We performed a comparison between Cisco Intersight and ScienceLogic based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I like Intersight because of the integration with HashiCorp, Kubernetes, and each cloud because Intersight is the IO module."
"We enjoy having an inside view of all the data centers and all the EdgeX nodes within a single portal rather than going into the EdgeX connections one by one."
"Scalable portfolio of services for remote device management, with good cloud integration. It's also easy to set up."
"Intersight can validate our environment."
"What I like most about Cisco Intersight is its manageability."
"The tool helps to manage Cisco servers."
"Cisco Intersight has valuable features for workflow automation and inventory administration."
"Our organization uses Cisco Intersight since it helps manage our physical infrastructure."
"The solution provides good infra-monitoring features."
"ScienceLogic allows us to create and customize a user-friendly dashboard."
"Power packs."
"When it comes to features, the power pack is the most valuable."
"Dynamic Component Mapping is key and unique."
"The most valuable features of ScienceLogic are AI and machine learning."
"The tool is quite easy to deploy, and it offers very good support."
"It is very easy to configure because we are using an agent-less version. You can very quickly implement a collector for monitoring device servers."
"The product's setup should be easier."
"It's a very complex solution."
"The unique problem with Cisco Intersight is that it's not supporting some players."
"When new features are added, the service becomes full of bugs."
"An area for improvement in Cisco Intersight is automation. It needs more automation capabilities. Apart from enhanced automation, I want Cisco Intersight to integrate with third-party monitoring tools in its next release."
"In the future, the solution needs to plan on an extension to cover a broader range of objects since, at present, there are some Cisco devices within the range of Intersight UCS that it can't manage."
"The product could be easy to use."
"The usability must be better."
"It was challenging onboarding users."
"One important area we feel could be improved is the UI. It takes a lot of clicks to do very simple tasks."
"They need a little more self-service."
"The product must educate its strategic partners for deployment."
"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."
"ScienceLogic could improve the implementation, it could be made easier."
"Admins do not have direct access to the reporting."
"The product is not user-friendly."
Cisco Intersight is ranked 26th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 10 reviews while ScienceLogic is ranked 12th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 42 reviews. Cisco Intersight is rated 7.8, while ScienceLogic is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco Intersight writes "Scalable and easy to set up portfolio of services; good for remote device management and other functions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ScienceLogic writes "Great integrations, power flow, and good support". Cisco Intersight is most compared with Cisco UCS Manager, HPE OneView, IBM Turbonomic, Cisco UCS Director and VMware Aria Operations, whereas ScienceLogic is most compared with Dynatrace, LogicMonitor, SolarWinds NPM, Datadog and Zabbix. See our Cisco Intersight vs. ScienceLogic report.
See our list of best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all IT Infrastructure 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.