We performed a comparison between Auvik Network Management (ANM) 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."We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"The best feature is the ease of setup. Auvik immediately scans and finds everything. It automatically connects to multiple devices with a single set of credentials."
"The fact that it provides a single, integrated platform for our organization is important as well. Having 50 different accounts to log into would make things difficult at times."
"The most valuable features include the inventory management and alerting capabilities."
"Auvik automatically updates network topology. Since it automatically updates the topology, we proactively know what is happening in a country or our branch offices. It also alerts us if there is a topology change, e.g., if it discovers anything new in that country. So, it has reduced the number of failures in our operations. We went from being reactive to proactive. So, we are no longer reacting to what is happening and others are doing. This has saved us about two to three hours a day. We used to spend two to three hours every morning checking the firewall and router logs for malicious behavior."
"Being able to see things like the hardware lifecycle, if our equipment is up to date, if connections are broken, or whether there are physical line breaks, is helpful. We're able to determine connectivity issues. We can monitor pretty much anything that is network-related."
"The quick alerts in the event the equipment goes up or down is the most valuable feature."
"I like the feature that allows us to remote access and remote troubleshoot many of the devices, including terminal Windows."
"Among the most valuable features are the hardware life cycle and configuration backups, when applicable... When it does show you the hardware life cycle for, say, a Cisco device and the configuration backup, that's the most useful aspect for me as a network engineer."
"It works better than other products I’ve used – namely SolarWinds, which is cumbersome and error prone for web app monitoring. SCOM is not."
"The monitoring features are the most valuable. We have seen a major benefit from that so far."
"It is a user-friendly product that requires almost no maintenance."
"We have found the scalability capabilities to be okay."
"It can send messages to our ticketing system."
"The advantages of SCOM are that it is definitely user friendly and a more appropriate solution for what we need."
"It takes a lot of the headache out of managing your data centers and software in other places."
"Being able to make and customize management packs and send out notifications is very valuable."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"One drawback I found with Auvik was its inability to generate clear network diagrams."
"Auvik doesn't communicate very well with Ubiquiti devices and will incorrectly flag facets as down. Compatibility with Ubiquiti is my biggest pain point with Auvik."
"It would be cool if they came out with an app, but running the browser isn't bad."
"I would like firmware/software updates for hardware, for at least switches and routers. I already have the feature request in, and it is on their list of things to try and do. Cisco stuff has been notoriously and historically kind of a pain to do, and that is what we use primarily. So, that would be a wonderful thing to get, as it is a device-by-device process. It would be nice to be able to get through that at least in a less fiddly way. It is a pretty manual process now."
"The ability to subcategorize our inventories, between physical and VM servers, for example, would be a welcome addition."
"The Auvik network map and dashboard are not reliable enough to provide a real-time view of our network."
"I don't know if it has integrations with ticketing systems so that alerts would get to the ticketing system right away. That would be a good feature to add."
"It requires a lot of hands-on maintenance when it comes to cleanup. That's probably the biggest problem I've had, because I don't have a dedicated resource to manually clean up stale records. I have a customer where it shows 4,000 devices because of the duplication of devices that I have to clean up."
"SCOM needs to improve its usability."
"Stability and some performance issues exist and they need improvement."
"The console feature is very poor, and it would be very good for us if this were improved."
"It'll help if they can provide real-time or closer to real-time monitoring."
"All of the areas of reporting are very bad and need to be improved."
"There could be more integration of SIM in the solution."
"Non Windows monitoring is fairly weak. Network device monitoring is not reliable."
"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."
More Auvik Network Management (ANM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Auvik Network Management (ANM) is ranked 3rd in Network Monitoring Software with 139 reviews while SCOM is ranked 10th in Network Monitoring Software with 78 reviews. Auvik Network Management (ANM) is rated 8.8, while SCOM is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Auvik Network Management (ANM) writes "Enables us to get on top of issues before they become an outage". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SCOM writes "Has a good reporting engine, but its monitoring of the cloud-based environment could be improved". Auvik Network Management (ANM) is most compared with PRTG Network Monitor, LogicMonitor, SolarWinds NPM, Zabbix and Meraki Dashboard, whereas SCOM is most compared with Dynatrace, Zabbix, Datadog, Nagios XI and AppDynamics. See our Auvik Network Management (ANM) 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.