No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

LogicMonitor vs NETSCOUT InfiniStreamNG comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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

LogicMonitor
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
7th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
51
Ranking in other categories
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability (8th), IT Infrastructure Monitoring (8th), Container Monitoring (4th), Cloud Monitoring Software (5th), AIOps (6th)
NETSCOUT InfiniStreamNG
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
72nd
Average Rating
8.4
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of LogicMonitor is 2.0%, up from 1.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NETSCOUT InfiniStreamNG is 0.6%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Monitoring Software Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
LogicMonitor2.0%
NETSCOUT InfiniStreamNG0.6%
Other97.4%
Network Monitoring Software
 

Featured Reviews

Anshuman Thakur - PeerSpot reviewer
Site Reliability Engineer at a comms service provider with 501-1,000 employees
Monitoring has reduced downtime and now enables proactive alerts across cloud workloads
When it comes to the improvement of LogicMonitor, I think there are a few points that can be improved. The first one is alert tuning, which takes time. It requires effort when trying to understand it for the first time. The defaults do not always match our workload patterns, so I have to adjust the thresholds to reduce noise and avoid alert fatigue. While the dashboards are solid, I sometimes wish that the UI was a bit more intuitive when drilling down quickly during an incident. There are many options and finding the exact view where I can identify the exact problem takes a few extra clicks. When an alert comes and I click on a LogicMonitor alert, it takes time to understand what the alert actually is and to go through the data points. The alert page specifically could be better. The alert tuning part can also be made more simple. The first area that could be better is alert clarity and routing. Sometimes alerts do not include enough immediate context, so I still have to spend a few minutes correlating data across views. Adding more actionable details directly in the alert would make the response even faster. LogicMonitor sometimes gives false alerts as well. For example, if an EC2 instance is down, it will not determine whether the EC2 instance has been deliberately turned off or if it is actually not responding. At that time, it will give false alerts. The clearing of alerts is also an issue. Once an issue is fixed, the alert should be cleared, but it takes a little time for that alert to be cleared. Another improvement that would be helpful is simpler customization for complex dashboards. It is powerful, but building highly tailored dashboards, especially across multiple environments, can feel heavy and time-consuming. I would also appreciate a stronger out-of-the-box AWS correlation, such as automatically grouping related issues across EC2, EBS, and ALBs in a way that reads as a single incident story. This would reduce the mental overhead during outages. Grouping incidents together, such as all the EC2 alerts, all the EBS alerts, or all the load balancer alerts would be beneficial. Overall, none of these are blockers, just some improving areas. There could be smarter anomaly detection out of the box that can catch unusual but important behavior without manual tuning of every threshold. Better tagging and dynamic grouping for EC2 instances would also be helpful. Cleaner alert de-duplication so a single underlying issue does not generate multiple redundant alerts would improve the system. More guided root cause workflows would be beneficial, such as providing the most likely causes based on correlated metrics. Faster search navigation across devices, dashboards, and alerts during incidents would also improve the platform.
Michael Gideon Genita - PeerSpot reviewer
Associate System Engineer at SMS Global Technologies, Inc.
Easy to set up with good documentation and helpful support
I'm using it for a customer The packet flow switch is the most valuable aspect of the solution.  It's an easy product to set up. We can scale the solution if we need to. It's stable.  The documentation is well-written and quite useful. It's compatible with other products.  Under the pocket flow…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Seeing how easy it is to manage devices, how simple it is to add, remove, or modify a device, and the amount of data that's included out-of-the-box whenever you add a device, makes it far superior to any product."
"Having a suite of modules that do all the work for you rather than having to set up loads of things yourself and it be there straight away ready to go is mind-blowing."
"It has had a solid impact and has helped us to resolve issues faster with everything in real time and the alerts."
"LogicMonitor has evolved drastically in the last couple of years; they have made a lot of changes and are moving very fast."
"The plugins are easy to integrate, and LogicMonitor provides these add-ons for vendors like VMware. It becomes very easy to integrate them and take the data sources."
"LogicMonitor has impacted my organization positively by reducing the troubleshooting time and providing real-time monitoring of device health to keep the devices up and running."
"LogicMonitor gives us visibility into issues that we didn't even know existed."
"I really appreciate the reporting function because it allows me to create dashboards that will be emailed to me during the morning so that I have a complete overview of my client's health, within a specific time frame."
"It helps us get to root cause quickly. With utilization and consumption of bandwidth, we can usually see what application is taking as much as they should (or shouldn't), then account for it accordingly."
"It helps us to assist our customers to isolate problems. If it is us who is having the problem, then we can use it to streamline the process."
"If you are looking for a good application monitoring and packet analysis tool, you can strategically use NETSCOUT to get it done."
"We have seen a lot of return on investment: We have been able to recover radios in the field, we know exactly what is going on, we cut down fines from the service commission, and we have seen a measurable decrease in mean time to know, cutting troubleshooting down by days as we can now see the issues."
"Because we are doing proactive monitoring instead of reactive, the end users don't even see that there is something wrong."
"It has cut our group's troubleshooting time down significantly, e.g., depending on the issue, what would normally take maybe a couple of hours will now take minutes."
"From a troubleshooting perspective, it allows us to quickly search all data TAP points in the network and helps our network engineers get to root cause quickly."
"We use it for monitoring whenever we update a new circuit or site."
 

