We performed a comparison between LogicMonitor and LogRhythm NetMon 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."
"LogicMonitor is good for getting a full view of your topologies. They have LiveMaps, which give you a visual representation of your infrastructure."
"The most valuable feature of LogicMonitor is the infrastructure monitoring capability."
"One thing that's very valuable for us is the technical knowledge of the people who work with LogicMonitor. We looked at several products before we decided to use LogicMonitor, and one of the key decision-making points was the knowledge of the things that they put in the product. It provides real intelligence regarding the numbers that you see on the product, which makes it easy for us technical people to troubleshoot. Other products don't provide you with such information. You see a value going up, but you don't know what it means. LogicMonitor provides such information. For instance, if a value goes up, it says that it is probably because your disk area was too low."
"The initial setup is very simple."
"It is easy to set up and monitor an entire facility. This is crucial because we have around 80 facilities that require monitoring. LifePoint is a hub-and-spoke environment, so it is essential to understand all of the WAN interfaces."
"Having a full team at LogicMonitor for support is super helpful as they are available all the time to answer any questions you may have."
"LogicMonitor added AI technology to help understand what's normal and that has helped quite a bit, so that's the feature I found most valuable in the product. The product is also doing quite well with identifying devices and customizing a particular Cisco version or model number. LogicMonitor continues to be active in updating what is available to be monitored, and it's been very good with keeping those things current, so that's another valuable feature of the product."
"The most valuable feature is the visualization of the data that it is collecting. I have used many products in the past and they tend to roll up the data. So, if you're looking at data over long periods of time, they start averaging the data, which can skew the figures that you're looking at. With LogicMonitor, they have the raw data there for two years, if you are an enterprise customer. If you are looking at that long duration of data, you're seeing exactly what happened during that time."
"The most valuable feature is the log, which can be analyzed by our SIEM solution."
"NetMon's best feature is traffic analysis."
"It has a very strong artificial intelligence engine."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"Visibility is a valuable feature, the ability to see even if the traffic is not going into the firewall"
"The analytics feature is the most valuable feature."
"The protocols with which you see the traffic for a particular website that a client has in their environment, for example, are valuable. We can monitor whether the traffic is up to the mark or whether they need to add more bandwidth. Also, we can see if we're able to get real-time environment data as well. The customization dashboard is really good. LogRhythm NetMon has its own in-built dashboards which are helpful in guiding customization."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"One thing that could be really better is the mapping. Auvik is really good at it. They have a really nice way to give you a visual representation of your network, but in LogicMonitor, this functionality is not as powerful and as good as Auvik."
"There is a lack of automation, especially in terms of remediating problems. The problem is seen and identified, but there is a need and a gap where LogicMonitor can help us automate the remediation of the problem."
"The ease of use with data source tuning could be improved. That can get hairy quickly. When I reach out for help, it's usually around a data source or event source configuration. That can get challenging."
"It needs better access for customizing and adding monitoring from the repository. That would be helpful. It seems like you have to search through the forums to figure out what specific pieces you need to get in for specific monitoring, if it's a nonstandard piece of equipment or process. You have to hunt and find certain elements to get them in place. If they could make it a bit easier rather having to find the right six-digit code to put in so it implements, that would be helpful."
"There are some very specific things that need improvement in LogicMonitor. One is the lack of formatting for customized alerts, particularly the delivery of them to our email channel. We'd also like to see further customization of dashboards. Finally, something that is specific to us as an MSP that uses LogicMonitor, is white-labeling or skinning of the product, so we can make it look more customer-focused for our customers."
"One thing I would like to see is parent/child relationships and the ability to build a "suppression parent/child." For example, If I know that a top gateway is offline and I can't talk to it anymore, and anything that's connected below it or to it is also going to be offline, there is no need to alarm on those. In that situation it should create one ticket or one alarm for the parent. I know they're working towards that with their mapping technology, but it's not quite to that level where you can build out alarm logic or a correlation logic like that."
"We are working with LogicMonitor to get flexibility to see the absolute running numbers, rather than doing an average. They can keep the average for customers who want it, but there should be a way to at least show the real numbers, which are coming every second on the screen."
"One of the areas that I sometimes find confusing is the way that the data is presented. For example, a couple of weeks back I was looking at bandwidth utilization. That's quite a difficult thing to present, but they should try to dumb down how the data is presented and simplify what they're presenting."
"There is an issue with tunneling in relation to how the connectivity is established between the end devices and where NetMon is installed. On the console, I often observe that there's a difference of a few seconds or maybe a minute, and this lag time should not be there."
"Sometimes it's hard to find the network devices' self-audit logs."
"I would like to see better integration with multiple products. Integration is not something that is readily available for most of the products."
"The training for this product is not very good and needs to be improved."
"Some of the automated tasks we can perform on QRadar cannot be performed on LogRhythm because the solution has limitations."
"Could use a topology diagram which would help get an exact visual."
"LogRhythm NetMon's pricing model is an area of concern that should be made a little bit cheaper in comparison to the other players in the market currently."
LogicMonitor is ranked 17th in Network Monitoring Software with 25 reviews while LogRhythm NetMon is ranked 57th in Network Monitoring Software with 9 reviews. LogicMonitor is rated 9.0, while LogRhythm NetMon is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of LogicMonitor writes "We went from nothing to full visibility across our internal and external estates of equipment". On the other hand, the top reviewer of LogRhythm NetMon writes "A stable and scalable tool useful for network behavior analysis, DPA, and network forensic services". LogicMonitor is most compared with SolarWinds NPM, ScienceLogic, Zabbix, SCOM and OpsRamp, whereas LogRhythm NetMon is most compared with PRTG Network Monitor, ObserverLIVE, SCOM and Zabbix. See our LogRhythm NetMon vs. LogicMonitor 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.