SCOM Reviews

We leverage every component of SCOM. The solution uses monitoring mechanisms to send alerts and notifications for down systems or problematic trouble issues. We use it for all of that. We have dashboards up, customized management packs, and monitors for both Windows and Linux. We use SNMP traps to pull in information forward network devices that are in the enterprise. We use it for everything.

Being able to make and customize management packs and send out notifications is very valuable. That's the bread and butter of the solution. That's what we use it for.

The SCOM dashboards have room for improvement. They've been improving them in iterations slowly and surely. Third-party tools have had to be created to make SCOM management pack creation more efficient and effective. However, this weighs down the application as it just adds a resource requirement, which is ballooning the size of the necessary storage and all that for essentially substandard components. I would suggest either using the dashboard and management packs to their full potential, so we don't have to go out to third-party vendors to install additional features, or allow them to be truncated during installation so that we're not wasting resources.

I've worked with SCOM for about ten years now.

SCOM's stability is pretty solid. 

SCOM has been scaling pretty nicely for us, which is what it's intended to do. We do have plans to increase usage. It's constantly evolving, developing utility. All new systems go onto it. It's not shrinking anytime soon.

The tech support is good. Our company has Premier Plus in place. They're responsive.

This is the only one I've used.

The initial setup is complex. It requires Microsoft's support in many cases. It takes about a month or two to get SCOM up and running and fleshed out so that you have all the configurations. For example, when you're migrating from '12 to '19, you have to look at everything that's already in place and then try to migrate it. Whereas if you're starting fresh, then you have to start one at a time looking at each component and building it out. They're too different. 

We deployed in-house, but we did leverage Microsoft.

The solution is provided by Microsoft for free but there are operating costs. Those would be the many hours necessary to prune it. We have a contract for support. If that didn't exist, then the cost of the solution would include paying for support. Because it is a complex system, I will contact support for assistance. I also have the general resource requirements just to have the systems up. This includes several databases and front-end servers running. However, added together, all of these costs are minimal.

We did not evaluate any other options before landing on SCOM. The reason for this is that SCOM is a Microsoft solution and we have a significant Microsoft presence in our environment, it's actually provided gratis by Microsoft, so it was just a logical utility to leverage.

My advice to others looking into implementing this product is to make sure that you have a solid understanding of SQL commands, statements, databases, and Visual Studio. This will help you understand how to make the management packs more effective. I rate this solution a ten out of ten.

One of our customers is an Australian delivery company. They use SCOM to manage their servers, hardware, applications, NAS devices, hand devices, hypervisor, and virtualization environment. Another customer uses SCOM to monitor their clients. They have more than 3000 Windows and Linux servers.

The product’s auto-remediation feature helps with automation. It is very good at monitoring Microsoft Stack.

Application monitoring must be improved. The product must provide support for monitoring virtualization. It is a complex tool. It is not easy to configure it.

I have been using the solution for five years.

I rate the tool’s stability a seven out of ten.

I rate the product’s scalability five out of ten. Scalability must be improved. The solution is suitable for enterprise businesses.

I rate the ease of setup a ten out of ten. From planning to POST checks, the whole process takes one week.

It is the cheapest product available in the market. I rate the pricing a one out of ten.

I work for a managed service provider. We provide services for SCOM. We provide in-house support and services to our customers. Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

We use SCOM for proactive monitoring that we code ourselves. We code it with a management pack, which is the actual logic of all monitoring experiences. We develop our own monitoring capabilities instead of using Microsoft's. We could use them as a base but always add extra deliverables with our own code.

The most valuable feature of SCOM is the capability of using classes within your management pack development.

The solution’s initial setup is difficult. SCOM should include more in-depth trend analysis.

I have been using SCOM for 15 years.

I rate SCOM an eight out of ten for stability.

More than 100 users are using SCOM in our organization. I rate SCOM ten out of ten for scalability.

It took one day to deploy SCOM.

We have seen a return on investment with SCOM, and the solution is worth its money.

SCOM's pricing is average.

I am using the latest version of SCOM. Users should do a POC for the solution.

Overall, I rate SCOM a nine out of ten.

We're using SCOM to monitor the health checks for the Windows servers in our organization.

It would be hard to talk about features. In maybe four months, in January, there is downtime for service, where we're able to look for the issues and proactively check everything.

The stability has been very good so far. 

Technical support has been very responsive.

We have found the scalability capabilities to be okay.

What we need in SCOM is the ability to share a lab console with our customers so that our end-users or customers in SCOM can navigate by themselves. It could be similar to how we use DRDG in PRTG where all of our customers can set up their monitoring on their own. Right now, in SCOM, only our team can set up their monitoring. 

The initial setup could be easier. 

The solution should be more user-friendly and offer a better user interface.

