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

Azure Monitor vs ScienceLogic comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 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
7.0
Azure Monitor offers cost-effectiveness and proactive visibility, with pay-as-you-go flexibility and potential savings despite mixed ROI feedback.
Sentiment score
7.0
ScienceLogic enhances service quality, reduces incidents, and strengthens brand reputation, making it valuable for enterprises despite initial costs.
The return on investment is fair but often challenged by medium-sized businesses who may question its adequacy.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.1
Azure Monitor support is generally positive, with high-priority users obtaining quicker responses, while others report variable experiences.
Sentiment score
7.8
ScienceLogic's support team is praised for professionalism and expertise, despite occasional delays, ensuring quick resolutions and customer satisfaction.
Users end up getting no resolution from their team because they're outsourced vendors, and they don't have deeper expertise over any of the products they are referring to.
However, the second-line support is good.
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
7.7
Azure Monitor efficiently scales across industries, integrating well with services, and reliably supports growing infrastructure and application needs.
Sentiment score
6.7
ScienceLogic effectively handles global scalability, despite some hardware challenges, and supports enterprise growth with customizable automation features.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.3
Azure Monitor is stable and reliable with high ratings, but could improve in alerting compared to competitors.
Sentiment score
7.0
ScienceLogic is stable and scalable, though occasional bugs occur during upgrades; users rate its stability between six and nine.
Azure Monitor is working fine, yet I face a costing issue as if there are a lot of logs collected in the workspace or in the center, it becomes very costly.
The stability rating is nine out of ten, acknowledging some bugs, but indicating these are minor issues.
 

Room For Improvement

Azure Monitor requires better integration, user experience, automation, alerting, support, cost clarity, and improved interface and performance monitoring.
ScienceLogic needs better reporting, user interface, vendor support, simpler integration, improved API, and efficient application monitoring for enterprises.
If Azure Monitor can independently add one gigabyte, two gigabytes, or five gigabytes at least to log storage, I can fix the logs without syncing with Log Analytics Workspace and Sentinel.
The cost skyrockets once you start using it, and there are complaints that the actual cost of the Kubernetes cluster was less than the cost they were incurring for Azure Monitor.
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

Azure Monitor's flexible pricing is generally competitive, but costs can rise due to storage and integration needs.
ScienceLogic offers flexible yet potentially high pricing, starting at $25K, with costs based on device count and features.
When I export logs into the application, workspace, log analytic workspace, and into Sentinel to read reports, I need to add storage, which increases the cost.
It could be cheaper.
ScienceLogic is not that expensive and is cost-effective overall.
 

Valuable Features

Azure Monitor provides seamless integration, robust security, dynamic alerting, and efficient reporting, enhancing user satisfaction with scalability and cost-effectiveness.
ScienceLogic provides scalable, customizable monitoring with advanced analytics and integration, enhancing service delivery through intuitive and flexible solutions.
Resource monitoring is essential.
The ease of access in Azure is significant because it's native to the platform and easy to integrate.
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

Azure Monitor
Ranking in Cloud Monitoring Software
3rd
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
55
Ranking in other categories
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability (4th)
ScienceLogic
Ranking in Cloud Monitoring Software
15th
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 Infrastructure Monitoring (21st), IT Operations Analytics (7th), AIOps (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Cloud Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of Azure Monitor is 5.9%, down from 8.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ScienceLogic is 2.0%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Monitoring Software
 

Featured Reviews

Muhammad Usman Khawar - PeerSpot reviewer
Native integration simplifies monitoring but documentation and cost improvements are needed
The ease of access in Azure is significant since it's native to the platform and easy to integrate. It has no maintenance overhead, and users don't have to navigate to another portal to get their desired result. It's the handiness that it has, rather than the features. The interpretation from the logs and injection requires custom runbooks. While it's complex, many services provide native insights and workbooks. It does the basic job quite efficiently. They added new kinds of metrics with more integrations to send out metrics. They have even added support for third-party tools that can be integrated. Azure Monitor is working on improvements and becoming more mature. Azure Monitor is stable and scalable. Azure Monitor is evolving with new workbooks and dashboards.
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 Cloud Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
860,168 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

How does Splunk compare with Azure Monitor?
Splunk handles a high amount of data very well. We use Splunk to capture information and as an aggregator for monitoring information from different sources. Splunk is very good at alerting us if we...
What do you like most about Azure Monitor?
Azure Monitor is a very easy-to-use product in the cloud environment.
What needs improvement with Azure Monitor?
The primary challenge is the documentation. The major challenge that remains is the costing factor for the logs ingestion. The cost skyrockets once you start using it, and there are complaints that...
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...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Rackspace, First Gas, Allscripts, ABB Group
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 Azure Monitor vs. ScienceLogic and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
860,168 professionals have used our research since 2012.