We performed a comparison between OPS/MVS Automation Intelligence and Zenoss Cloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about BMC, ServiceNow, Microsoft and others in Event Monitoring."Once automatic IPL has been defined, anyone can perform an IPL with very little intervention. We know that all of the components will be started correctly."
"It's very flexible. You can customize what you need to, which is good. For example, you can do your own coding inside the tool, make your own scripting tooling."
"I can and interrupt what's going on, bring a job down if I need to, and bring it back up."
"The documentation is simple, easy to follow, and use. A limited, first-time systems programmer can do it, in that it is out-of-the-box almost functional."
"The follow-up surprised me. Making sure that I am happy with what I have gone to them on. They will call after I have made changes and verify that I am happy with the changes that I did have to make. If it did not fix the complete problem, they go back over it until I am satisfied."
"I do not have to keep recordings. It is there and is proactive. It helps the operators, human editors, and me."
"Because we can define complex commands, the training of new operators is quicker. We can also put checks in place, that will prevent user errors."
"With the automation pieces we can bring this region up or take this region down, and it allows us to always meet our time critical requirements."
"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."
"They have also accommodated many state-of-the-art technologies like Docker and ZooKeeper."
"The product offers good documentation that helps with initial training."
"The most valuable feature is the flexible discovery mechanism."
"Its Docker Container concept is mind blowing. It is the first monitoring tool which comes with Docker features."
"It's easy to use."
"The custom built integration is one of the most valuable features because you can see all the especially critical items."
"The interfaces to USS, CA UIM could be better. CA Common Services interfaces - namely Zdata Mover, Zmessage Service, Zdatacolletcor - are poorly documented."
"Scalability is zero. It cannot be scaled because of its age."
"It definitely needs more web-based interface, to be more mobile-open. More APIs, more open source to it."
"The further expansion of the mainframe teamcenter interface. Also, the web services support is something that I am looking into."
"It’s a complex product. The initial installation is easy, but implementing various functions is a constant process."
"One thing that comes to mind is the MQ interface. The last time we tried to use it, it seemed a little clunky."
"The reason sometimes it is not stable, we do not have the expertise to write the script."
"Some of the command sequences are too long."
"The AI aspect needs to improve."
"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"
"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."
"The inclusion of a feature to show a graphical view of the network would be a helpful improvement."
"Now it is stable, but they should design threshold parameters in percentage instead of raw values."
"It would be ideal if the product offered sound alerts."
"There was a problem with Zenoss and storage monitoring."
Earn 20 points
OPS/MVS Automation Intelligence is ranked 14th in Event Monitoring while Zenoss Cloud is ranked 10th in Event Monitoring with 8 reviews. OPS/MVS Automation Intelligence is rated 9.4, while Zenoss Cloud is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of OPS/MVS Automation Intelligence writes "The ability to use command rules is great when our operators have repetitive tasks, but we'd like to automate off of different highlighted messages without actually knowing what the message is". 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". OPS/MVS Automation Intelligence is most compared with BMC MainView, BMC TrueSight Operations Management, SCOM and IBM Tivoli OMEGAMON, whereas Zenoss Cloud is most compared with Zabbix, Nagios XI, ServiceNow IT Operations Management, Splunk Enterprise Security and ScienceLogic.
See our list of best Event Monitoring 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.
