We have experienced a few different solutions. We’ve used IBM products in the past, and we've used Solarwinds as well. I do prefer the agent-less option, and I also like the roadmap, especially everything ScienceLogic had on the IOPS for five years.

We are using HPE solutions in parallel to ScienceLogic.

We did previously use NETSCOUT. We didn't have the equipment, however. It came from the client. 

When compared with NetCool. The first point I'd like to make is about licensing. Every company would like to have some rule that is budget-friendly. When it comes to ITM Netcool, the licensing is far more expensive than any other product on the market. At the same time, IBM never sells its products as standalone products. If a person wishes to purchase only Netcool/OMNIbus, they must do so as part of a package. ITM will come with Netcool/OMNIbus, Netcool/Impact, and Netcool dash, you'll have to buy everything together.

Customers do not always want everything. They only want one component of the product, but IBM refuses to sell it, and in that case, you're paying far more than you should. When it comes to Netcool Tivoli, one of the main constraints is money. 

The second issue is that Tivoli is an old product that lacks many issues and granular monitoring. When I was talking about ScienceLogic, I told you that if you find one appliance, it will find all of the child's devices. In ITM, this is not possible.

However, there is also log file monitoring, for example. Log file monitoring is a common practice within IT infrastructure. Any team may wish to monitor or log. Whereas in ITM, we have to write custom scripts, which is not as simple. When comparing ScienceLogic to the ITM, we have power packs that allow us to integrate any number of third-party applications. We can't do that at ITM. There are times when I have to use IT-Cam to monitor applications because I cannot use ITM.

There are many differences I believe I have used a lot of monitoring tools, such as Nagios, Zabbix, and others. These are free and open-source tools. However, once I began using ScienceLogic, I discovered that the main thing that fascinated me was discovering each and every child, which I had never seen in any monitoring tool. It surprised us, and it surprised the customer as well. They were surprised to learn that switches, and hubs existed in the environment.  Customers were pleased with the inventory report and that the product is so efficient, that it picks up everything.

We were using Nagios before. ScienceLogic is a bit better.

My company needs additional reporting tools like IBM Cognos or Tableau. My company uses additional reporting tools to extract data and then design the reports per the customers' requirements. If users of ScienceLogic get features similar to those offered by other reporting tools, it would be great.

I can compare it with Broadcom. ScienceLogic is cheaper with less functionality.

We were not using an NMS prior to ScienceLogic. As we grew, we wanted a way to provide monitoring/alerting and ticket generation from the platform. ScienceLogic fit that bill perfectly.

Our previous solution lacked monitoring support for hybrid IT environments. We would have needed to invest more than $10 million to retool our then monitoring solution to meet our needs. We knew that we needed to move from a Legacy Based Framework Tool to a Hybrid IT Monitoring Platform.

We decided that a “cloud first” strategy was the most appropriate strategy for us and began deploying new workloads to Amazon Web Services. Our move to a hybrid IT model presented several challenges, one primary challenge was monitoring an environment split across datacenters and AWS. Our existing IT operations management solution did not provide monitoring for both onsite and AWS based resources. Further, it did not provide the flexibility we needed to discover and monitor elements that appear and disappear in moments within a cloud-based environment.

We were using a number of different tools to monitor our infrastructure and a large amount of time was spent separating urgent alerts from notifications. We needed to consolidate tools. We found that we could consolidate nine of our tools to their one monitoring platform.

We used Openview, but the administrative skill set required specialized staff. We were looking for a replacement for basic monitoring and discovered this solution, which offered a lot more features, some of which were on our priority list and did not expect to find in one solution.

Yes. Our previous product had many deficiencies including lack of logical expressions, mixed licensing, limited cross-functional tools, and other issues. Also, getting our own enhancements into the product was impossible.

We were growing very rapidly and what we found was that we had too many tools. We had one tool for SNMP monitoring, another tool for monitoring infrastructure, a third tool for making graphs and reports plus a whole slew of home-grown scripts. We were worried that NOC operations would start to lose confidence in the tool sets which required a lot of extra training.

We stopped using a legacy billing tool in favor of using ScienceLogic’s platform. We also had many major third party and homegrown solutions. In 2016, we consolidated all the solutions into a ScienceLogic's EM7 solution.

We switched because of cost and the overall level of effort it was taking to keep up with managing the solution. This was not a full time job, but simply a part time job for one person. This solution has allowed us to provide support with a fraction of the resources, instead of dedicating a full-time resource.

Previously multiple event management systems were in use; however due to 4 different monitoring tools being utilized we were unable to integrate the entire set into one screen. ScienceLogic had the ability to perform the work of many of these tools and was able to integrate with the tools it could not replace.

Before ScienceLogic, our monitoring was fairly difficult to do. We were kind of limited in our capabilities.

We use multiple solutions, however this is by far the most customizable and feature rich solution in our arsenal.

We switched based on the needs of our customers.

Nagios. We switched because it is less effort to configure new devices in ScienceLogic. The power packs are really what sets ScienceLogic apart from other solutions.

We knew the best way that you always know something because your customers are saying to you. My boss says to me a lot, "Our customers are the ones that should be pushing us. Our customers should always be pushing us to be better." That was in a sense that's exactly where we were. We were in a situation where our ability to integrate new features into our monitoring platform was taking way too long and was way too cumbersome. Our ability to keep that system current at a current patch level with a vendor was unbelievably complicated. Realistically speaking, we had a problem that we couldn't even deliver the baseline of services, let alone innovate. You hear that from your customers. After you've heard it from two or three really big customers, you know I've got to dos something about it.

It was heavily architecturally skewed because we understand monitoring systems. I know a lot about the architecture behind the way good monitoring systems work. Having seen a lot of bad monitoring systems, I really knew what we were looking for in terms of a distributed architecture in terms of the ability for collectors to dynamically fail and devices to be able to move within a collector group dynamically, in terms of not storing local state data out on collectors and warehousing it internally. Those are some of the key components there. But, outside of that it was your core components. I want to be able to do ICMP, HTTP, TCP, SNMP, those are all my basic stuff. I also want to have turnkey integration with all of the external platforms to really go and enable the unified cloud. That's existing integration with AWS, integration with Azure. More importantly, a vision that aligned with our own. We have a very clear and a very defined vision about the unified cloud and where we're taking that, so it's critical that's to partner with vendors that share that vision.

Previously we were using a whole mix and match of different tools to achieve different kinds of service delivery but the key problem for us was there was no holistic view of what was going on deep inside our clients IT systems. We knew that we needed to consolidate and get one tool that would give us that deep visibility.

We used multiple applications for NMS. Now, we are using this tool due to its dual functionality.

It depend on cost, on the customer, and the architect.

SevOne. EM7 is just more feature rich and stable.

No, ScienceLogic is the first solution that we used since there is no one out there that provides monitoring and ticketing in the same system.

I've used Nagios a number of times, and have tried Zabbix and a couple others. All of the other solutions make generating graphs and configuring alerts a painful process. With EM7 it's painless.

Multiple tools were previously used but limited view, lacking features, and failed support caused use to switch.

I was not with the company I am now prior to us utilizing ScienceLogic and EM7 as a monitoring tool.

No

Nagios - we switched because ScienceLogic is an all in one solution which is able to do more than Nagios.

Yes, and we switched because it had a heavy GUI and was impossible to suppress certain events.

We previously used a different solution. This is the best tool ever which allowed us to consolidate from various monitoring solutions such as HPOV, CA and SCOM..

Yes, and we switched because we were using an SMB tool that could not scale to larger clients or monitor a broad enough scope of devices.