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

LogicMonitor vs NETSCOUT vSTREAM 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

LogicMonitor
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
12th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
33
Ranking in other categories
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability (22nd), IT Infrastructure Monitoring (15th), Container Monitoring (6th), Cloud Monitoring Software (14th), AIOps (8th)
NETSCOUT vSTREAM
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
85th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of LogicMonitor is 1.6%, down from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NETSCOUT vSTREAM is 0.4%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Monitoring Software Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
LogicMonitor1.6%
NETSCOUT vSTREAM0.4%
Other98.0%
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.
KL
Network Engineer at Inniti Network Solution
A user-friendly solution that is easy to install and improves visibility
I would like to see improvements made to the user guide. From my personal experience, it is helpful to see a list of steps describing what to do next in different situations. An example is what to do and what to back up in the case of certain types of failure. There are also cases where a customer can't understand specific features. Enhancements to the user guide would be helpful for this. More features for network fragmentation would be helpful.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"LogicMonitor has positively impacted our organization by especially improving service reliability and user experience, and the dynamic alerting and root cause analysis have helped us fix issues before they cause a full-blown outage or degrade performance for end users."
"The solution’s overall reporting capabilities are pretty powerful compared to ones that I have used previously. It seems like it has a lot of customizations that you can put in, but some of the out-of-the-box reports are useful too, like user logon duration and website latency. Those type of things have been helpful and don't require a lot of, if any, changes to get useful content out of them. They have also been pretty easy to implement and use."
"The most valuable feature is the visualization of the data that it is collecting. I have used many products in the past and they tend to roll up the data. So, if you're looking at data over long periods of time, they start averaging the data, which can skew the figures that you're looking at. With LogicMonitor, they have the raw data there for two years, if you are an enterprise customer. If you are looking at that long duration of data, you're seeing exactly what happened during that time."
"Whenever we reach out to our customers, we give LogicMonitor as a dashboard to them so they don't need to monitor the hardware side separately. For example, if my service is running on their hardware X, that means they don't need to monitor hardware X and our services too. LogicMonitor has the capability of monitoring their hardware as well as our services. This is how LogicMonitor helps us."
"LogicMonitor improved on-premises infrastructure monitoring in several ways. One key feature was dynamic resource allocation, although we didn't utilize it much in our system. The main functionalities we benefited from were email alerts, network mapping, and dashboards."
"The initial setup is very simple."
"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 has improved our organization with its capacity planning. We have a performance environment that we use to benchmark our applications. We use it to say, "Okay, at a certain level of concurrency, we know where our application will fall over." Therefore, we are using LogicMonitor dashboards to tell us that we're good. Our platform can handle X number of clients concurrently hitting us at a time."
"One of the valuable features is the packet decoding."
"vSTREAM gives us better visibility and reporting about our network infrastructure, allowing for cost-optimization."
 

Cons

"It needs better access for customizing and adding monitoring from the repository. That would be helpful. It seems like you have to search through the forums to figure out what specific pieces you need to get in for specific monitoring, if it's a nonstandard piece of equipment or process. You have to hunt and find certain elements to get them in place. If they could make it a bit easier rather having to find the right six-digit code to put in so it implements, that would be helpful."
"LogicMonitor can easily easy to pull data from one item at a time. I have yet to find a good way to get LogicMonitor to show me all the WAN devices and how they're doing in terms of capacity."
"Automated remediation of issues has room for improvement. I don't know how best to handle it, but I know that they're kind of working on it. I know there are some resources that can do automated remediation. I would like them to improve this area so it could be completely hands-free, where it detects an issue, such as, if a CPU is running high. There are ways to do it even now, but it's a bit more involved."
"The only functional area I can think of that has room for improvement would be the dashboards. They could use a refresh. It would be nice if there were more widgets and more types of widgets."
"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."
"Some more application performance type monitoring would be nice. For example, an APM type solution, which would not necessarily completely replace it, but be able to tie into to what we're seeing on the application performance side so we can correlate what's going on with the application versus the underlying infrastructure."
"Role-based permissions could be better and updating modules could be smoother."
"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."
"I would like for it to have a smaller footprint of the virtual appliance and better performance."
"I would like to see improvements made to the user guide."
"Room for improvement exists in filtering in the packet decode."
 

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."
"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."
"As a managed service provider, we have the highest level of licensing that they offer, so we don't have any extra fees. I believe there are some add-ons for some of the lower tiers of LogicMonitor service, but that's not something that we use with our agreement."
"The tool's pricing falls into the middle range."
"The pricing can be a little aggressive. Right now, it's a bit much for smaller organizations to adopt it. But comparatively, it also provides good features."
"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."
"In terms of pricing, I would rate LogicMonitor four out of five."
"The solution is not expensive."
"Licensing is quite expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Healthcare Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Energy/Utilities Company
14%
Government
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business12
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise11
No data available
 

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 do you like most about LogicMonitor?
LogicMonitor helps us prevent potential downtime. It's pretty good. It generates low-level warnings that aren't necessarily preemptive but can still alert us to issues we should investigate. These ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for LogicMonitor?
I did not have much experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for LogicMonitor. I sat in on some of the business meetings, but my main focus was the technical side of it, getting every...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
vSTREAM
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Kayak, Zendesk, Ted Baker, Trulia, Sophos, iVision, TekLinks, Siemens
Metropolitan Police Agency, Banpara, PropertyRoom.com
Find out what your peers are saying about LogicMonitor vs. NETSCOUT vSTREAM and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.