Compared to competitors like AppDynamics, SCOM is better for monitoring Microsoft services and roles. It has agent-based pricing, with no bulk license options, but generally reasonable.

We did not evaluate any other options before landing on SCOM. The reason for this is that SCOM is a Microsoft solution and we have a significant Microsoft presence in our environment, it's actually provided gratis by Microsoft, so it was just a logical utility to leverage.

We did not evaluate other options.

We, as a company, are using four products for monitoring, one of which is SCOM. We use multiple products because we are an outsourcing company and not everyone needs or wants the same thing. The other products are from CA Technologies. That is Performance Management, NFA, and UIM Unified Integration Management. These products just enhance the options we have to service our clients.

At the time, we didn't investigate others. We didn't investigate a lot of other technologies as we're a Microsoft shop. We use Microsoft products. We are resellers. We're distributors of Microsoft. We didn't go much further out from there. Recently, we also haven't investigated a lot. We are starting to research the management of endpoints with the Microsoft cloud platform. That looks a little bit easier right now.

We have a lot of servers in the company and we needed some kind of monitoring solution. Eight years ago we started using Microsoft Exchange, and we asked Microsoft how we should go about monitoring the Exchange environment. They suggested this solution and we adopted it.

We evaluated other options. We found SCOM to be suitable for Microsoft Windows applications, so we decided to go for it.

BMC BPPM, HP OVO , IBM Tivoli.

We use a lot of solutions from Microsoft and we consider them to be reliable, so we did not evaluate other solutions.

No, we were already licensed for System Center. We just hadn’t started using it. Others have used WhatsUp though.

We evaluated Zabbix.

We evaluated other products, and we chose this product because of its licensing and cost efficiency.

We have always had SCOM, and it is one of our preferred Windows monitoring solutions. However, from a network point of view, we are making use of other products.

As compared to some of the others that I have been exposed to, SCOM has its good and bad points. Documentation is poor, but the community makes up for it with good blogs and lots of how-to examples.

Yes other products are in evaluation. There are several big monitoring products which have been around for years and years. And there are niche players for monitoring specific parts of the infrastructure. With those last you may get deeper insights into one aspect, but lose the ability to add it all together.

There are various other options, like OP5 and Zabbix but being in a Microsoft environment, SCOM was the way to go.

Since the organisations I've implemented SCOM in have been mainly Microsoft and Windows based choosing SCOM and other products from the System Center suite has been a natural choice.

SCOM was the primary Monitoring solution chosen. it is always fulfilling our customers requirements.

We also evaluated HP OpenView, Zenoss, SolarWinds, and CA UIM.

Cacti, Nagios, SolarWinds. Are many on the market. Because is Microsoft large corporate received very good prices so over all is not to expensive like SolarWinds.

We have evaluated some of the "free" monitoring solutions. Some are easy to use while others are a bit complicated. We implemented SCOM because not only it was included in our System Center License, its usage was also straightforward.

Yes - Quest Foglight and Nimsoft

The PRTG solution is easy to deploy and manage.

Before choosing these products, we evaluated Symantec.