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

Marvis Virtual Network Assistant vs ScienceLogic 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

Marvis Virtual Network Assi...
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
46th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.7
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ScienceLogic
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
25th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
45
Ranking in other categories
Event Monitoring (7th), Unified Communications Monitoring (1st), Server Monitoring (12th), IT Infrastructure Monitoring (22nd), IT Operations Analytics (7th), Cloud Monitoring Software (18th), AIOps (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of Marvis Virtual Network Assistant is 0.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ScienceLogic is 1.3%, down from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Monitoring Software
 

Featured Reviews

PRADIPJOSHI - PeerSpot reviewer
Used for troubleshooting and receiving real-time alerts and works on artificial intelligence
I always recommend Marvis to every customer because it requires no additional direct involvement. Marvis has been developed well using AI and machine learning technology. Its AI engine updates itself regularly, which is a beneficial feature. I request that Juniper integrate a cloud identity engine and simplify the Microsoft Azure Active Directory Services integration with the SRX hardware firewall. Additionally, the SRX firewall needs a more robust graphical user interface. Currently, we can only configure the SRX using the CLI; if a wrong command is entered, restoring it cannot be easy. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.
Michael Wenn - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers comprehensive monitoring and tool consolidation but integration complexity needs improvement
There is room for improvement in the speed of setting up the service and integrating PowerPacks. Although these prebuilt features are great, there is considerable complexity in bringing them together to create a unified dashboard. Even with many good integrations and deep visibility, the implementation takes time, especially when it doesn't involve these integrations. While some other companies have easier APIs, using this solution demands significant expertise. It's challenging for new customers to implement independently. The implementation speed of non-PowerPack or non-out-of-the-box integrations should be improved. Additionally, the AI automation feature is not yet very rich due to resource constraints supporting a wide platform.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Marvis Virtual Network Assistant uses AI to find problems or to get information from devices."
"If you ask any questions about Marvis, it will respond immediately and use some solution. It will be very easy and save you time."
"The power flow is great."
"Dynamic Component Mapping is key and unique."
"The best feature is the highly flexible graphs."
"The solution provides good infra-monitoring features."
"It is simple."
"I'm satisfied with ScienceLogicfor for what they can offer today because they can offer both serverless connectivity and agent connectivity."
"Best feature of all is detailed monitoring of services, processes, ports and SSL certificates and or web content."
"The tool is quite easy to deploy, and it offers very good support."
 

Cons

"It should add real-time application visibility."
"It would be a good idea to integrate the solution to support other vendors besides Juniper."
"From a performance perspective, it needs to improve a lot."
"They should add CLI command modes​ and scripts for high performance."
"There is room for improvement in the speed of setting up the service and integrating PowerPacks."
"The product is not user-friendly."
"The product's reporting functionalities have certain shortcomings, making it an area where improvements are required."
"ScienceLogic is working towards a kind of AI, DKAIRA enablement, but I find one dependency is the frequent need to rely on professional services."
"Admins do not have direct access to the reporting."
"They should improve database issues in HA and Failover mode, and provide documentation for all users , even if they are not customers."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Marvis Virtual Network Assistant is not an expensive solution."
"Decide what you want to monitor and only monitor those items. Absorb other elements as you grow."
"My company has an enterprise-level contract with ScienceLogic, so it is available to my organization at a good price."
"I'm not the best person to discuss pricing, but what I do know is that it's a use-and-go structure. You use this much storage and pay this much for it. That's how it is. Every time, we continue to add a large amount of data to the environment."
"The license of ScienceLogic is based on how many endpoints are used. The number of monitoring points you want to have."
"Pricing between the two is quiet large therefore you can save some money if you don't require to collect all info on each device."
"Its price could be lower, but for what you pay, you got a lot of value from its features and functionalities. Customers always want a discount or a cheaper solution."
"It comes with the OS built in, so no need to purchase an OS license or DB license."
"The solution is license-based. It's between $8 and $15, depending on what you need from the product."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
850,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Retailer
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Educational Organization
9%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Marvis Virtual Network Assistant?
Marvis Virtual Network Assistant is not an expensive solution. On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten.
What needs improvement with Marvis Virtual Network Assistant?
It should add real-time application visibility. Marvis's interface is good. We don't need any additional interface. However, if it could accept voice commands, that would be a great improvement
What is your primary use case for Marvis Virtual Network Assistant?
It is mainly used for troubleshooting and receiving real-time alerts. Marvis makes it easy to track the issue by providing specific information, like the exact time the connection was lost. It simp...
What do you like most about ScienceLogic?
The tool is quite easy to deploy, and it offers very good support.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ScienceLogic?
ScienceLogic is not that expensive and is cost-effective overall.
What needs improvement with ScienceLogic?
ScienceLogic is working towards a kind of AI, DKAIRA enablement, but I find one dependency is the frequent need to rely on professional services. If the knowledge for implementation could be spread...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Kellogg Company, Booz Allen, Cisco, Red Bull, Fidelus, Telstra, Comcast, CSC, Peak 10, HughesNet, Hosting, Datapipe, US Army, Equinix, Rite Aid, Carbonite, Sybase, Carpathia, AT&T, ePlus, Dimension Data, Virtustream, Boeing, Honeywell
Find out what your peers are saying about Marvis Virtual Network Assistant vs. ScienceLogic and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.