Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cisco Intersight vs ScienceLogic comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 9, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
7.9
Cisco Intersight reduces costs and time via hyper-converged tech, simplifying management and improving user satisfaction over time.
Sentiment score
7.0
ScienceLogic enhances efficiency, visibility, and reduces incidents, providing long-term ROI and improved company image and operations.
It simplifies the onboarding of new hardware, reducing time spent on manual installations and configurations.
The return on investment is fair but often challenged by medium-sized businesses who may question its adequacy.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.2
Cisco Intersight's support is available 24/7, praised for competence but can be slow for complex issues. Ratings vary.
Sentiment score
7.8
ScienceLogic's support is praised for responsiveness, expertise, and proactive problem-solving, often deemed industry-leading by users.
For complex issues, it's challenging to get the right engineer quickly unless you have a specific contract like CX.
Cisco technical support is helpful.
Cisco provides better support than anyone else.
I received excellent support from ScienceLogic.
Problems with Skylar may require longer wait times due to limited resource expertise.
We have a lab environment to test solutions before offering them to customers, ensuring everything works correctly.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.9
Cisco Intersight is highly scalable, effortlessly managing multi-environments and automating tasks, with high user satisfaction across various settings.
Sentiment score
6.7
ScienceLogic excels in scalability and adaptability, supporting large deployments, though minor challenges exist in hardware and user onboarding.
I rate its scalability a ten out of ten due to its capability to manage multiple domains and automate service requests.
Cisco Intersight is scalable enough for our needs, allowing management in a multi-environment setup and working remotely while deploying servers.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
Cisco Intersight is generally stable and secure, but upgrades and documentation gaps may pose challenges, affecting stability ratings.
Sentiment score
7.0
ScienceLogic is reliable and stable, with strong support, handling large volumes efficiently despite minor bugs during upgrades.
Some steps are not included in the official documentation, which can create challenges.
It is always accessible online, secure, and allows access from any location, following strict authentication standards.
The stability rating is nine out of ten, acknowledging some bugs, but indicating these are minor issues.
 

Room For Improvement

Cisco Intersight needs improved hybrid cloud integration, enhanced automation, AI assistance, easier migration, setup, and broader device management.
ScienceLogic struggles with complexity, requiring UI simplification, integration improvements, better support, and enhanced monitoring and automation features.
It would be great to have a chat session mode AI so that when I am on standby and encountering issues, I could engage with it, much like ChatGPT.
When registering our devices and servers using tokens, auto-detection could make it easier by automatically identifying resources and adding them to the platform.
There is a significant issue regarding migration from UCS Manager into Intersight without formatting the Fabric Interconnects (FI), which is problematic in a production environment.
While some other companies have easier APIs, using this solution demands significant expertise.
If the knowledge for implementation could be spread through articles, it would reduce this dependency.
Integrating observability and APM monitoring into the overall portfolio would be beneficial.
 

Setup Cost

Opinions on Cisco Intersight pricing vary, though most agree it offers fair value and justifiable investment for enterprises.
ScienceLogic offers flexible but potentially costly pricing, emphasizing understanding business needs to justify its robust capabilities.
Cisco Intersight's license cost is very high compared to AWS and Azure solutions, which have lower initiation costs.
The pricing is fair and reasonable, particularly for enterprises.
The pricing mechanism sounds fair.
It could be cheaper.
ScienceLogic is not that expensive and is cost-effective overall.
 

Valuable Features

Cisco Intersight provides integration, orchestration, analytics, and automation for enhanced manageability, scalability, and security in data centers.
ScienceLogic delivers versatile IT management with robust monitoring, automation, and integration, ensuring efficient operations across diverse infrastructures.
It also provides predictive analysis, predicting data leaks and making it easy to scale up servers remotely without requiring physical interference.
This solution has provided time savings and required fewer people to operate this tool, rather than direct cost savings.
It provides visibility into other products and storage, and is beneficial for environments where Cisco and other vendors coexist, allowing full visibility of the entire infrastructure.
Notably, its automation features, such as Runbook action, enable domain experts like me to execute one-click automation solutions, which contributes significantly to reducing MTTR.
It offers over 500 integrations with a wide range of device types, referred to as PowerPacks, which are prebuilt integrations for hundreds, if not thousands, of integration types.
The CMDB update and the automatic CMDB update are valuable.
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Intersight
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Management (13th)
ScienceLogic
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
21st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Event Monitoring (6th), Unified Communications Monitoring (1st), Network Monitoring Software (25th), Server Monitoring (13th), IT Operations Analytics (7th), Cloud Monitoring Software (15th), AIOps (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the IT Infrastructure Monitoring category, the mindshare of Cisco Intersight is 1.9%, down from 2.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ScienceLogic is 1.8%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
IT Infrastructure Monitoring
 

Featured Reviews

ItzikLiberman - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides data center management and full infrastructure visibility
Cisco Intersight is a very effective tool for data center infrastructure management. It provides visibility into other products and storage, and is beneficial for environments where Cisco and other vendors coexist, allowing full visibility of the entire infrastructure. We have visibility to other products and storages, some networking. It is also valuable for its integration capabilities with other products.
Michael Wenn - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers comprehensive monitoring and tool consolidation but integration complexity needs improvement
There is room for improvement in the speed of setting up the service and integrating PowerPacks. Although these prebuilt features are great, there is considerable complexity in bringing them together to create a unified dashboard. Even with many good integrations and deep visibility, the implementation takes time, especially when it doesn't involve these integrations. While some other companies have easier APIs, using this solution demands significant expertise. It's challenging for new customers to implement independently. The implementation speed of non-PowerPack or non-out-of-the-box integrations should be improved. Additionally, the AI automation feature is not yet very rich due to resource constraints supporting a wide platform.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions are best for your needs.
861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
33%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Healthcare Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cisco Intersight?
Intersight can validate our environment.
What needs improvement with Cisco Intersight?
I would like AI to be more integrated into Cisco Intersight. It would be great to have a chat session mode AI so that when I am on standby and encountering issues, I could engage with it, much like...
What is your primary use case for Cisco Intersight?
We use Cisco Intersight ( /products/cisco-intersight-reviews ) for operational tasks. We run patches and import firmware updates from the Cisco site. In the event of a component failure, such as a ...
What do you like most about ScienceLogic?
The tool is quite easy to deploy, and it offers very good support.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ScienceLogic?
ScienceLogic is not that expensive and is cost-effective overall.
What needs improvement with ScienceLogic?
ScienceLogic is working towards a kind of AI, DKAIRA enablement, but I find one dependency is the frequent need to rely on professional services. If the knowledge for implementation could be spread...
 

Also Known As

Intersight
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

EXMAR, RapidScale
Kellogg Company, Booz Allen, Cisco, Red Bull, Fidelus, Telstra, Comcast, CSC, Peak 10, HughesNet, Hosting, Datapipe, US Army, Equinix, Rite Aid, Carbonite, Sybase, Carpathia, AT&T, ePlus, Dimension Data, Virtustream, Boeing, Honeywell
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco Intersight vs. ScienceLogic and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.