Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

ClearSight Analyzer vs ScienceLogic comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 10, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

ClearSight Analyzer
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
101st
Average Rating
10.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ScienceLogic
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
25th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
45
Ranking in other categories
Event Monitoring (7th), Unified Communications Monitoring (1st), Server Monitoring (12th), IT Infrastructure Monitoring (22nd), IT Operations Analytics (7th), Cloud Monitoring Software (18th), AIOps (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of ClearSight Analyzer is 0.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ScienceLogic is 1.3%, down from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Monitoring Software
 

Featured Reviews

DT
Shows question being asked, breaks it down and it'll just show you who's not answering
I wouldn't want the interface to go towards the web because they did have a version that was inside of the TruView product. It was more web-based and, to me, the web-based applications lose the robustness of the intimacy of a true character interface. I liked that they were on that path and I hope that they stay on that path because it just looks like it's a better product. I would like to see a multi-user version where you can have a launch platform and, potentially, instead of buying six licenses you buy 12 seats or something like that. From a centralized platform, you could have multiple users using that particular product in a series of different ways. That's what I'd like to see, rather than having everybody running a standalone one on their own workstation.
Michael Wenn - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers comprehensive monitoring and tool consolidation but integration complexity needs improvement
There is room for improvement in the speed of setting up the service and integrating PowerPacks. Although these prebuilt features are great, there is considerable complexity in bringing them together to create a unified dashboard. Even with many good integrations and deep visibility, the implementation takes time, especially when it doesn't involve these integrations. While some other companies have easier APIs, using this solution demands significant expertise. It's challenging for new customers to implement independently. The implementation speed of non-PowerPack or non-out-of-the-box integrations should be improved. Additionally, the AI automation feature is not yet very rich due to resource constraints supporting a wide platform.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"What ClearSight will do is it actually maps out the conversation for you."
"ScienceLogic's custom enablement, which I can achieve as a Python developer, is unique."
"Science Logic provides distributed and all-in-one concept in monitoring, you can easily customize the features in this product."
"The most valuable features of ScienceLogic are AI and machine learning."
"A major benefit is eliminating visibility gaps, which motivates me to consolidate tools."
"Since it is a SaaS-based product, the setup is not very difficult."
"It is simple."
"ScienceLogic allows us to create and customize a user-friendly dashboard."
"Power packs."
 

Cons

"I would like to see a multi-user version where you can have a launch platform and, potentially, instead of buying six licenses you buy 12 seats or something like that."
"The product is not user-friendly."
"If I were a small to medium business, I probably wouldn't choose this provider. It is a heavily configurable, heavyweight, and scalable IT solution for IT infrastructure monitoring."
"They need a little more self-service."
"It doesn't have the complete application-level topology. It could have service topology and business service monitoring. I would like to see how business service monitoring will function with agent-based installation, and how flexible and business-oriented it is for service modeling and service infrastructure. I have a lot of experience in using business service monitoring, service topology, and service hierarchy functionalities in similar products from BMC and Micro Focus (OpenView), and I want to see how these functionalities will look like in ScienceLogic."
"From a performance perspective, it needs to improve a lot."
"One important area we feel could be improved is the UI. It takes a lot of clicks to do very simple tasks."
"They should improve database issues in HA and Failover mode, and provide documentation for all users , even if they are not customers."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It was pretty modest because you could get it in different ways. I think the six licenses, at that time, were about $1,000 each. But then again, I work for a school and educators tend to get discounts on things. So maybe it cost us about five or six hundred a copy."
"Decide what you want to monitor and only monitor those items. Absorb other elements as you grow."
"The solution is license-based. It's between $8 and $15, depending on what you need from the product."
"I'm not the best person to discuss pricing, but what I do know is that it's a use-and-go structure. You use this much storage and pay this much for it. That's how it is. Every time, we continue to add a large amount of data to the environment."
"The pricing model for ScienceLogic could improve."
"Plan for adding more to it. Once you see EM7 in action, you will want to keep adding systems to monitor."
"Pricing between the two is quiet large therefore you can save some money if you don't require to collect all info on each device."
"My company has an enterprise-level contract with ScienceLogic, so it is available to my organization at a good price."
"The license of ScienceLogic is based on how many endpoints are used. The number of monitoring points you want to have."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
850,349 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
23%
Government
13%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Hospitality Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about ScienceLogic?
The tool is quite easy to deploy, and it offers very good support.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ScienceLogic?
ScienceLogic is not that expensive and is cost-effective overall.
What needs improvement with ScienceLogic?
ScienceLogic is working towards a kind of AI, DKAIRA enablement, but I find one dependency is the frequent need to rely on professional services. If the knowledge for implementation could be spread...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute
Kellogg Company, Booz Allen, Cisco, Red Bull, Fidelus, Telstra, Comcast, CSC, Peak 10, HughesNet, Hosting, Datapipe, US Army, Equinix, Rite Aid, Carbonite, Sybase, Carpathia, AT&T, ePlus, Dimension Data, Virtustream, Boeing, Honeywell
Find out what your peers are saying about Zabbix, Auvik, Datadog and others in Network Monitoring Software. Updated: April 2025.
850,349 professionals have used our research since 2012.