We compared SCOM and Zabbix based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
Based on the user reviews, SCOM is praised for its monitoring capabilities, ease of use, and seamless integration with Microsoft products. Users report positive experiences with SCOM's customer service, promptness, and efficiency. Meanwhile, Zabbix stands out for its robust performance, customization options, and customer service excellence. Users appreciate Zabbix's ability to monitor various parameters with ease and its user-friendly interface. However, users have suggested improvements in areas such as interface intuitiveness, documentation support, customization options, and integration capabilities.
Features: Based on user feedback, SCOM is praised for its robust monitoring capabilities, real-time alerts, seamless integration with other Microsoft products, and efficient troubleshooting capabilities. On the other hand, Zabbix stands out with its ease of monitoring and tracking various parameters, extensive customization options, and user-friendly dashboards facilitating data management and visualization. Overall, both products offer valuable features but with different strengths and focus areas.
Pricing and ROI: SCOM's setup cost has been found to be manageable and not requiring significant investments, according to user feedback. The licensing is straightforward and flexible, offering convenient usage. On the other hand, Zabbix offers a reasonably priced solution with a straightforward setup process. The licensing model is flexible and accommodating for different business needs., The feedback from users highlights the differences between SCOM and Zabbix in terms of return on investment (ROI). Users express satisfaction with Zabbix's performance, capabilities, and customization options, emphasizing its ability to monitor and analyze network and server performance, detect issues in real-time, and optimize resources for enhanced operational performance.
Room for Improvement: SCOM users have suggested enhancing the interface to be more intuitive, improving reporting capabilities, integrating with other software, and enhancing performance and stability. On the other hand, Zabbix could enhance its user interface, improve documentation for troubleshooting and setup, provide easier customization options, and better integration with external systems.
Deployment and customer support: The reviews for SCOM indicate varying timeframes for deployment and setup, with some users taking three months for deployment and others taking a week for setup. However, one user mentioned taking a week for both deployment and setup. On the other hand, the reviews for Zabbix show some users spending three months on deployment and an additional week on setup, while others required a week for both. It is important to consider the context in which the terms are used., SCOM's customer service and support have received positive remarks, with users describing it as prompt, helpful, and knowledgeable. On the other hand, Zabbix's customer service and support are highly praised and regarded as excellent, with users appreciating their expertise and strong commitment to resolving issues efficiently.
The summary above is based on 34 interviews we conducted recently with SCOM and Zabbix users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"They have great integration with the active directory."
"It has good graphs of what is going on within the operating system."
"This solution saves us a lot of work because it reduces the effort that is required in order to start monitoring."
"The most valuable features for us are the monitoring, the health explorer, and the console."
"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 solution has improved our overrides and the ability to start services if they're stopped."
"It takes a lot of the headache out of managing your data centers and software in other places."
"The most valuable features in SCOM are Azure monitoring and integration with Azure Monitor for monitoring Azure-hosted servers from SCOM on-premises."
"Dashboard and the customization of the items and triggers are the most valuable features."
"The features I found most valuable are the user interface and a wide range of network devices that are easy to configure."
"The pricing of the product is reasonable."
"It's a very reliable platform and we've never had any issues regarding the scalability or the stability of Zabbix."
"We like the user-interface for this solution, which makes it an easy to use tool."
"The most valuable feature is the protocol to manage anything."
"Zabbix is good for discovery."
"We detect problems before the customer does and before it actually happens using the predictive functions in Zabbix."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"I would like to see more standard libraries for the market solutions, out of the box, that you don't need to do a lot of work on."
"All of the areas of reporting are very bad and need to be improved."
"It could use some system enhancements, such as better dashboards."
"The management of the servers could be better."
"They can focus more on cloud monitoring instead of on-premise monitoring. We should be able to monitor cloud-related applications. They can include this feature in the next release. If it is in the cloud, we can have scalability by using Kubernetes. The container is containerized, packaged, and managed using Kubernetes. This feature is not there in SCOM. Going forward, if they can focus on that, it will be great."
"The price could be improved."
"There are some negative points about this product. Sometimes, the capabilities of the software don't appear, and you can't directly see the results. You have to wait for a long period to refresh the policy to push it to the software or other patches."
"The initial setup should be easier to complete."
"Outside of the normal standard monitoring, I would like to extend patching, importing patching, and supporting patching for Windows Servers."
"I would like to better be able to monitor Oracle processes."
"When using this solution in enterprise monitoring, you are able to see that there are some issues with equipment that could be causing a problem. Sometimes you want to make a root command that you do not want to be executed automatically. What we have tried to do is open an SSH session directly from the solution's interface but it is not possible."
"Look and feel."
"As far as improvements, sometimes I get a bit frustrated when I move from a previous version to a new one because some configuration has changed—I need to investigate the documentation to deal with some configuration. But it doesn't take much time, so it's okay."
"The product delivers false positives during reporting because of flapping. Other reasonably priced alternatives may have better performance."
"There are not too much documentation or manuals. We found the tutorials very easy to understand but do not go deep enough in the use of Zabbix. We need more manuals, proper use, documentation, etc."
"The solution needs to add remote features."
SCOM is ranked 11th in Network Monitoring Software with 77 reviews while Zabbix is ranked 1st in Network Monitoring Software with 98 reviews. SCOM is rated 7.8, while Zabbix is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of SCOM writes "Has a good reporting engine, but its monitoring of the cloud-based environment could be improved". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zabbix writes "Allows any number of customizations but lacks functionality for finding root causes". SCOM is most compared with Dynatrace, Datadog, AppDynamics, Nagios XI and ManageEngine OpManager, whereas Zabbix is most compared with Centreon, Checkmk, SolarWinds NPM, Nagios XI and Icinga. See our SCOM vs. Zabbix 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.