We performed a comparison between Loom Systems and Pandora FMS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Zabbix, Datadog, Auvik and others in IT Infrastructure Monitoring."The solution is absolutely scalable. If an organization needs to expand it out they definitely can."
"The RFS portion of the solution is the product's most valuable feature."
"What I like best about Loom Systems is that you can use it for infrastructure monitoring. I also like that it's a flexible solution."
"You can develop your own apps within Loom, and they can be configured very simply."
"Thanks to this software and to the work of the support team, we have everything under control."
"The most valuable feature is that it is an all-in-one monitoring system."
"Thanks to its flexibility, I have been able to adapt the tool to our servers and find out quickly how their console works."
"Pandora FMS provides us with a general report (graphical) about all of the connected devices, which helps with planning new stations and tracking them."
"The solution is so lightweight that with only 4GB of ram, it allows keeping track of up to two hundred agents from a single console."
"Pandora's architecture is interesting. It's open so you can easily extend and enhance it. It's simpler to customize Pandora compared to other solutions. It's also scalable enough to support large environments."
"The most valuable features are auto-discovery and automatic detection of the network topology and network monitoring."
"It is easy to create your own custom modules if you just know a little bit of scripting. If you have unique requirements, you can just make your own modules. You can even grab checks from other vendors. There are open-source checks for various things such as SMTP, etc. There is a long list of different ones from Nagios. You can just use them, and within seconds, you get yourself a check that is monitoring whatever you need. It is really flexible. I guess that's why they call it Pandora Flexible Monitoring System (FMS). It is reliable. It does the job, and it alerts. It is also surprisingly feature-rich. Our network guy just recently asked about a particular protocol to monitor the bandwidth on the network, which is not a common protocol. When I looked it up, and I found that they cover it. It is very mature for a not-so-known product."
"The discovery and mapping still takes a lot of human intervention, it's quite resource heavy,"
"What's lacking in Loom Systems is the level of priority for each incident. For example, after implementation and there was a huge impact on the client, and the client comes back to you and says that there's an incident, that there needs to be an immediate resolution for it, you'll see severity one, severity two, etc., in Loom Systems, rather than priority levels. It would be better if the incidents can be defined as low priority, medium priority, or high priority."
"The reporting is a bit weak. They should work to improve this aspect of the product."
"The change management within the solution needs to be improved. There needs to be more process automation."
"Improvements are needed for server and network discovery, including service-based discovery."
"We would like to see improvement in the mainframe integration that this solution is capable of."
"Third-party integration should be improved for some commonly used products."
"Their support is good, but it is just online communication. It would be great to be able to just call someone and talk to them instead of always writing. It works well for me because I am a decent communicator in email, but some people might find it difficult to describe in a written fashion and communicate with them that way. There is a learning curve to the interface, but once you get used to it, it is actually very powerful. They have a lot of options, but people struggle with the interface. They've improved it though, and it is getting better. They need to keep improving the learning curve to help buy-in. I'm the guy that manages it, so I'm comfortable with it. They can refine the upgrade agents to be easier. They can also do more refinement in end-user usability because not everyone is strong technically, and people who aren't strong technically might be averse to the product, even though it has come a long way. It has a complete GUI and everything."
"We would like the real-time monitoring of an interface to be improved within this solution."
"I would like for the solution to be faster and have a better tolerance between parallel servers for Pandora and Pest Control."
"Pandora FMS is relatively new, and the interface with the older version crashes at times. We have several different operating systems, such as Linux and Windows, and Pandora does not run as well in these."
"When it comes to the definition of local Software Agents for the first time in the open-source version, it can become very tedious."
Loom Systems is ranked 56th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 4 reviews while Pandora FMS is ranked 25th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 22 reviews. Loom Systems is rated 8.0, while Pandora FMS is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Loom Systems writes "Simple and very effective for developing and configuring apps with great integration capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pandora FMS writes "The open architecture is easy to extend and enhance". Loom Systems is most compared with Elastic Search and Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring, whereas Pandora FMS is most compared with Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor, Wazuh, Nagios XI and SolarWinds NPM.
See our list of best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all IT Infrastructure 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.
