We performed a comparison between Azure Network Watcher 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 single dashboard is a valuable feature."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Network Watcher is the cloud-native application firewall. It is helpful for securing databases."
"I like the visibility."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Network Watcher is using the gateways with the connections. The monitoring is useful for the logs and application insights into the data. The traffic filtering issues when it comes to deploying those applications are helpful."
"It provides good visibility."
"We use the solution to monitor network services. It helps to capture any network issues."
"What I like most about Azure Network Watcher is that it's focused more on the architecture. I also like that it has a packet capture feature that tells you how the packet travels and whether it's exiting Azure, etc."
"The most valuable features I have found are typology, visualization, and capture."
"This solution allows us to standardize all of the reports for monitoring the network, so it helps a lot for auditing purposes."
"The most valuable features in SCOM are Azure monitoring and integration with Azure Monitor for monitoring Azure-hosted servers from SCOM on-premises."
"The product’s auto-remediation feature helps with automation."
"We have found the scalability capabilities to be okay."
"SCOM's most valuable features are the network path feature, reporting, and integration with business intelligence."
"The most valuable features for us are the monitoring, the health explorer, and the console."
"The most valuable feature of SCOM is the capability of using classes within your management pack development."
"The tool helps to monitor Windows servers. It offers alerts from a central location."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"The technical support needs improvement."
"The solution could improve by limiting the need to clarify the logs. When the clarification is minimized, it is better for everyone involved."
"I still use Wireshark and Azure Network Watcher to get the required data. My team captures the traffic from Azure Network Watcher, downloads it, then imports that traffic into Wireshark to get more details on the number of hits and replies, for example. If you can do that on Azure Network Watcher and have Wireshark built-in, that would make Azure Network Watcher better. If Azure Network Watcher has that functionality where you won't need a third-party tool to get what you need, that would be helpful. I'm also expecting more from Azure Network Watcher. It's more complex than knowing how the IP flows from its source to the destination. The tool also needs more open-source features, such as having some built-in Wireshark that improves monitoring for customers. Sometimes, you encounter a VPN tunnel, network, or routing issue, but finding out more about the blockage is challenging. Is it one hundred percent an Azure issue? Is it a peer issue? You don't get complete information from Azure Network Watcher, so you must use other tools and depend on your strategies to resolve a specific issue. If more features could be added in the next release of Azure Network Watcher, specifically ones you can find on open-source tools, then that would be a plus point for the tool."
"Lacks sufficient security features."
"Azure Network Watcher needs to have better documentation and it needs to capture information accurately."
"The initial setup and deployment could be improved to be simplified."
"Azure is good, however, the Fortinet GUI is more intuitive and I like it more than anything else."
"I would like to see in the future if we can troubleshoot as a firewall because it is equipment as a network player and some diagnostics."
"The initial setup and initial learning curve could be improved to be easier."
"We didn't know the solution enough, and therefore, it took a while to set everything up correctly. There was a learning curve."
"SCOM needs to improve its usability."
"In terms of features that could be improved, I would say the agent integration into the operating system. We are having difficulties integrating Linux into some of the networking devices."
"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."
"SCOM's feature that notifies us when a server is down is not present in recent updates, which has weakened the product."
"The solution’s initial setup is difficult."
"The solution should have more tools for monitoring the cloud engine versus on-premise."
"Stability and some performance issues exist and they need improvement."
More Juniper Mist Premium Analytics Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Network Watcher is ranked 33rd in Network Monitoring Software with 9 reviews while SCOM is ranked 10th in Network Monitoring Software with 78 reviews. Azure Network Watcher is rated 7.8, while SCOM is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Azure Network Watcher writes "Helpful database security, good support, and beneficial cloud-native application firewall". 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". Azure Network Watcher is most compared with Microsoft Network Monitor, Nmap, PRTG Network Monitor, ThousandEyes and SolarWinds NetFlow Traffic Analyzer, whereas SCOM is most compared with Dynatrace, Zabbix, Datadog, Nagios XI and ManageEngine OpManager. See our Azure Network Watcher 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.