We performed a comparison between Checkmk and ScienceLogic based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The single dashboard is a valuable feature."
"We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"The initial setup of Checkmk was easy...It is a very stable solution."
"It's versatile, scalable, and easier to use compared to other solutions like Nagios and OMD."
"The most valuable features of Checkmk are its resource monitoring, infra monitoring, and log factor configuration."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it has a lot of different pieces, and they all work together...It is a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"We can monitor multiple sites using the product."
"I really like the auto-discovery feature."
"Best feature of all is detailed monitoring of services, processes, ports and SSL certificates and or web content."
"The most valuable features of ScienceLogic are AI and machine learning."
"Power packs."
"I'm satisfied with ScienceLogicfor for what they can offer today because they can offer both serverless connectivity and agent connectivity."
"When it comes to features, the power pack is the most valuable."
"The tool is quite easy to deploy, and it offers very good support."
"The best feature is the highly flexible graphs."
"It is very easy to configure because we are using an agent-less version. You can very quickly implement a collector for monitoring device servers."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"The technical support needs improvement."
"It is easy for tech-savvy people, but newcomers might find it intimidating."
"I think that the integration and the exporting of the data collected are areas where Checkmk lacks but should try to improve the most."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"In Checkmk, the documentation can probably be improved a bit more."
"Sometimes we receive alerts, and it can become annoying when you acknowledge an alert. It is very clunky when you acknowledge the alert. The process is not very intuitive, and there are instances where it feels a bit cumbersome to acknowledge an alert."
"If an alert is generated for a specific pattern in the log, and if Checkmk catches that log, it will stay there even after the alert is resolved."
"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."
"The product is not user-friendly."
"One important area we feel could be improved is the UI. It takes a lot of clicks to do very simple tasks."
"They need a little more self-service."
"Admins do not have direct access to the reporting."
"The product must educate its strategic partners for deployment."
"They should improve their support process and add chat."
"They should add CLI command modes and scripts for high performance."
More Juniper Mist Premium Analytics Pricing and Cost Advice →
Checkmk is ranked 20th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 6 reviews while ScienceLogic is ranked 12th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 42 reviews. Checkmk is rated 8.6, while ScienceLogic is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Checkmk writes "A reasonably priced tool for system and application monitoring". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ScienceLogic writes "Great integrations, power flow, and good support". Checkmk is most compared with Zabbix, Icinga, Netdata, Centreon and Observium, whereas ScienceLogic is most compared with Dynatrace, LogicMonitor, SolarWinds NPM, Datadog and Zabbix. See our Checkmk vs. ScienceLogic report.
See our list of best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors, best Network Monitoring Software vendors, and best Server Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all IT Infrastructure Monitoring 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.