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."
"This is a product that does more generally than any of the competing solutions."
"This solution helps our application teams by allowing them to drill further into issues and perform a root cause analysis."
"Availability monitoring is the feature I have found most valuable, as well as the capacity and ability to send notifications."
"We are able to do problem determination on runaway processes."
"The most valuable features in SCOM are Azure monitoring and integration with Azure Monitor for monitoring Azure-hosted servers from SCOM on-premises."
"The product has helped our organization with in-depth monitoring."
"It has good graphs of what is going on within the operating system."
"The most valuable features for us are the monitoring, the health explorer, and the console."
"There are lots of great features and functionality within the solution."
"Zabbix is good for discovery."
"We use Zabbix to monitor our organization's IT infrastructure and workstations. We don't use Microsoft Intune since it's expensive. The tool's real-time alerting system has proved crucial for us, particularly when a new device joins a network that is not one of our own devices. It notifies us about the presence of this new device, allowing us to investigate further. Additionally, it alerts us about disk usage, memory usage, and the software installed on the machine."
"Every new asset placed in the environment can be automatically detected, predicting human failures."
"Zabbix helps to save time."
"The pricing of the product is reasonable."
"The product is very stable."
"The integration with third-party tools and the alerts are most valuable."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"I would like to see them improve their network monitoring."
"In terms of features that could be improved, I would say the agent integration into the operating system. We are having difficulties integrating Linux into some of the networking devices."
"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."
"It lacks certain details that other products do better, like granular access and better application monitoring."
"The solution can be improved by expanding to cloud usage."
"It would be a much better product if Microsoft provided management packs with the product."
"Third-party tools have had to be created to make SCOM management pack creation more efficient and effective. However, this weighs down the application as it just adds a resource requirement, which is ballooning the size of the necessary storage and all that for essentially substandard components."
"The solution should be more user-friendly and offer a better user interface."
"Implementation is always tailored to the customer and the kind of information we need from the client to carry it out can make them very uncomfortable. Sometimes the clients are not ready to share it."
"There are some features of Zabbix that are not good for reporting. The DX Spectrum solution has better reporting."
"Zabbix does not draw automatic mapping of the network, this is something they should add in the future. There is a lot of effort that is involved in tailoring some of the settings which could be made easier."
"The user web interface is a little bit too basic, we need to link Zabbix to Grafana to have more options, such as graphs and charts. The interface needs to be improved. Additionally, there could be better integration with Grafana API."
"For us, the initial setup was complex"
"The stability could be better."
"If you want to use all of the features then you have to pay a licensing fee."
"Zabbix claims that there is an auto-discovery process but my team member was facing difficulty and was told that it's not really automatic, and there are some manual steps."
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 Lenovo XClarity Controller. 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.