We performed a comparison between Avada Software Infrared360 and ScienceLogic based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Zabbix, Microsoft, ServiceNow and others in Server Monitoring."We have easily created use case testing harnesses for specific flows that incorporate various message types."
"Monitoring that ties into our incident management system"
"It's what we use for monitoring our MQ system, so the features that they provide are just really, really good."
"It allows non-technical users to inspect their individual components within the total infrastructure without disturbing other components and without bothering the technical teams."
"The administration piece makes it very easy to do MQ administration. It gives us a lot more flexibility and capabilities."
"It has role-based access to queues, giving us more insights into problems."
"One of the valuable features is rapid dashboards."
"Best feature of all is detailed monitoring of services, processes, ports and SSL certificates and or web content."
"The most valuable features of ScienceLogic are AI and machine learning."
"It is simple."
"Provides agentless monitoring so there's no need to install the agent on each server."
"I'm satisfied with ScienceLogicfor for what they can offer today because they can offer both serverless connectivity and agent connectivity."
"When it comes to features, the power pack is the most valuable."
"It has good monitoring capabilities across cloud environments, data centers, and hybrid environments."
"The UI can be cumbersome - but we are still using the Viper interface and we have not had the time to check out the Alloy interface which is supposed to be much improved."
"One area where they could improve is with their documentation. Some sections are not up to date with new release information and providing additional samples in some areas would be very helpful."
"Some of the graphics in the interface could be improved. It's pretty basic. Some interfaces are not up to what you're used to seeing on other, more Windows-like tools."
"We desire a dashboard that could accumulate BOQ lengths per tenant on one screen for all tenants."
"The user interface could be sexier and more ergonomic. The competing products have similar problems."
"We are still working with the FTE/MFT subscription monitoring and reporting functionality. That is an area in which we would like to see further development taking place."
"The product's reporting functionalities have certain shortcomings, making it an area where improvements are required."
"ScienceLogic could improve the implementation, it could be made easier."
"The product is not user-friendly."
"They should improve database issues in HA and Failover mode, and provide documentation for all users , even if they are not customers."
"They should add CLI command modes and scripts for high performance."
"The product must educate its strategic partners for deployment."
"We want to understand: how does the back end work? What if some problem occurs? What we can do? They need to provide more information."
"One important area we feel could be improved is the UI. It takes a lot of clicks to do very simple tasks."
Earn 20 points
Avada Software Infrared360 is ranked 36th in Server Monitoring while ScienceLogic is ranked 6th in Server Monitoring with 42 reviews. Avada Software Infrared360 is rated 8.8, while ScienceLogic is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Avada Software Infrared360 writes "An offsite team performs a daily infrastructure health check and sends reports to the technical/management teams. ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ScienceLogic writes "Great integrations, power flow, and good support". Avada Software Infrared360 is most compared with IBM MQ and Dynatrace, whereas ScienceLogic is most compared with Dynatrace, LogicMonitor, SolarWinds NPM, Datadog and ServiceNow Discovery.
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.
