We performed a comparison between SCOM and Zenoss Cloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Event Monitoring 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."
"Availability monitoring is the feature I have found most valuable, as well as the capacity and ability to send notifications."
"The solution is used for monitoring the hardware inventory. For instance, it helps with the whole operational monitoring view for the company's infrastructure."
"The solution primarily drives system information, and I believe it works fine."
"The product has helped our organization with in-depth monitoring."
"It is very good at monitoring Microsoft Server."
"It works better than other products I’ve used – namely SolarWinds, which is cumbersome and error prone for web app monitoring. SCOM is not."
"The most valuable features in SCOM are Azure monitoring and integration with Azure Monitor for monitoring Azure-hosted servers from SCOM on-premises."
"It can send messages to our ticketing system."
"The most valuable feature is the flexible discovery mechanism."
"The custom built integration is one of the most valuable features because you can see all the especially critical items."
"Its Docker Container concept is mind blowing. It is the first monitoring tool which comes with Docker features."
"They have also accommodated many state-of-the-art technologies like Docker and ZooKeeper."
"What I like most about Zenoss Service Dynamics is that it monitors the devices and gives close to real-time alerts. For example, in case the device is not available, Zenoss Service Dynamics generates an alert so my team can resolve the issue."
"It's easy to use."
"The product offers good documentation that helps with initial training."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"It lacks certain details that other products do better, like granular access and better application monitoring."
"Third-party tools have had to be created to make SCOM management pack creation more efficient and effective. However, this weighs down the application as it just adds a resource requirement, which is ballooning the size of the necessary storage and all that for essentially substandard components."
"Non Windows monitoring is fairly weak. Network device monitoring is not reliable."
"The price could be improved."
"There are some negative points about this product. Sometimes, the capabilities of the software don't appear, and you can't directly see the results. You have to wait for a long period to refresh the policy to push it to the software or other patches."
"Application monitoring must be improved."
"The solution can be improved by expanding to cloud usage."
"The configurations could be better. There are multiple tests where you can do something, but they can be a trigger as well. The overriding methodologies are not that easy. The configurations are difficult. The configuration and thorough day-to-day operations to get them to the level you want takes some time. It's very difficult."
"As Zenoss Service Dynamics is more for network-centric devices and you want to monitor, for example, a server, its services, IP addresses, and interfaces, if it's a network and you're going to monitor multiple items, you'll be charged multiple times. This is what Zenoss Service Dynamics needs to improve to make sure that customers pay just one fee to monitor the entire server. What I'd like to see in Zenoss Service Dynamics in the future is a public cloud monitoring feature, particularly for the Azure public cloud. Another additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of the solution is integration with the Azure public cloud because I know that there are some services from Azure that Zenoss Service Dynamics is currently unable to monitor."
"There is room for improvement with the administrative part. They introduced Control Center to manage things in Zenoss 5. The services that Zenoss provides remained the same, but the administrative part, since they introduced Docker, etc., has become a little complex"
"Now it is stable, but they should design threshold parameters in percentage instead of raw values."
"The AI aspect needs to improve."
"It would be ideal if the product offered sound alerts."
"There was a problem with Zenoss and storage monitoring."
"The inclusion of a feature to show a graphical view of the network would be a helpful improvement."
SCOM is ranked 3rd in Event Monitoring with 77 reviews while Zenoss Cloud is ranked 10th in Event Monitoring with 8 reviews. SCOM is rated 7.8, while Zenoss Cloud is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of SCOM writes "Has a good reporting engine, but its monitoring of the cloud-based environment could be improved". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zenoss Cloud writes "Generates close to real-time alerts so users can resolve issues, but needs more integration and public cloud monitoring features". SCOM is most compared with Zabbix, Dynatrace, Datadog, AppDynamics and Nagios XI, whereas Zenoss Cloud is most compared with Zabbix, Nagios XI, ServiceNow IT Operations Management, Splunk Enterprise Security and ScienceLogic. See our SCOM vs. Zenoss Cloud report.
See our list of best Event Monitoring vendors and best Network Monitoring Software vendors.
We monitor all Event 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.