We performed a comparison between Plixer Scrutinizer and SCOM 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."
"The most valuable features of Plixer Scrutinizer are its ease of use, accessibility, and UI."
"As a network engineer, the ability to identify what traffic on the link is consuming all the bandwidth at any given time, and provide immediate feedback to the business, is the most valuable feature."
"There are other tools out there that will do what Scrutinizer does. But what I have found with Scrutinizer is that it does it very quickly. I've taken 25 million individual data fragments from the different sensors, and it has graphed that and mapped it and presented a picture within 30 seconds. It has a very efficient database algorithm that I am really impressed with."
"We didn't experience any bugs."
"It helps us determine what is going on with our Internet and who is hogging it all up. If we get a real high throughput or a throughput that's going over and getting dropped fairly quickly, we can tell who (or what device) is consuming that traffic."
"It's agnostic as far as what your network gear is. As long as it supports an sFlow, JFlow, NetFlow, some kind of flow monitoring, Plixer will support it very well."
"Plixer Scrutinizer is an affordable product. Plixer Scrutinizer is a tool that allows for customization, especially in scenarios where customers need new product features."
"The reporting and generating troubleshooting reports would be the best feature; our host-to-host conversation reporting."
"I like some of their newer features, such as maintenance schedules, because SCOM records SLA and SLO time."
"Being able to make and customize management packs and send out notifications is very valuable."
"The advantages of SCOM are that it is definitely user friendly and a more appropriate solution for what we need."
"The ease of deployment, especially on Windows platforms, is valuable."
"The product has helped our organization with in-depth monitoring."
"The most valuable feature is the extensibility, as there are really no limits as to what you can do with it."
"The most valuable feature is the monitoring of Windows and Linux servers."
"It is a user-friendly product that requires almost no maintenance."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"For updating the Scrutinizer platform, when we have the actual data, it never happens in one day. Every time we have the data, we are obliged to install a new server in order to integrate the old data, and every time it has a problem. Most of the time, we were obliged to scrap all the data because we couldn't transfer it to the new server. So, it would be very good if they could improve this part."
"The reporting structure, the front-end GUI, also needs some work. It needs some getting used to. It works fairly well, but it's a technical tool rather than a user tool. You have to understand the structure of the databases before you can really use it."
"There is room for improvement around the data that they have on the website about solutions... they should have more templated solutions on their website. Going out and identifying how to do RTP performance with a Cisco router, or how to do application response times in an Arrista data center deployment was where most of the work was... They should spend some more time documenting solutions and putting together white papers."
"Knowing that they're coming out with a new user interface, that is an area where there is room for improvement. There are so many variables. They should limit the variables in the user interface and create some classes, like "simple," "novice," and "expert" to narrow down the variables within it."
"The solution creates a visual map of a particular location and how the network flows. You need to spend time to generate all those maps. If they could figure out a way to reduce the time needed to generate the maps, that would be great."
"The visual acuity of how it presents data can sometimes be confusing. It takes a bit for people to spin up how to look at the graphs."
"I wish the reporting side was easier to work with, but it does a decent job. I also wish the reporting side was a little more intuitive or they offered more reporting examples."
"We couldn't get it set up properly."
"Non Windows monitoring is fairly weak. Network device monitoring is not reliable."
"It would be a much better product if Microsoft provided management packs with the product."
"I would like to better be able to monitor Oracle processes."
"The management of the servers could be better."
"The interface is a little bit cumbersome and certain actions could be simplified."
"The GI is difficult to work with and the reporting servers are also difficult."
"The solution should have more tools for monitoring the cloud engine versus on-premise."
"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."
Plixer Scrutinizer is ranked 48th in Network Monitoring Software with 15 reviews while SCOM is ranked 11th in Network Monitoring Software with 77 reviews. Plixer Scrutinizer is rated 8.6, while SCOM is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Plixer Scrutinizer writes "Advanced reporting runs analytics on NetFlow and provides signature-based recognition of problems in the network environment". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SCOM writes "Has a good reporting engine, but its monitoring of the cloud-based environment could be improved". Plixer Scrutinizer is most compared with SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer, Flowmon , ManageEngine NetFlow Analyzer, Cisco Secure Network Analytics and PRTG Network Monitor, whereas SCOM is most compared with Zabbix, Dynatrace, Datadog, AppDynamics and Nagios XI. See our Plixer Scrutinizer vs. SCOM 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.
