We compared LogicMonitor and New Relic across several parameters based on our users' reviews. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Features: LogicMonitor stands out for its seamless integration with external applications, personalized dashboards, and efficient AIOps functionality. New Relic offers reliable monitoring capabilities and advanced traceability features.
Room for Improvement: LogicMonitor users have requested better dashboards, customizable alerts, and more automation. Some also suggested improvements in the solution’s AI capabilities. New Relic could improve by simplifying server removal and offering more detailed troubleshooting information. Reviewers also said the user experience could be smoother and that the documentation should be more detailed.
Service and Support: LogicMonitor's support team is praised for being helpful, knowledgeable, and responsive. The solution also offers learning resources and ample information to help users navigate and customize the platform. Some New Relic customers commended the prompt and knowledgeable support, while others expressed dissatisfaction with slow response times and delayed resolutions.
Ease of Deployment: LogicMonitor's initial setup is generally regarded as effortless. Users appreciated the vendor’s help during onboarding and the solution’s extensive documentation. New Relic's setup is perceived as relatively easy, and professional services are available if needed.
Pricing: LogicMonitor’s licensing model is based on the size of the environment. It is seen as a high-end solution with a high price tag and may be too costly for smaller organizations. New Relic's pricing is considered a pain point for many customers, but others said it is reasonable for the features provided. There are additional costs for extra features and historical information.
ROI: LogicMonitor users have seen an ROI in the form of increased visibility and shorter resolution times. Some New Relic users reported a positive return on investment, but others were uncertain or have not observed any ROI.
Comparison Results: LogicMonitor is a premium solution geared toward large enterprises, featuring smooth integration and advanced AIOps features. Users praised LogicMonitor for its painless setup process and excellent support, but some noted that the solution’s steep price tag might put it out of the range of smaller businesses and that it could improve dashboards and AI capabilities. New Relic is praised for its robust monitoring capabilities, stellar customer service, and painless setup, but some users say the solution is too pricey and that the user experience could be better.
"We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of LogicMonitor is the infrastructure monitoring capability."
"I really appreciate the reporting function because it allows me to create dashboards that will be emailed to me during the morning so that I have a complete overview of my client's health, within a specific time frame."
"LogicMonitor helps us prevent potential downtime. It's pretty good. It generates low-level warnings that aren't necessarily preemptive but can still alert us to issues we should investigate. These warnings allow us to correlate data and identify areas where we should take action, even if the issues aren't critical."
"The breadth of its ability to monitor all our environments, putting it in one place, has been helpful. This way, we don't have to manage multiple tools and try to juggle multiple balls to keep our environment monitored. It presents a clear picture to us of what is going on."
"We have very fine-tuned alerting that lets us know when there are issues by identifying where exactly that issue is, so we can troubleshoot and resolve them quickly. This is hopefully before the customer even notices. Then, it gives us some insight into potential issues coming down the road through our environmental health dashboards."
"The solution’s overall reporting capabilities are pretty powerful compared to ones that I have used previously. It seems like it has a lot of customizations that you can put in, but some of the out-of-the-box reports are useful too, like user logon duration and website latency. Those type of things have been helpful and don't require a lot of, if any, changes to get useful content out of them. They have also been pretty easy to implement and use."
"It has a simple initial setup."
"We were able to integrate with the messaging tool, Slack, which meant that we got notifications whenever something was not quite right."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to receive in-depth information about applications. It can detect a lot of important information."
"We have done the New Relic integration with Serverless AWS, which has helped us with monitoring, and keeping our monitoring from our on-premise part with the cloud part."
"The most valuable features of New Relic are the reports and ease of use."
"We use it for monitoring, identifying when services go down, or when they are outside of what we would consider normal operations."
"Support for plug-ins (RMQ, Redis etc.) is a valuable feature."
"One valuable feature is that the synthetic alert stays open until the issue is resolved. You can actually monitor whether your system is back up."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"The only functional area I can think of that has room for improvement would be the dashboards. They could use a refresh. It would be nice if there were more widgets and more types of widgets."
"I'd like to see more automation in the tool, especially around remediation."
"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."
"The process of upgrading some of the collectors has been a little bit confusing. I need to understand that better."
"LogicMonitor's reporting capabilities definitely could use an improvement. We have made do with the dashboarding and done what we can to make that work for our customers. However, there are definitely customers who would like a PDF or some kind of report along those lines, where we have been utilizing other tools to provide them. The out-of-the-box LogicMonitor reporting is the only thing that we have been less than impressed with."
"Dashboarding capabilities could be enhanced. It is cumbersome, you must do it all at once, and then you must repeat the process every now and then."
"We would like to see more functionality around mapping of topologies, in terms of networks. An improvement that we would like to see is added functionality to get more detail out of mapping. For example, if the LogicMonitor Collector identifies a connection between two network endpoints, it would be great to actually see which ports are connecting the two endpoints together. That functionality is something we greatly desire. It would actually make our documentation more dynamic in the sense that we wouldn't need to manually document. If this is something that the platform could provide, then this would be a great asset."
"Role-based permissions could be better and updating modules could be smoother."
"The scalability can be improved."
"It would help customers if there were an on-premises version available."
"It is complicated, especially in how you interpret the data that it provides. If it had a bit more canned, out-of-the-box features, especially some of the reporting features, that would be more useful."
"One thing that we noticed was that historical information was only for a limited period, which was not helpful in certain scenarios. For example, if I want to size my system for an event for New Year or Christmas season based on the historical data, I won't be able to find the historical data. Currently, the data is limited to three months. It would be helpful if they can provide historical data for a longer duration so that we can plan our system accordingly."
"It is a serious tool and requires a lot of time invested in order to understand how it works."
"It gives you amazing statistics, but doesn’t give you enough information about what to do with the statistics."
"The price could improve."
"There were some settings we had issues with."
LogicMonitor is ranked 17th in Network Monitoring Software with 25 reviews while New Relic is ranked 6th in Network Monitoring Software with 151 reviews. LogicMonitor is rated 9.0, while New Relic is rated 8.6. 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 New Relic writes "Has a simple user interface and end-to-end monitoring and self-healing features". LogicMonitor is most compared with SolarWinds NPM, ScienceLogic, Zabbix, SCOM and IBM SevOne Network Performance Management (NPM), whereas New Relic is most compared with Dynatrace, Datadog, Elastic Observability, Grafana and Azure Monitor. See our LogicMonitor vs. New Relic report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors, best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors, and best Cloud 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.