enterprise Manager and ScienceLogic based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Server Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The job subsystem, monitoring subsystem, alerting, grouping of targets, and reporting features are valuable to us."
"The most valuable features are security and speed."
"It is a comprehensive, end-to-end solution for managing database consolidation, something that has been missing and difficult to do."
"What I like most about Oracle Enterprise Manager are its features, particularly the active session history. It provides insights into SQL, and I use it regularly to identify potential issues."
"It's easy to implement as it's made by Oracle for Oracle."
"I like that it's stable."
"Oracle Enterprise Manager helps to control servers."
"I mostly use the top events, and look at how the execution is happening on the database; and monitoring the cluster level rates. I even look at the execution plan."
"The tool is quite easy to deploy, and it offers very good support."
"Dynamic Component Mapping is key and unique."
"The solution provides good infra-monitoring features."
"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."
"Provides agentless monitoring so there's no need to install the agent on each server."
"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 best feature is the highly flexible graphs."
"One of the valuable features is rapid dashboards."
"Better mobile access would be useful."
"Patching. It's extremely difficult to determine what requires patching and the process to patch each component is slightly different."
"Technical support could be faster."
"The solution is considered expensive."
"Reporting and statistical charting is largely still left up the end-user to develop custom solutions."
"The interface offered by Oracle Enterprise Manager has certain shortcomings and needs improvement to become a nice tool."
"The solution has a very large resource system. It's too big. There are too many items."
"Oracle Enterprise Manager's scalability is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required."
"The product must educate its strategic partners for deployment."
"They need a little more self-service."
"From a performance perspective, it needs to improve a lot."
"ScienceLogic could improve the implementation, it could be made easier."
"Admins do not have direct access to the reporting."
"I would like to see out-of-the-box standard dashboards for common services."
"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."
"The product is not user-friendly."
Oracle Enterprise Manager is ranked 4th in Server Monitoring with 123 reviews while ScienceLogic is ranked 6th in Server Monitoring with 42 reviews. Oracle Enterprise Manager is rated 8.4, while ScienceLogic is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Oracle Enterprise Manager writes "Provides good stability and has an easy implementation process". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ScienceLogic writes "Great integrations, power flow, and good support". Oracle Enterprise Manager is most compared with Zabbix, Quest Spotlight, Dynatrace, AppDynamics and Quest Foglight for Databases, whereas ScienceLogic is most compared with Dynatrace, LogicMonitor, SolarWinds NPM, Datadog and ServiceNow Discovery. See our Oracle Enterprise Manager vs. ScienceLogic report.
See our list of best Server Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all Server Monitoring 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.