Cons

"We would like to see more functionality around mapping of topologies, in terms of networks. An improvement that we would like to see is added functionality to get more detail out of mapping. For example, if the LogicMonitor Collector identifies a connection between two network endpoints, it would be great to actually see which ports are connecting the two endpoints together. That functionality is something we greatly desire. It would actually make our documentation more dynamic in the sense that we wouldn't need to manually document. If this is something that the platform could provide, then this would be a great asset."
"LogicMonitor tends to continuously ping the servers and the environment, which can create a lot of false alerts."
"LogicMonitor has a very steep learning curve."
"One of the areas that I sometimes find confusing is the way that the data is presented. For example, a couple of weeks back I was looking at bandwidth utilization. That's quite a difficult thing to present, but they should try to dumb down how the data is presented and simplify what they're presenting."
"The topology mapping is all based on the dynamic discovery of devices that could talk to each other. There is no real manual way that you can set up a join between two devices to say, "This is how this network is actually set up." For example, if you have a device, and you're only pinning that device and not getting any real intelligent information from it, then it can't appear on the map with other devices. Or if it can appear, then it won't show you which devices are actually joined to it."
"LogicMonitor can effortlessly pull data from one item at a time. I have yet to find an excellent way to get LogicMonitor to show me all the WAN devices and how they're doing in terms of capacity."
"One thing that could be really better is the mapping. Auvik is really good at it. They have a really nice way to give you a visual representation of your network, but in LogicMonitor, this functionality is not as powerful and as good as Auvik."
"Role-based permissions could be better and updating modules could be smoother."
"It's not able to communicate with our probes."
"The technology goes end-of-life on us every year, which is why I am looking forward to vSTREAM. I don't like when devices go end-of-life on us so quickly. If we can get more of an advanced notice of when an end-of-life is brought up, because our certification process within the organization takes a while."
"Only problems that we have had are fiber issues going into the TAPs or vSTREAMs, which are usually local site issues."
"The monitoring and reporting tool needs improvement. Users want more information, such as the level of detail when doing a packet analysis. They want more detail to be able to isolate down to a specific point."
"There is a timeout feature that we have been asking for awhile."
"We don't use the single pane of glass view, even though we own it."
"The stability depends on who is using the tool, because you only can get as much out of the tool as you put into it. There are a lot of patches for this particular environment, so you have to keep on them. If you lose track of them, then the product is not useful anymore."
"Being able to manage the packet flow switches in nGeniusONE would be great."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We are on an enterprise license plan, we are paying $7.75 per device a month. That is for a commitment of 350 devices. Anything that is over the 350 is charged at 1.2 times the rate; 1.2 times $7.75 would be the overage charge. We are looking at increasing our commitment to either 450 or 500 devices. It changes our pricing if we go to 450 devices, bringing it from $7.75 down to $7.70. If we go for 500 devices, it brings it from $7.75 down to $7.50. We will probably factor in the volume discount drop from $7.75 to $7.50 in our decision of whether we uplift or not. We also have some cloud monitors, which are about $500 a month."
"The tool's pricing falls into the middle range."
"It is pretty expensive, but we now need one less full-time engineer. With on-prem, we used to have one more engineer in our department. That engineer has now moved to another department. Our capacity is better with this product than the previous one. It is easy for us to manage the sites. You have to choose between the standard account and the premium account. With the premium account, you get a lot more than the standard one, and you can also buy some extra features. It is a good thing to look at them because you would probably want to buy them. You should take your time and negotiate the price. They are easy. Like all cloud providers, they are able to discuss the price and if necessary, change the price."
"It can handle scaling. It is like any other cloud service. There is a cost associated with scaling, so we currently don't monitor all of our environments. We monitor just the customer-facing production environments. It would be nice if we could monitor our dominant environments, but we will have to pay a lot more due to the scaling issue. So, there's a balance there between what we would like and what we are willing to pay for."
"It's an enterprise-grade solution and competitively priced compared to the other solutions that are out there... Our organization is not huge, but LogicMonitor is worth every penny that we pay for it. I've never heard anyone say, "I'm not sure that we're getting good value for money from this product." It's integral to our business."
"It's affordable. The price we get per license is a lot cheaper than what we were getting with some of the other tools. There are other monitoring tools out there that are cheaper, but what you get with LogicMonitor, out-of-the-box, makes it worth the cost."
"We've had customers who have reduced their costs by not having multiple platforms for monitoring. That said, especially with super-large environments, the cost model for LogicMonitor is the one area where we run into issues."
"We have definitely seen ROI with LogicMonitor. We used to provide 24/7 IT support for our users. We have since been able to change to operating just within normal business hours for IT support, and LogicMonitor was a large part of being able to accomplish that."
"To capture more with the solution that we bought, you have to buy another InfiniStreamNG, and there are only four ports in the back."
"The price is a little high."
"It can be scalable. It just costs too much. With a company as big as ours, it gets too expensive to accommodate every single site."
"This product could be cheaper."
"I would like it to be more scalable with less spend."
"The scalability is good, but it comes at a cost. E.g., if you need 100 InfiniStream because you are sending gigs or terabytes of data to one InfiniStream, then you will have to purchase another InfiniStream, which are not cheap."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
915,325 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
12%
Construction Company
11%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business16
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise32
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise8
 

Questions from the Community

What is the best network monitoring software for large enterprises?
It actually depends on the exact purpose or requirements. Some tools are better for only network devices while others are better from a cloud monitoring or APM monitoring perspective. You can check...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for LogicMonitor?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that the licensing model has changed and is very confusing as it currently stands and overly complicated.
What needs improvement with LogicMonitor?
I think LogicMonitor can be improved by having alert prioritization. Sometimes important alerts get delayed while unimportant alerts come through, so prioritization would help address this issue. A...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
InfiniStreamNG, NETSCOUT ISNG, Infinistream
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Kayak, Zendesk, Ted Baker, Trulia, Sophos, iVision, TekLinks, Siemens
U.S. Department of Defense
Find out what your peers are saying about LogicMonitor vs. NETSCOUT InfiniStreamNG and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
915,325 professionals have used our research since 2012.