We performed a comparison between LogicMonitor and ManageEngine OpManager 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 single dashboard is a valuable feature."
"The concept of developing a dashboard template for ourselves, then cloning it for every single customer, and only having to change one piece of information, is a godsend. That's one of the strengths. We can develop a template that fits every customer and just change the information that is presented."
"The most valuable feature is the visualization of the data that it is collecting. I have used many products in the past and they tend to roll up the data. So, if you're looking at data over long periods of time, they start averaging the data, which can skew the figures that you're looking at. With LogicMonitor, they have the raw data there for two years, if you are an enterprise customer. If you are looking at that long duration of data, you're seeing exactly what happened during that time."
"LogicMonitor improved on-premises infrastructure monitoring in several ways. One key feature was dynamic resource allocation, although we didn't utilize it much in our system. The main functionalities we benefited from were email alerts, network mapping, and dashboards."
"The most valuable feature of LogicMonitor is the infrastructure monitoring capability."
"LogicMonitor saves time in terms of its ability to proxy a connection through a device. For example, if you are troubleshooting a device, which you may want to connect to, you can proxy this connection through the platform. As a support resource, I don't need to use multiple platforms to connect to a device to further investigate the issue. It is all consolidated. From that perspective, it saves time because a resource now only needs to use one platform."
"LogicMonitor is good for getting a full view of your topologies. They have LiveMaps, which give you a visual representation of your infrastructure."
"The solution’s overall reporting capabilities are pretty powerful compared to ones that I have used previously. It seems like it has a lot of customizations that you can put in, but some of the out-of-the-box reports are useful too, like user logon duration and website latency. Those type of things have been helpful and don't require a lot of, if any, changes to get useful content out of them. They have also been pretty easy to implement and use."
"I really appreciate the reporting function because it allows me to create dashboards that will be emailed to me during the morning so that I have a complete overview of my client's health, within a specific time frame."
"Device monitoring is a good tool of this solution."
"We don't have to keep an eye on it; it has a good automation option, which keeps us informed. It gives very less false positives. Overall, a really great product."
"The solution is easy to deploy. It's also easy to manage and monitor the environment. Instead of being reactive, it's proactive."
"The most valuable feature is the monitoring alerts. The administrators are immediately notified and can do the required action immediately. This is the feature we value and use the most."
"Flexibility in the two view dashboard helps viewers and admins get the information they need about the fetwork in a flash."
"This is a good general monitoring system that has all the features we require and they constantly update with new capabilities."
"The solution is scalable."
"The application monitoring is the solution's most valuable feature."
"The technical support needs improvement."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"It needs better access for customizing and adding monitoring from the repository. That would be helpful. It seems like you have to search through the forums to figure out what specific pieces you need to get in for specific monitoring, if it's a nonstandard piece of equipment or process. You have to hunt and find certain elements to get them in place. If they could make it a bit easier rather having to find the right six-digit code to put in so it implements, that would be helpful."
"LogicMonitor has good features, but the ease of use is a little bit confusing. Additionally, we are looking for workflow automation, which is a little bit tricky for LogicMonitor."
"We are working with LogicMonitor to get flexibility to see the absolute running numbers, rather than doing an average. They can keep the average for customers who want it, but there should be a way to at least show the real numbers, which are coming every second on the screen."
"One drawback of LogicMonitor is its licensing model, which requires an additional license for each module. For example, if you need to use Azure monitoring, you'll need an additional license on top of the base license."
"There is a lack of automation, especially in terms of remediating problems. The problem is seen and identified, but there is a need and a gap where LogicMonitor can help us automate the remediation of the problem."
"Some more application performance type monitoring would be nice. For example, an APM type solution, which would not necessarily completely replace it, but be able to tie into to what we're seeing on the application performance side so we can correlate what's going on with the application versus the underlying infrastructure."
"The ease of use with data source tuning could be improved. That can get hairy quickly. When I reach out for help, it's usually around a data source or event source configuration. That can get challenging."
"Automated remediation of issues has room for improvement. I don't know how best to handle it, but I know that they're kind of working on it. I know there are some resources that can do automated remediation. I would like them to improve this area so it could be completely hands-free, where it detects an issue, such as, if a CPU is running high. There are ways to do it even now, but it's a bit more involved."
"We had some stability issues at the outset that have since been resolved."
"It would be great if there were some sort of artificial intelligence feature which would help us make improvements in the network once we find an issue, and do it automatically."
"The licensing for this solution is not straightforward and should be improved."
"The storage level monitoring needs improvement. It needs storage level monitoring on the server itself. That feature is lacking right now."
"The licensing model is confusing."
"You cannot resolve 100 percent of the issues yourself. You would need to reach out to the support. It needs to be cheaper."
"We encounter challenges in monitoring cloud services. I would also appreciate it if there was someone available to walk you through the documentation."
"The pricing of the solution is high. They should work to adjust the pricing model to see if they can help reduce costs."
More Juniper Mist Premium Analytics Pricing and Cost Advice →
LogicMonitor is ranked 16th in Network Monitoring Software with 25 reviews while ManageEngine OpManager is ranked 15th in Network Monitoring Software with 44 reviews. LogicMonitor is rated 9.0, while ManageEngine OpManager is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of LogicMonitor writes "We went from nothing to full visibility across our internal and external estates of equipment". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ManageEngine OpManager writes "Helps us monitor all the infrastructure in our company but UI monitoring is not practical". LogicMonitor is most compared with ScienceLogic, SolarWinds NPM, Zabbix, OpsRamp and SCOM, whereas ManageEngine OpManager is most compared with SolarWinds NPM, Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor, Nagios XI and Flowmon . See our LogicMonitor vs. ManageEngine OpManager 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.