We performed a comparison between SCOM and Zenoss Cloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Event Monitoring 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 have found the scalability capabilities to be okay."
"Being able to make and customize management packs and send out notifications is very valuable."
"The solution primarily drives system information, and I believe it works fine."
"Availability monitoring is the feature I have found most valuable, as well as the capacity and ability to send notifications."
"The stability has been great."
"It's easy to use."
"SCOM has improved our organization by simplifying the monitoring process. The system tells you what the bi-weekly or monthly usage was and that enables us to report this information to the manager. It shows if there was a connectivity issue that needs to be fixed and it's easier to concentrate on what needs to get fixed. System errors, therefore, get fixed faster."
"I like the historical reporting of observer metrics."
"The product offers good documentation that helps with initial training."
"The custom built integration is one of the most valuable features because you can see all the especially critical items."
"The most valuable feature is the flexible discovery mechanism."
"They have also accommodated many state-of-the-art technologies like Docker and ZooKeeper."
"What I like most about Zenoss Service Dynamics is that it monitors the devices and gives close to real-time alerts. For example, in case the device is not available, Zenoss Service Dynamics generates an alert so my team can resolve the issue."
"Its Docker Container concept is mind blowing. It is the first monitoring tool which comes with Docker features."
"It's easy to use."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"I would like to see better support for monitoring Unix-based systems."
"The solution can be improved by expanding to cloud usage."
"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."
"Regarding certain issues in the solution, it can be difficult to generate reports if we have a program that is not user-friendly for reporting. While this is not necessarily negative, we may need to use another solution."
"SCOM's feature that notifies us when a server is down is not present in recent updates, which has weakened the product."
"The management of the servers could be better."
"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."
"Application monitoring must be improved."
"There is room for improvement with the administrative part. They introduced Control Center to manage things in Zenoss 5. The services that Zenoss provides remained the same, but the administrative part, since they introduced Docker, etc., has become a little complex"
"Now it is stable, but they should design threshold parameters in percentage instead of raw values."
"The inclusion of a feature to show a graphical view of the network would be a helpful improvement."
"The AI aspect needs to improve."
"There was a problem with Zenoss and storage monitoring."
"As Zenoss Service Dynamics is more for network-centric devices and you want to monitor, for example, a server, its services, IP addresses, and interfaces, if it's a network and you're going to monitor multiple items, you'll be charged multiple times. This is what Zenoss Service Dynamics needs to improve to make sure that customers pay just one fee to monitor the entire server. What I'd like to see in Zenoss Service Dynamics in the future is a public cloud monitoring feature, particularly for the Azure public cloud. Another additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of the solution is integration with the Azure public cloud because I know that there are some services from Azure that Zenoss Service Dynamics is currently unable to monitor."
"It would be ideal if the product offered sound alerts."
SCOM is ranked 3rd in Event Monitoring with 77 reviews while Zenoss Cloud is ranked 11th in Event Monitoring with 8 reviews. SCOM is rated 7.8, while Zenoss Cloud is rated 8.4. 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 Zenoss Cloud writes "Generates close to real-time alerts so users can resolve issues, but needs more integration and public cloud monitoring features". SCOM is most compared with Dynatrace, Zabbix, Datadog, Nagios XI and AppDynamics, whereas Zenoss Cloud is most compared with Zabbix, Nagios XI, ServiceNow IT Operations Management, ScienceLogic and IBM Tivoli NetCool OMNIbus. See our SCOM vs. Zenoss Cloud report.
See our list of best Event Monitoring vendors and best Network Monitoring Software vendors.
We monitor all Event 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.