We performed a comparison between Azure Network Watcher and SCOM 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 most valuable feature of Azure Network Watcher is the cloud-native application firewall. It is helpful for securing databases."
"It provides good visibility."
"I like the 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 solution is stable."
"The most valuable features I have found are typology, visualization, and capture."
"We use the solution to monitor network services. It helps to capture any network issues."
"The ease of deployment, especially on Windows platforms, is valuable."
"The solution is scalable. If you want to monitor more you have to buy more licenses, but you can add on. We don't plan to increase usage."
"The stability has been great."
"This solution saves us a lot of work because it reduces the effort that is required in order to start monitoring."
"I like some of their newer features, such as maintenance schedules, because SCOM records SLA and SLO time."
"It is a user-friendly product that requires almost no maintenance."
"Because it's Windows-based, it actually reports quite well. It reports everything you can think of on the Windows server and allows you to monitor anything. It's excellent for those in the Windows world as it's very good at it."
"The solution primarily drives system information, and I believe it works fine."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"Azure Network Watcher needs to have better documentation and it needs to capture information accurately."
"The initial setup and deployment could be improved to be simplified."
"The initial setup and initial learning curve could be improved to be easier."
"Azure Network Watcher could improve by having other built-in applications. For example, an application to log activities for in and outbound traffic."
"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."
"Lacks sufficient security features."
"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."
"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."
"The configurations could be better. There are multiple tests where you can do something, but they can be a trigger as well. The overriding methodologies are not that easy. The configurations are difficult. The configuration and thorough day-to-day operations to get them to the level you want takes some time. It's very difficult."
"Of course, price is always an issue with Microsoft and could be improved."
"It could use some system enhancements, such as better dashboards."
"I would like to see better support for monitoring Unix-based systems."
"It would be a much better product if Microsoft provided management packs with the product."
"The solution’s initial setup is difficult."
"The management of the servers could be better."
Azure Network Watcher is ranked 34th in Network Monitoring Software with 9 reviews while SCOM is ranked 11th in Network Monitoring Software with 77 reviews. Azure Network Watcher is rated 7.8, while SCOM is rated 7.8. 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 SCOM writes "Has a good reporting engine, but its monitoring of the cloud-based environment could be improved". Azure Network Watcher is most compared with Microsoft Network Monitor, Nmap, PRTG Network Monitor, SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer and ThousandEyes, whereas SCOM is most compared with Zabbix, Dynatrace, Datadog, AppDynamics and Nagios XI. See our Azure Network Watcher vs. SCOM 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.