We performed a comparison between Azure Network Watcher and LogicMonitor based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Monitoring Software 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."
"The single dashboard is a valuable feature."
"I like the visibility."
"The solution is stable."
"We use the solution to monitor network services. It helps to capture any network issues."
"It provides good visibility."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Network Watcher is using the gateways with the connections. The monitoring is useful for the logs and application insights into the data. The traffic filtering issues when it comes to deploying those applications are helpful."
"What I like most about Azure Network Watcher is that it's focused more on the architecture. I also like that it has a packet capture feature that tells you how the packet travels and whether it's exiting Azure, etc."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Network Watcher is the cloud-native application firewall. It is helpful for securing databases."
"The solution is good for monitoring device behavior."
"LogicMonitor saves time in terms of its ability to proxy a connection through a device. For example, if you are troubleshooting a device, which you may want to connect to, you can proxy this connection through the platform. As a support resource, I don't need to use multiple platforms to connect to a device to further investigate the issue. It is all consolidated. From that perspective, it saves time because a resource now only needs to use one platform."
"Having a full team at LogicMonitor for support is super helpful as they are available all the time to answer any questions you may have."
"Whenever we reach out to our customers, we give LogicMonitor as a dashboard to them so they don't need to monitor the hardware side separately. For example, if my service is running on their hardware X, that means they don't need to monitor hardware X and our services too. LogicMonitor has the capability of monitoring their hardware as well as our services. This is how LogicMonitor helps us."
"The initial setup is very simple."
"The alerting would be number one in my book. The thresholds for getting alerts for different criteria are pretty well-thought-out. We don't get many false positives or negatives on the alerting side. If we do get an email alert or some similar alert, we know that it is something that has to be looked at."
"It's the depth of data that it gathers that I find really useful because there's nothing worse, when you're trying to find information about something or dig deeper into something, than hitting the bottom of the information really quickly and not having enough information to work with. With LogicMonitor, there is a load of information to dig through. It's a really good solution for that."
"We get full visibility into whatever the customer wants us to monitor and we get it pretty rapidly. That is very important. Only having certain metrics that other platforms will give you out-of-the-box means you only get a small picture, a thumbnail picture. Whereas with LogicMonitor, you get the entire "eight by 10 picture", out-of-the-box. Rather than some availability metrics, you get everything. You get metrics on temperature, anything related to hardware failure, or up and down status."
"We only have one monitoring tool, and that is LogicMonitor. It does pretty much everything we need under one roof. They are very good at rapidly releasing new features. It's not like we have to wait six months or a year between new features and data sources. There is very quick development. If there is something that doesn't do it for us, I know I can just raise it with support or our delivery representative, and there is a good chance that that will be looked at. If it's not too much effort, we will see it released in the next few months. So, the solution is very good from that perspective. We have everything in LogicMonitor."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"The technical support needs improvement."
"I would like to see in the future if we can troubleshoot as a firewall because it is equipment as a network player and some diagnostics."
"The solution could improve by limiting the need to clarify the logs. When the clarification is minimized, it is better for everyone involved."
"The initial setup and deployment could be improved to be simplified."
"I still use Wireshark and Azure Network Watcher to get the required data. My team captures the traffic from Azure Network Watcher, downloads it, then imports that traffic into Wireshark to get more details on the number of hits and replies, for example. If you can do that on Azure Network Watcher and have Wireshark built-in, that would make Azure Network Watcher better. If Azure Network Watcher has that functionality where you won't need a third-party tool to get what you need, that would be helpful. I'm also expecting more from Azure Network Watcher. It's more complex than knowing how the IP flows from its source to the destination. The tool also needs more open-source features, such as having some built-in Wireshark that improves monitoring for customers. Sometimes, you encounter a VPN tunnel, network, or routing issue, but finding out more about the blockage is challenging. Is it one hundred percent an Azure issue? Is it a peer issue? You don't get complete information from Azure Network Watcher, so you must use other tools and depend on your strategies to resolve a specific issue. If more features could be added in the next release of Azure Network Watcher, specifically ones you can find on open-source tools, then that would be a plus point for the tool."
"Azure Network Watcher could improve by having other built-in applications. For example, an application to log activities for in and outbound traffic."
"Azure is good, however, the Fortinet GUI is more intuitive and I like it more than anything else."
"Lacks sufficient security features."
"Azure Network Watcher needs to have better documentation and it needs to capture information accurately."
"LogicMonitor can easily easy to pull data from one item at a time. I have yet to find a good way to get LogicMonitor to show me all the WAN devices and how they're doing in terms of capacity."
"LogicMonitor's reporting capabilities definitely could use an improvement. We have made do with the dashboarding and done what we can to make that work for our customers. However, there are definitely customers who would like a PDF or some kind of report along those lines, where we have been utilizing other tools to provide them. The out-of-the-box LogicMonitor reporting is the only thing that we have been less than impressed with."
"LogicMonitor has good features, but the ease of use is a little bit confusing. Additionally, we are looking for workflow automation, which is a little bit tricky for LogicMonitor."
"We would like to see more functionality around mapping of topologies, in terms of networks. An improvement that we would like to see is added functionality to get more detail out of mapping. For example, if the LogicMonitor Collector identifies a connection between two network endpoints, it would be great to actually see which ports are connecting the two endpoints together. That functionality is something we greatly desire. It would actually make our documentation more dynamic in the sense that we wouldn't need to manually document. If this is something that the platform could provide, then this would be a great asset."
"It needs better access for customizing and adding monitoring from the repository. That would be helpful. It seems like you have to search through the forums to figure out what specific pieces you need to get in for specific monitoring, if it's a nonstandard piece of equipment or process. You have to hunt and find certain elements to get them in place. If they could make it a bit easier rather having to find the right six-digit code to put in so it implements, that would be helpful."
"Role-based permissions could be better and updating modules could be smoother."
"One thing that could be really better is the mapping. Auvik is really good at it. They have a really nice way to give you a visual representation of your network, but in LogicMonitor, this functionality is not as powerful and as good as Auvik."
"I'd like to see more automation in the tool, especially around remediation."
More Juniper Mist Premium Analytics Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Network Watcher is ranked 34th in Network Monitoring Software with 9 reviews while LogicMonitor is ranked 16th in Network Monitoring Software with 25 reviews. Azure Network Watcher is rated 7.8, while LogicMonitor is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Azure Network Watcher writes "Helpful database security, good support, and beneficial cloud-native application firewall". On the other hand, the top reviewer of LogicMonitor writes "We went from nothing to full visibility across our internal and external estates of equipment". Azure Network Watcher is most compared with Microsoft Network Monitor, Nmap, PRTG Network Monitor, ThousandEyes and SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer, whereas LogicMonitor is most compared with ScienceLogic, SolarWinds NPM, Zabbix, OpsRamp and SCOM. See our Azure Network Watcher vs. LogicMonitor 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.