We performed a comparison between Microsoft Configuration 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."I like Mircosoft's technical support. Microsoft has a few updates, like some of the critical KBs. They are published within the interval time, and in case of an escalation on the client missions, we will raise a ticket with the Microsoft team. They will create a hotfix or a critical update. They will chat with us, and that is one thing I like about Microsoft. Whenever any issues occur at my organization, they will help you out soon as possible within the SLA."
"The most valuable feature is the scalability."
"This solution helps us by automating the patching of our system."
"It is a good choice for deployment that performs very well."
"With the SCCM inventory, we found a lot of rogue applications. We were able to identify them, find out who was running them, and either put them on our application list or remove them."
"Automation of operating system, application, and update deployments massively reduces IT operations effort."
"We're a Microsoft-centric organization, so we are happy with the integration between products."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is patch management."
"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."
"Best feature of all is detailed monitoring of services, processes, ports and SSL certificates and or web content."
"The solution provides good infra-monitoring features."
"I'm satisfied with ScienceLogicfor for what they can offer today because they can offer both serverless connectivity and agent connectivity."
"The most valuable features of ScienceLogic are AI and machine learning."
"One of the valuable features is rapid dashboards."
"When it comes to features, the power pack is the most valuable."
"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."
"As far as load balancing across, they don't have that support yet, so that you can actually build multiple primaries and have it load balance across. They don't have any of that functionality yet. That would be a nice feature, to scale that way."
"In terms of scalability, I believe there's room for improvement. While SCCM is capable of handling our current needs effectively, scalability could be enhanced to accommodate future growth and larger deployments."
"It would be better if reporting were more user-friendly. I would like to see an upgrade in the reporting structure in the next release. At the moment, you have to use an SQL query or configure it to pull reports through the graphical user interface. Their updates could be more regular. I think Mircosoft updates it every six months. They are also moving many things to Intune, and Microsoft decided to move the deployment solution there. I think SCCM is getting old, and Intune is new."
"Devices like smartphones and tablets are managed very well on VMware, however, they are absent in SCCM. I could configure iPad from the VMware site and it was done very easily. It should be just as possible on SCCM."
"Troubleshooting in general needs improvement. There's just a ton of logs to go through, and so finding the error log that corresponds with that you're doing can sometimes be difficult."
"The solution should be more compatible with different versions of Linux."
"The solution is a bit heavy on the sources such as RAM or CPU and the software needs to be a bit lighter."
"Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager could improve the integration."
"They should improve database issues in HA and Failover mode, and provide documentation for all users , even if they are not customers."
"From a performance perspective, it needs to improve a lot."
"ScienceLogic does not have application monitoring. We definitely need something integrated within ScienceLogic to monitor applications so that we don't have to rely on monitoring tools to monitor other applications. At least the ones that are market leaders, such as SAP, Oracle, and others."
"Admins do not have direct access to the reporting."
"It was challenging onboarding users."
"They should improve their support process and add chat."
"It doesn't have the complete application-level topology. It could have service topology and business service monitoring. I would like to see how business service monitoring will function with agent-based installation, and how flexible and business-oriented it is for service modeling and service infrastructure. I have a lot of experience in using business service monitoring, service topology, and service hierarchy functionalities in similar products from BMC and Micro Focus (OpenView), and I want to see how these functionalities will look like in ScienceLogic."
"They need a little more self-service."
More Microsoft Configuration Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Configuration Manager is ranked 2nd in Server Monitoring with 78 reviews while ScienceLogic is ranked 7th in Server Monitoring with 42 reviews. Microsoft Configuration Manager is rated 8.2, while ScienceLogic is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Microsoft Configuration Manager writes "Affordable, easy to use, and easy to understand". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ScienceLogic writes "Great integrations, power flow, and good support". Microsoft Configuration Manager is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, ManageEngine Endpoint Central, BigFix, Tanium and Microsoft Intune, whereas ScienceLogic is most compared with Dynatrace, LogicMonitor, SolarWinds NPM, Datadog and Zabbix. See our Microsoft Configuration 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.