We performed a comparison between Loom Systems and Pandora FMS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"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."
"Pandora FMS provides us with a general report (graphical) about all of the connected devices, which helps with planning new stations and tracking them."
"The most valuable features are auto-discovery and automatic detection of the network topology and network monitoring."
"The solution has good dashboards and graphics."
"We are able to control our business with this all-in-one monitoring tool."
"Thanks to its flexibility, I have been able to adapt the tool to our servers and find out quickly how their console works."
"The solution is so lightweight that with only 4GB of ram, it allows keeping track of up to two hundred agents from a single console."
"The most valuable feature is that it is an all-in-one monitoring system."
"The monitoring system within this solution is very good. It is easy to use and navigate, and makes issue alarms easily viewable."
"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 discovery and mapping still takes a lot of human intervention, it's quite resource heavy,"
"The reporting is a bit weak. They should work to improve this aspect of the product."
"The change management within the solution needs to be improved. There needs to be more process automation."
"The price for Pandora FMS is expensive."
"It would be helpful to include the generation of reports for times that the network was out of service."
"Pandora FMS is an overall great monitoring solution, but it does not have a community that is as large as Zabbix or Nagios."
"This solution requires proper training to get 100% out of it."
"An update to the Android app would be appreciated."
"I find that this software is resource heavy, and demands a lot of processing capacity."
"In the future, we may have double the number of devices, and we do not want to have any issues with performance in the data display."
"Pandora FMS is relatively new, and the interface with the older version crashes at times. We have several different operating systems, such as Linux and Windows, and Pandora does not run as well in these."
Loom Systems is ranked 57th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 4 reviews while Pandora FMS is ranked 25th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 22 reviews. Loom Systems is rated 8.0, while Pandora FMS is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Loom Systems writes "Simple and very effective for developing and configuring apps with great integration capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pandora FMS writes "The open architecture is easy to extend and enhance". Loom Systems is most compared with Elastic Search and Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring, whereas Pandora FMS is most compared with Zabbix, Wazuh, PRTG Network Monitor, Nagios XI and SolarWinds NPM. See our Loom Systems vs. Pandora FMS report.
See our list of best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all IT Infrastructure 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.
