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

Loom Systems vs Opsview comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 9, 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

Loom Systems
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
63rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Anomaly Detection Tools (2nd)
Opsview
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
53rd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
Network Monitoring Software (77th), Server Monitoring (29th), Cloud Monitoring Software (41st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the IT Infrastructure Monitoring category, the mindshare of Loom Systems is 0.3%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Opsview is 0.5%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
IT Infrastructure Monitoring Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Opsview0.5%
Loom Systems0.3%
Other99.2%
IT Infrastructure Monitoring
 

Featured Reviews

Keerthi Kumar Sangaraju - PeerSpot reviewer
Stable, easy to set up, flexible, and has multiple functionalities, but needs to define priority levels for each incident
What's lacking in Loom Systems is the level of priority for each incident. For example, after implementation and there was a huge impact on the client, and the client comes back to you and says that there's an incident, that there needs to be an immediate resolution for it, you'll see severity one, severity two, etc., in Loom Systems, rather than priority levels. It would be better if the incidents can be defined as low priority, medium priority, or high priority.
Jeff Cronstrom - PeerSpot reviewer
A highly stable solution that can be used to monitor system availability
The most valuable feature of Opsview is the ability to clone the services when you're monitoring something out of the test setup. You can clone that service, and it allows you to add new services quickly. You can bring up new servers, and you can easily add them. Also, there's an API to be able to add services as well. We don't use the API. We mostly use the cloning function because it stores everything in a back-end database. The underlying monitoring platform for our version is Nagios. That's where we upgraded from Nagios to Opsview.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution is absolutely scalable. If an organization needs to expand it out they definitely can."
"The RFS portion of the solution is the product's most valuable feature."
"You can develop your own apps within Loom, and they can be configured very simply."
"What I like best about Loom Systems is that you can use it for infrastructure monitoring. I also like that it's a flexible solution."
"I am satisfied with the overall product since it works well…It is a stable solution."
"What was very compelling about OpsView was that we could dial out the noise and have meaningful and actionable alerts."
"It's a good solution. It covers all aspects of monitoring purposes."
"The most valuable feature of Opsview is the ability to clone the services when you're monitoring something out of the test setup."
"We use this solution for internal monitoring our own cloud platform because we are a public cloud provider. We also use it for monitoring purposes on behalf of our clients."
 

Cons

"What's lacking in Loom Systems is the level of priority for each incident. For example, after implementation and there was a huge impact on the client, and the client comes back to you and says that there's an incident, that there needs to be an immediate resolution for it, you'll see severity one, severity two, etc., in Loom Systems, rather than priority levels. It would be better if the incidents can be defined as low priority, medium priority, or high priority."
"The reporting is a bit weak. They should work to improve this aspect of the product."
"The discovery and mapping still takes a lot of human intervention, it's quite resource heavy,"
"The change management within the solution needs to be improved. There needs to be more process automation."
"In a future release, we would like to have Observ for AI. Any AI and intelligence it can add to the monitoring is obviously beneficial. We would also like to have automated callouts."
"Customized reporting can be improved."
"Pricing and a few certain aspects in the solution needs to be improved."
"Some of the graphics on Opsview could be improved."
"Maybe the graphical representation can be improved. It can be enhanced for better visualization. It could be a little better. And the graph center can be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The solution is priced similarly to other tools offering similar features."
"I would rate pricing a seven out of ten, where ten is the highest price."
"The solution is not cheap. I think that the pricing is a little bit on the high side."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions are best for your needs.
869,760 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Performing Arts
7%
Financial Services Firm
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise9
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Opsview Monitor, Opsview Enterprise
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Citrix, Amdocs, Sysaid, Hexaware, Effibar, Revtrak, Taptica
IBM, BT, Cisco, Sky, UPS, Capgemini, Visolit, Fujitsu Services UK, UKCloud, Massachusetts Insitute of Technology, Cornell University, Incomm
Find out what your peers are saying about Loom Systems vs. Opsview and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,760 professionals have used our research since 2012.