We performed a comparison between Loom Systems and SolarWinds NPM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Zabbix, Datadog, Auvik and others in IT Infrastructure Monitoring."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 RFS portion of the solution is the product's most valuable feature."
"The solution is absolutely scalable. If an organization needs to expand it out they definitely can."
"You can develop your own apps within Loom, and they can be configured very simply."
"The initial setup was straightforward. We deployed the solution from new and completed the upgrades."
"The most valuable features in SolarWinds NPM are the network search and diagnostic tools."
"I believe the ease of setup and use, including everything, from the initial installation to the discovery of devices is the most valuable."
"One of the best features is the reports feature."
"The product covers our needs for the basic care and feeding of servers, whether they are physical or virtual."
"The most valuable features are language support and technical support."
"The most valuable feature is the graphical user interface."
"Can easily be interconnected with other management systems."
"The reporting is a bit weak. They should work to improve this aspect of the product."
"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 change management within the solution needs to be improved. There needs to be more process automation."
"The discovery and mapping still takes a lot of human intervention, it's quite resource heavy,"
"SolarWinds NPM can be very slow at times. The database optimization can be done to improve the product performance."
"The solution could be more secure."
"The product is scalable, but at a cost. Extra modules have to be purchased for each extra server. The initial set up isn't complex, but will require someone who is experienced with the network monitoring system"
"SolarWinds NPM needs to increase its elements. One polling engine can only support 10,000 elements then it becomes slow. There are limitations even if you have the full SLX version license."
"We also had to be attentive to vulnerabilities, because SolarWinds NPM have some issues in that area. We had to work with our security team, so that they could help us check and backup the data, and check what they needed to secure."
"There isn't support available to us as they don't offer support in our country."
"Fortigate firewalls are one example of a product that we are unable to monitor properly via SolarWinds NPM."
"We'd like to see a bit more automation in the future."
Loom Systems is ranked 56th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 4 reviews while SolarWinds NPM is ranked 4th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 147 reviews. Loom Systems is rated 8.0, while SolarWinds NPM is rated 8.2. 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 SolarWinds NPM writes "High-level, comprehensive, and proactive monitoring in a user-friendly interface". Loom Systems is most compared with Elastic Search and Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring, whereas SolarWinds NPM is most compared with Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor, ManageEngine OpManager, ThousandEyes and LogicMonitor.
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.