We compared Pandora FMS and ScienceLogic across several parameters based on our users' reviews. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Features: Pandora FMS is highly regarded for its straightforward management process, effective dashboards, and efficient network monitoring capabilities. ScienceLogic is highly regarded for its serverless and agent connectivity, versatile graphs and personalized dashboards, AIOps, and event management capabilities, as well as its AI and machine learning features.
Room for Improvement: Users say Pandora FMS could make its dashboards more customizable and improve its integration with other systems. Many also said they would like Pandora to add APIs for integration and offer better out-of-the-box analytics. ScienceLogic can enhance its documentation, Power Packs, notification features, and automation options.
Service and Support: Pandora FMS support received high praise for their expertise, kindness, and fast response time. ScienceLogic's customer service is generally considered responsive and professional. However, a few users reported delayed response times and support engineers with limited expertise.
Ease of Deployment: Most users found Pandora FMS’s initial setup to be relatively easy. ScienceLogic's initial setup is described as simple and efficient. The deployment process can be completed within a few hours or a couple of weeks.
Pricing: Pandora FMS is considered reasonably priced, and the total cost depends on the environment. Opinions on the price of ScienceLogic were mixed. Pricing is determined by the number of network devices or endpoints, and there are no hidden charges.
ROI: Pandora FMS has also demonstrated advantages in terms of return on investment. ScienceLogic improves troubleshooting and minimizes network outages.
Comparison Results: Users like Pandora FMS’s management and monitoring capabilities as well as its dashboards, but the solution has been criticized for its compatibility issues, limited customization options, and slower performance. ScienceLogic is praised for its serverless and agent connectivity, effortless setup, and customized dashboards. However, it lacks detailed documentation and automation options.
"We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"The most valuable features are auto-discovery and automatic detection of the network topology and network monitoring."
"We are able to control our business with this all-in-one monitoring tool."
"This solution has screens that are easy to understand and provide a wealth of information."
"The solution has good dashboards and graphics."
"Pandora's architecture is interesting. It's open so you can easily extend and enhance it. It's simpler to customize Pandora compared to other solutions. It's also scalable enough to support large environments."
"Features I have found most valuable with Pandora are the personalized metrics and the simplicity of data."
"The monitoring system within this solution is very good. It is easy to use and navigate, and makes issue alarms easily viewable."
"Thanks to this software and to the work of the support team, we have everything under control."
"The solution provides good infra-monitoring features."
"It has good monitoring capabilities across cloud environments, data centers, and hybrid environments."
"The best feature is the highly flexible graphs."
"The flexibility to support most technologies. The way ScienceLogic gathers data from multiple sources is vital to our customers. As we work with new customers (often with different technology requirements), ScienceLogic is flexible enough to support our clients’ varying network needs."
"Its ITSM and EMS combination is really amazing. There is no need to purchase two products, one for ITSM and a second for EMS/NMS."
"Provides agentless monitoring so there's no need to install the agent on each server."
"I'm satisfied with ScienceLogicfor for what they can offer today because they can offer both serverless connectivity and agent connectivity."
"It is simple."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"Improvements are needed for server and network discovery, including service-based discovery."
"Their support is good, but it is just online communication. It would be great to be able to just call someone and talk to them instead of always writing. It works well for me because I am a decent communicator in email, but some people might find it difficult to describe in a written fashion and communicate with them that way. There is a learning curve to the interface, but once you get used to it, it is actually very powerful. They have a lot of options, but people struggle with the interface. They've improved it though, and it is getting better. They need to keep improving the learning curve to help buy-in. I'm the guy that manages it, so I'm comfortable with it. They can refine the upgrade agents to be easier. They can also do more refinement in end-user usability because not everyone is strong technically, and people who aren't strong technically might be averse to the product, even though it has come a long way. It has a complete GUI and everything."
"The product lacks APIs for integration with other systems."
"We would like the real-time monitoring of an interface to be improved within this solution."
"An update to the Android app would be appreciated."
"It would be useful if Pandora FMS included an ISO image (or «software appliance») for each big company that leases virtual private machines (VPS), just like in AWS."
"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."
"A nice feature in the next release would be an automation module to run workflow actions."
"It doesn't have the complete application-level topology. It could have service topology and business service monitoring. I would like to see how business service monitoring will function with agent-based installation, and how flexible and business-oriented it is for service modeling and service infrastructure. I have a lot of experience in using business service monitoring, service topology, and service hierarchy functionalities in similar products from BMC and Micro Focus (OpenView), and I want to see how these functionalities will look like in ScienceLogic."
"They should add CLI command modes and scripts for high performance."
"We want to understand: how does the back end work? What if some problem occurs? What we can do? They need to provide more information."
"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."
"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."
"They should improve database issues in HA and Failover mode, and provide documentation for all users , even if they are not customers."
"I would like to see out-of-the-box standard dashboards for common services."
"One important area we feel could be improved is the UI. It takes a lot of clicks to do very simple tasks."
Pandora FMS is ranked 28th in Network Monitoring Software with 22 reviews while ScienceLogic is ranked 14th in Network Monitoring Software with 42 reviews. Pandora FMS is rated 9.2, while ScienceLogic is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Pandora FMS writes "The open architecture is easy to extend and enhance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ScienceLogic writes "Great integrations, power flow, and good support". Pandora FMS is most compared with Zabbix, Wazuh, PRTG Network Monitor, Nagios XI and SolarWinds NPM, whereas ScienceLogic is most compared with Dynatrace, LogicMonitor, SolarWinds NPM, Datadog and Zabbix. See our Pandora FMS vs. ScienceLogic report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors, best Cloud Monitoring Software vendors, and best Server Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all Network Monitoring Software 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.