No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Packetbeat vs ScienceLogic comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Packetbeat
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
62nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
2.5
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ScienceLogic
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
28th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Event Monitoring (6th), Unified Communications Monitoring (1st), Server Monitoring (11th), IT Infrastructure Monitoring (18th), IT Operations Analytics (8th), Cloud Monitoring Software (13th), AIOps (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of Packetbeat is 0.3%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ScienceLogic is 1.4%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Monitoring Software Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
ScienceLogic1.4%
Packetbeat0.3%
Other98.3%
Network Monitoring Software
 

Featured Reviews

Mohammed-Abdelalim - PeerSpot reviewer
Assistant Vice President at QualityKiosk Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Network analytics have delivered lightweight, integrated visibility for search, observability, and security
Packetbeat analyzes specific protocols and is not suitable for full capture of all network traffic and network flows. I recall that Packetbeat can cover a limited number of protocols including ICMP, but not as deeply as other solutions. It covers NetFlows and these types of flows, but not at the level of a deep packet capture that you can find in the market where it taps every single packet in the network. Packetbeat is more about bringing statistics about the packets, but it doesn't capture these packets. The development intention of Packetbeat appears to be to provide a window for application monitoring and performance analytics, and for that purpose, it is doing sufficiently well. However, if the vendor has another goal to build a similar network monitoring solution that exists in the market, which is outside of Elastic's business nature, Packetbeat is a sensor that needs to be improved to the level of deep packet capture where it loses no packets in the network. That improvement would take Elastic to another level.
Pallagani Siva Koteswararao - PeerSpot reviewer
Assistant Consultant at Tata Consultancy
Comprehensive monitoring streamlines operations with room for user support enhancement
I am interested in improving the flexibility of ScienceLogic's user interface, configuration, and customization. I am particularly keen on learning about issues raised by the ScienceLogic support team. Whenever we encounter difficulties, I raise vendor cases and am eager to deepen my understanding of those cases. Additionally, I want to learn more about ScienceLogic's dashboards, which display crucial metrics about collectors, their health, and devices aligned to them. The dashboard should be more detailed. Regarding improvements to ScienceLogic's technical support, my last company was IBM in India, and I worked on IBM MQ monitoring until my last day. I engaged with the LogicMonitor support team for MQ-level incidents, but these issues remained unresolved even after 10 to 15 days. On my last working day, I assisted with one such vendor case, and I am unsure if that issue was ever resolved. ScienceLogic's technical support should respond more efficiently in terms of time. During my time working on MQ-level cases, including a power pack upgrade that did not fix the issues faced, I provided all necessary steps with the help of the middleware team. However, there were still gaps that needed addressing.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The beauty of Packetbeat is that it is easy, free, and lightweight, while other solutions are expensive and will accumulate a huge amount of data."
"Elastic's scalability, in terms of cluster robustness, is definitely the most valuable feature."
"The solution provides good infra-monitoring features."
"We chose the ScienceLogic platform because it really met and exceeded all of the requirements that we had put forth in the RFI."
"It has given us comprehensive monitoring across all platforms."
"The solution excels in three areas: application monitoring, server monitoring, and network performance monitoring."
"After deploying ScienceLogic in our infrastructure and configured IT services around our critical applications we have experienced a considerable drop in major incidents which impact our customers."
"The customizable dashboard is my favorite feature because I have everything that matters to me in my role available immediately at sign on, and we can also customize a customer's dashboard view so that from analyst to C-level executive we can give the customer exactly what they want and need to see at sign on."
"The integration of ScienceLogic with our existing IT ecosystems has significantly benefited our organization, as all alerts now directly go to IBM Netcool and then to the ITSM tool, ServiceNow."
"ScienceLogic has given us the ability to generate tickets directly from monitoring events."
 

Cons

"The scalability of the agent itself could be improved."
"Packetbeat analyzes specific protocols and is not suitable for full capture of all network traffic and network flows."
"Before ScienceLogic, our monitoring was fairly difficult to do. We were kind of limited in our capabilities."
"They should improve database issues in HA and Failover mode, and provide documentation for all users , even if they are not customers."
"ScienceLogic should provide detailed documents to customer as the current documents are not sufficient."
"ScienceLogic does not have application monitoring. We definitely need something integrated within ScienceLogic to monitor applications so that we don't have to rely on monitoring tools to monitor other applications. At least the ones that are market leaders, such as SAP, Oracle, and others."
"Addressing duplicate IPs: There is the ability to edit the DB and fix this, but adding some logic to understand them would be a plus."
"The overall product rating is six out of ten. It's suitable for specific customers, although slower in implementation and offering tougher ROI compared to some."
"Reporting needs to be improved. It was sold as a tool we could use for our clients and it was a complete failure."
"If I were a small to medium business, I probably wouldn't choose this provider. It is a heavily configurable, heavyweight, and scalable IT solution for IT infrastructure monitoring."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The pricing model for ScienceLogic could improve."
"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."
"Decide what you want to monitor and only monitor those items. Absorb other elements as you grow."
"Plan for adding more to it. Once you see EM7 in action, you will want to keep adding systems to monitor."
"My company has an enterprise-level contract with ScienceLogic, so it is available to my organization at a good price."
"The solution is license-based. It's between $8 and $15, depending on what you need from the product."
"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."
"It comes with the OS built in, so no need to purchase an OS license or DB license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
903,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Construction Company
9%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise27
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Packetbeat?
Elastic is pretty cheap for large enterprises but unaffordable for small ones.
What needs improvement with Packetbeat?
Packetbeat analyzes specific protocols and is not suitable for full capture of all network traffic and network flows. I recall that Packetbeat can cover a limited number of protocols including ICMP...
What is your primary use case for Packetbeat?
I have dealt with all of them: Elasticsearch, Kibana, Logstash, Beats, Elastic Agent, and Fleet, because I need to use all of them to achieve a solution for customers. These solutions are typically...
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?
I am interested in improving the flexibility of ScienceLogic's user interface, configuration, and customization. I am particularly keen on learning about issues raised by the ScienceLogic support t...
What is your primary use case for ScienceLogic?
Our usual use case of ScienceLogic is as a strategic monitoring tool for all the customers in our company, and because of that reason, all the accounts and projects are migrated from other monitori...
 

Comparisons

 

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 Packetbeat vs. ScienceLogic and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
903,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.