Pieter Van BlommesteinManager, Principle Systems Engineer and team lead at BCX
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The monitoring is the solution's most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is the event management capability."
"It is customer-centric. Customers can access the event list from their location or desktop and view the event. There is no need to go and connect to any other server and run events to have a view of all the events happening in the environment. We get a good response from customers about this feature and the main architecture of NetCool. Its processing is very good. Deduplication and correlation functionalities are good in this solution as compared to other solutions. A big advantage of NetCool is that it also supports multi-layered protocols. We can receive multiple events from different protocols like UDP, HTTP, and those events can be captured in NetCool."
"This solution saves us a lot of work because it reduces the effort that is required in order to start monitoring."
"This is a product that does more generally than any of the competing solutions."
"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."
"SCOM has improved our organization by simplifying the monitoring process. The system tells you what the bi-weekly or monthly usage was and that enables us to report this information to the manager. It shows if there was a connectivity issue that needs to be fixed and it's easier to concentrate on what needs to get fixed. System errors, therefore, get fixed faster."
"Availability monitoring is the feature I have found most valuable, as well as the capacity and ability to send notifications."
"The advantages of SCOM are that it is definitely user friendly and a more appropriate solution for what we need."
"The most valuable feature is the monitoring of Windows and Linux servers."
"It is a user-friendly product that requires almost no maintenance."
"The cost of the product is quite high. They should work to adjust their pricing models."
"The web portal and typical event controls are a little outdated."
"Its integration could be better. They should provide an easier integration for all the monitoring stuff, and it will make things easier for us. Currently, there is a complexity in integrating it with a vendor application, and we have to use another tool to integrate it with a vendor application. To integrate some applications with NetCool, I need to install an IBM tool on top of it. It would be good if they can provide an API or any kind of interface that we can leverage while developing a new protocol interface or application. We should be able to use an API or interface with NetCool. Its GUI can also be better. As compared to other tools, it is not user friendly, and it is not easy to do stuff through GUI. Whenever we do anything on the GUI, it takes time. They need to focus on the GUI part, especially the dashboard. They should focus on how users can effectively drill down from one box to another. The visual appeal of the dashboard is as important as the data and functionality."
"All of the areas of reporting are very bad and need to be improved."
"It lacks certain details that other products do better, like granular access and better application monitoring."
"Of course, price is always an issue with Microsoft and could be improved."
"Then there is also an issue with capacity and limited space. That is something that needs to be improved."
"In terms of features that could be improved, I would say the agent integration into the operating system. We are having difficulties integrating Linux into some of the networking devices."
"I would like more customized reports. People should have some customization option on the dashboards for whenever they put multiple lists into it. Beyond customizing the content, there should be the ability to customize the colors so that they can engage some priority and mark challenges separately."
"The dashboard features are not user-friendly for our management team, only for the technical department."
"It would be a much better product if Microsoft provided management packs with the product."
"You have to have the right level of budget to afford this solution."
"Its license cost is a little bit more than other solutions. Our customers expect a standard market price that is comparative to other products. For each and every NetCool OMNIbus component, we have to purchase a separate license. These components are not free with the product."
"It is more expensive than the competition."
"SCOM is part of the System Center suite and I am satisfied with the pricing."
"We have an enterprise agreement that includes this product as part of it."
"The pricing is good, and it's part of their system center suite."
"We have to pay for a license and the price is fine for us."
"We have an EA with Microsoft, and it comes as part of the EA."
IBM Tivoli NetCool OMNIbus is ranked 5th in Event Monitoring with 3 reviews while SCOM is ranked 1st in Event Monitoring with 16 reviews. IBM Tivoli NetCool OMNIbus is rated 8.4, while SCOM is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM Tivoli NetCool OMNIbus writes "It is customer-centric and has support for multi-layered protocols, but it needs better integration and GUI". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SCOM writes "Best all-around, multi-features single interface, cross-platform monitoring solution for complex environment groupings". IBM Tivoli NetCool OMNIbus is most compared with IBM Tivoli NetCool Impact, ScienceLogic, BigPanda, PagerDuty and BMC TrueSight Operations Management, whereas SCOM is most compared with Zabbix, Dynatrace, Nagios XI, PRTG Network Monitor and BMC TrueSight Operations Management. See our IBM Tivoli NetCool OMNIbus vs. SCOM report.
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.