We performed a comparison between ITRS Geneos and SCOM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Monitoring Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"This tool allows one to analyse, integrate and customize as per the systems and allows you to set your own rules."
"The flexibility of the product is most valuable. It is highly customizable. If you put your mind to it and think of something you could do, there's a good possibility you can get it integrated within the console, if it's not readily available. The simplicity or ease of customization has been valuable."
"The ability to build integrations to tools that are not monitored out of the box is the most valuable feature."
"The remarkable feature of Geneos is the dashboard. Geneos' flexible dashboard sets it apart from other monitoring tools. Other solutions have limitations in their dashboard design and can't be customized as much. The Geneos dashboard allows unlimited creativity."
"This solution has helped provide relief to existing Level 2 teams, allowing them to focus efforts on in-depth problem analysis."
"Tons of default modules which are available out of the box"
"The clean and colorful UI and easy to use options like snooze and active times."
"In my experience, being able to monitor our databases is a valuable feature as we can create our own queries and aren't reliant on the in-built ones."
"SCOM's most valuable features are the network path feature, reporting, and integration with business intelligence."
"The most valuable feature of SCOM is the capability of using classes within your management pack development."
"I enjoy its integration with the Microsoft Active Directory functions, which means users, computers, or other group policies can connect with Windows Active Directory."
"It takes a lot of the headache out of managing your data centers and software in other places."
"The advantages of SCOM are that it is definitely user friendly and a more appropriate solution for what we need."
"I like some of their newer features, such as maintenance schedules, because SCOM records SLA and SLO time."
"The most valuable features for us are the monitoring, the health explorer, and the console."
"It can send messages to our ticketing system."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"Backward compatibility with deprecated features and in system documentation on what configuration areas are needed to be updated."
"For the last year or two, I've been asking the vendor about the mobile app. This is something that probably everyone asks when they see the tool and they see how powerful it is. If there is any mobile app for this or if there is any way this tool can be more easily accessible other than having a big client installed, it would be great. I know you can build dashboards, et cetera, but there is no quick and easy way. I should be able to download an app, log in, and see my status. That will put this product above everything else out there. I believe it's on their roadmap."
"ITRS have started to make some major changes that we haven't taken on board yet, in the creation of dashboards and more visibility of the metrics that we collect. At the moment, that's something that's lacking, but I know they have addressed it. Still, it’s not that easy to create stuff to help with visibility and dashboarding in Geneos."
"There is one drawback to using lightweight data collection: we lack the feature of observability based on time series, such as historical model data. This makes it difficult to view data in ITRS. ITRS needs to improve this feature."
"Data visualization – real time and historical – is a weakness."
"The main feature that needs work is the Dashboard designer."
"One area where there is room for improvement is the log file. I would like to be able to do a pre-run on the log files. When you are testing log files for regular expressions, it would be good to be able to do a quick check up front on that side of things before you release that into production."
"t needs to have better middleware integration for things such as application and Microsft SQL servers."
"We didn't know the solution enough, and therefore, it took a while to set everything up correctly. There was a learning curve."
"Regarding certain issues in the solution, it can be difficult to generate reports if we have a program that is not user-friendly for reporting. While this is not necessarily negative, we may need to use another solution."
"The solution’s initial setup is difficult."
"The end-user components, including the dashboards, the administration console, and the web console, need to be improved."
"Of course, price is always an issue with Microsoft and could be improved."
"It'll help if they can provide real-time or closer to real-time monitoring."
"Non Windows monitoring is fairly weak. Network device monitoring is not reliable."
"The interface is a little bit cumbersome and certain actions could be simplified."
ITRS Geneos is ranked 16th in Network Monitoring Software with 57 reviews while SCOM is ranked 11th in Network Monitoring Software with 77 reviews. ITRS Geneos is rated 8.2, while SCOM is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of ITRS Geneos writes "The flexible dashboard sets it apart from competing tools, but it's costly and lacks scalability". 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". ITRS Geneos is most compared with Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Grafana, Prometheus and Datadog, whereas SCOM is most compared with Zabbix, Dynatrace, Datadog, AppDynamics and Nagios XI. See our ITRS Geneos vs. SCOM report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors.
We monitor all Network Monitoring Software 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.
