We performed a comparison between Evanios and SCOM 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."The most valuable feature is the integration with various alert-generating systems because you might have synthetic alerts or monitoring alerts for volume drops."
"Provided up to a 90% noise reduction in some our noisy monitoring tools."
"The ability to manipulate events via JavaScript getting the exact data that we want."
"Because it's Windows-based, it actually reports quite well. It reports everything you can think of on the Windows server and allows you to monitor anything. It's excellent for those in the Windows world as it's very good at it."
"The most valuable features in SCOM are Azure monitoring and integration with Azure Monitor for monitoring Azure-hosted servers from SCOM on-premises."
"This solution saves us a lot of work because it reduces the effort that is required in order to start monitoring."
"I enjoy its integration with the Microsoft Active Directory functions, which means users, computers, or other group policies can connect with Windows Active Directory."
"The most valuable feature of SCOM is the capability of using classes within your management pack development."
"Being able to make and customize management packs and send out notifications is very valuable."
"The solution's reporting engine has given me detailed information on which applications or services I've either failed or about to fail in terms of the predictive makeup on Azure cloud."
"It works better than other products I’ve used – namely SolarWinds, which is cumbersome and error prone for web app monitoring. SCOM is not."
"More complex correlation rules would be nice. The ability to clearly define a parent event in a correlation and nested correlations, specifically."
"We would like the ability to have an "exit" option for events when they are being processed."
"The price could be cheaper."
"Direct integration with third-party tools, like ticketing systems, is lacking but would be beneficial."
"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."
"I would like to see more standard libraries for the market solutions, out of the box, that you don't need to do a lot of work on."
"The end-user components, including the dashboards, the administration console, and the web console, need to be improved."
"Then there is also an issue with capacity and limited space. That is something that needs to be improved."
"The solution should be more user-friendly and offer a better user interface."
"In terms of features that could be improved, I would say the agent integration into the operating system. We are having difficulties integrating Linux into some of the networking devices."
"The price could be improved."
Evanios is ranked 13th in Event Monitoring with 6 reviews while SCOM is ranked 3rd in Event Monitoring with 77 reviews. Evanios is rated 9.6, while SCOM is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Evanios writes "The vendor is willing to work with us and develop solutions for products they did not already have an integration for". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SCOM writes "Has a good reporting engine, but its monitoring of the cloud-based environment could be improved". Evanios is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, whereas SCOM is most compared with Dynatrace, Zabbix, Datadog, Nagios XI and AppDynamics. See our Evanios vs. SCOM report.
See our list of best Event Monitoring 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.