We performed a comparison between Pandora FMS and SCOM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Monitoring Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."What I value most about Pandora FMS is the simplicity of working with it."
"The administration of the console is very easy. I like that Pandora FMS is interactive and easy to manage."
"The network monitoring and configuration within this solution is very good."
"The solution has good dashboards and graphics."
"The monitoring system within this solution is very good. It is easy to use and navigate, and makes issue alarms easily viewable."
"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."
"It is easy to create your own custom modules if you just know a little bit of scripting. If you have unique requirements, you can just make your own modules. You can even grab checks from other vendors. There are open-source checks for various things such as SMTP, etc. There is a long list of different ones from Nagios. You can just use them, and within seconds, you get yourself a check that is monitoring whatever you need. It is really flexible. I guess that's why they call it Pandora Flexible Monitoring System (FMS). It is reliable. It does the job, and it alerts. It is also surprisingly feature-rich. Our network guy just recently asked about a particular protocol to monitor the bandwidth on the network, which is not a common protocol. When I looked it up, and I found that they cover it. It is very mature for a not-so-known product."
"Because it's Windows-based, it actually reports quite well. It reports everything you can think of on the Windows server and allows you to monitor anything. It's excellent for those in the Windows world as it's very good at it."
"It's easy to use."
"The stability has been great."
"Being able to make and customize management packs and send out notifications is very valuable."
"The monitoring features are the most valuable. We have seen a major benefit from that so far."
"It discovers the components automatically, which is a fantastic thing. The discovery works in an automatic way, and it has a dynamic way of discovering the components, assets, and applications. It doesn't require any manual intervention."
"I enjoy its integration with the Microsoft Active Directory functions, which means users, computers, or other group policies can connect with Windows Active Directory."
"I like some of their newer features, such as maintenance schedules, because SCOM records SLA and SLO time."
"The product lacks APIs for integration with other systems."
"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."
"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."
"Pandora could deliver better analytics out of the box. You can work around these limitations with the help of other tools like Grafana. The shortcomings are mostly on the graphical side. The built-in report generators are a bit limited in some areas."
"We would like to see improvement in the mainframe integration that this solution is capable of."
"We would like the real-time monitoring of an interface to be improved within this solution."
"The price for Pandora FMS is expensive."
"They can focus more on cloud monitoring instead of on-premise monitoring. We should be able to monitor cloud-related applications. They can include this feature in the next release. If it is in the cloud, we can have scalability by using Kubernetes. The container is containerized, packaged, and managed using Kubernetes. This feature is not there in SCOM. Going forward, if they can focus on that, it will be great."
"I would like to see them improve their network monitoring."
"There could be more integration of SIM in the solution."
"There are some negative points about this product. Sometimes, the capabilities of the software don't appear, and you can't directly see the results. You have to wait for a long period to refresh the policy to push it to the software or other patches."
"The solution should be more user-friendly and offer a better user interface."
"The management of the servers could be better."
"SCOM's feature that notifies us when a server is down is not present in recent updates, which has weakened the product."
"The configurations could be better. There are multiple tests where you can do something, but they can be a trigger as well. The overriding methodologies are not that easy. The configurations are difficult. The configuration and thorough day-to-day operations to get them to the level you want takes some time. It's very difficult."
Pandora FMS is ranked 18th in Network Monitoring Software with 7 reviews while SCOM is ranked 12th in Network Monitoring Software with 14 reviews. Pandora FMS is rated 9.0, while SCOM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Pandora FMS writes "Super stable, very flexible, feature-rich, competitive price, and does the job". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SCOM writes "Easy to scale, offers helpful maintenance schedules, and free online training is available". Pandora FMS is most compared with Zabbix, Nagios Core, SolarWinds NPM, Amazon CloudWatch and Centreon, whereas SCOM is most compared with Zabbix, Dynatrace, SolarWinds NPM, PRTG Network Monitor and Nagios XI. See our Pandora FMS vs. SCOM report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software 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.
