We performed a comparison between Microsoft Configuration Manager and ScienceLogic based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Server Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Endpoint Manager is valuable to our organization because it allows us to connect to our enterprise from remote locations securely. The most useful feature is its robustness and scalability. It is highly scalable and flexible, allowing us to use it in various environments. Additionally, we can specialize the policies related to each device group. This ensures that each group has access to the applications they need for their work and non-work hours."
"This solution captures all the devices in our infrastructure."
"This has made the management of our environment easier."
"We're a Microsoft-centric organization, so we are happy with the integration between products."
"Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is valuable in keeping our systems updated. We are able to send updates to all the systems. Additionally, the Intune integration is helpful."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to deploy patches to nearly all applications."
"The product is very stable compared to older versions."
"It uses detailed descriptions of the workstations, and that is good for me."
"One of the valuable features is rapid dashboards."
"The flexibility to support most technologies. The way ScienceLogic gathers data from multiple sources is vital to our customers. As we work with new customers (often with different technology requirements), ScienceLogic is flexible enough to support our clients’ varying network needs."
"It has good monitoring capabilities across cloud environments, data centers, and hybrid environments."
"I'm satisfied with ScienceLogicfor for what they can offer today because they can offer both serverless connectivity and agent connectivity."
"Its ITSM and EMS combination is really amazing. There is no need to purchase two products, one for ITSM and a second for EMS/NMS."
"Dynamic Component Mapping is key and unique."
"When it comes to features, the power pack is the most valuable."
"It is simple."
"Some of the capabilities aren't fully developed yet. It's an ongoing work in progress. I think they are making some steps in the right direction as far as managing workstations centrally, like Intune."
"The reports are too busy. They could be simpler. I'm a technician, so I don't care how pretty the reports look. They should be easy to read. I'm designing this for production folks. They need to read the reports quickly when they're patching in the middle of the night."
"Troubleshooting in general needs improvement. There's just a ton of logs to go through, and so finding the error log that corresponds with that you're doing can sometimes be difficult."
"It would be better if automation options were available. For example, in Nexthink or SysTrack, there is an analytical tool. Creating dashboards would be very easy if you implement the same thing in Microsoft. That report will be a daily cost to the customers and good revenue for our organization. The price also could be better. In the next release, we need to include some features like tables, dashboards, surveys, services, and metrics in the dashboard. Whatever we are implementing will be downloaded by a report. Apart from the report, we will telecast from the dashboard. It's very easy to compare, and it will be easy to telecast to the end-users."
"The solution should be more compatible with different versions of Linux."
"Management of Linux devices could be improved."
"Not everything is readily available, and there are a lot of commands that are only executable via PowerShell."
"Our company would prefer not rebooting computers while people are using them. There seems to be no strategy behind it."
"It doesn't have the complete application-level topology. It could have service topology and business service monitoring. I would like to see how business service monitoring will function with agent-based installation, and how flexible and business-oriented it is for service modeling and service infrastructure. I have a lot of experience in using business service monitoring, service topology, and service hierarchy functionalities in similar products from BMC and Micro Focus (OpenView), and I want to see how these functionalities will look like in ScienceLogic."
"From a performance perspective, it needs to improve a lot."
"ScienceLogic does not have application monitoring. We definitely need something integrated within ScienceLogic to monitor applications so that we don't have to rely on monitoring tools to monitor other applications. At least the ones that are market leaders, such as SAP, Oracle, and others."
"They should add CLI command modes and scripts for high performance."
"The product's reporting functionalities have certain shortcomings, making it an area where improvements are required."
"They should improve database issues in HA and Failover mode, and provide documentation for all users , even if they are not customers."
"Admins do not have direct access to the reporting."
"The product must educate its strategic partners for deployment."
More Microsoft Configuration Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Configuration Manager is ranked 2nd in Server Monitoring with 78 reviews while ScienceLogic is ranked 6th in Server Monitoring with 42 reviews. Microsoft Configuration Manager is rated 8.2, while ScienceLogic is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Microsoft Configuration Manager writes "Seamless system updates, useful integration, and reliable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ScienceLogic writes "Great integrations, power flow, and good support". Microsoft Configuration Manager is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, ManageEngine Endpoint Central, Microsoft Intune, BigFix and Tanium, whereas ScienceLogic is most compared with Dynatrace, LogicMonitor, SolarWinds NPM, Datadog and ServiceNow Discovery. See our Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. ScienceLogic report.
See our list of best Server Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all Server 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.