I've been dealing with the solution for two years. 

The stability is very good. We haven't had any issues. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's reliable.

The scalability potential is good. If a company needs to expand it, it can.

The technical support on offer has been great, generally. When we have questions for Microsoft, they respond to us quickly. It's good for our end. We are quite satisfied.

The initial setup could be more straightforward and the deployment could be simplified in SCOM.

In terms of pricing, I'm not sure how much the company pays. As far as I know, our company gets a Microsoft package and SCOM is already included in the package. It's not separated out.

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

SCOM is a great monitoring tool. It's just pretty complex to set up, however, if you invest your time in learning SCOM, you can understand how it works and it will make things much easier.

System Center Operations Manager is basically for windows monitoring. We use SCOM to monitor metrics, such as CPU and memory disk, and a lot of applications, such as Microsoft Exchange Server, Office 365, Active Directory, RDBMS, Skype, and Citrix.

It discovers the components automatically, which is a fantastic thing. The discovery works in an automatic way, and it has a dynamic way of discovering the components, assets, and applications. It doesn't require any manual intervention.

They can focus more on cloud monitoring instead of on-premise monitoring. We should be able to monitor cloud-related applications. They can include this feature in the next release.

If it is in the cloud, we can have scalability by using Kubernetes. The container is containerized, packaged, and managed using Kubernetes. This feature is not there in SCOM. Going forward, if they can focus on that, it will be great.

Its scalability works well. In our environment, we are monitoring 150,000 Windows Servers by using System Center Operations Manager. Its usage keeps increasing.

I am satisfied with their support.

Its initial setup is straightforward. It doesn't take long.

We evaluated other options. We found SCOM to be suitable for Microsoft Windows applications, so we decided to go for it.

I would rate System Center Operations Manager an eight out of ten.

We are using the System Manager in a state university. They have around 1000 workstations and clients, that were using a System Center Configuration Management to upgrade only those clients and Windows servers, as well as the WHS server.

The solution is very user-friendly, and it offers upgrade options and updates features with a simple click.

I personally found the initial setup to be straightforward.

There are excellent simple options on offer.

They have great integration with the active directory. You can see active directory users in the System Center.

In recent years, no doubt it's improved. 

That said, at the time I used it, System Center just provided upgrade and update features for Windows clients, and Windows systems, and did not support Linux, Android, or iOS, and other operating systems. They need to provide better integration with other operating systems if they don't already.

The initial setup should be a bit more straightforward.

I have experience working with the solution for about one year or so. I only have one experience with SCOM.

At any given time, 10 members of the IT department, all engineers, would be working on the Assistant Manager Console.

I never dealt with technical support in the past. I can't speak to how knowledgeable or responsive they are in general. 

The initial setup was a very simple process. That said, in general, the installation process is not very straightforward, as you need to install it and then secure the server, and configure the database, and you need to provide different specific options in the configuration process. It can be a bit tricky. It should be improved to provide a straightforward installation.

I handled the installation myself. I did not use a consultant or integrator. I was able to handle it in-house.

I can't speak to the actual cost of the solution. It was more or less handled by the sales department. The licensing aspect was not my responsibility.

We are using System Center 2016.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. It was mostly a very positive experience working with it.

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations.

We use SCOM to deploy images.

We like the deployment of the machines and the features that they have.

It's easy to use.

The management of the servers could be better.

Also, the user interface could be improved.

We have used SCOM for a couple of years.

We are using the latest version.

It's a stable solution.

It's a scalable product. We have 1,000 users in our organization.

We have plans to continue using this solution.

Technical support is fine. We have no issues with them.

We did not use any other solution. It's a group standard for us.

The initial setup is straightforward. It's easy for us.

We have a team of four to deploy and maintain it.

We completed the installation ourselves.

It took one week to deploy and customize it.

We have to pay for a license and the price is fine for us.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We work with our global team to produce software delivery packages and patches. We push the changes to the servers as well as to the computers of the end users.

I enjoy its integration with the Microsoft Active Directory functions, which means users, computers, or other group policies can connect with Windows Active Directory.

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.

I have been using this solution for five years.

It is very stable.

We can easily scale-up when we have a new global site. It is just so easy to extend this solution to other sites, which is an advantage. 

On the IT side, we have 30 people working on this platform, and on the user side, we have 600 people. We use it every month to push down new patches.

We used LANDESK and Manager Engine. Both of these solutions are similar to SCOM and suitable for the simple purpose of management. 

SCOM is just one user interface. It is a Microsoft service user interface. However, it is not user friendly like Manage Engine, which has a self-service desktop where users can log in and change their password themselves. The software also sends out an automatic notification. Manage Engine has a user-friendly interface.

It is very complex to install because you have to plan the whole deployment. You have to design the central server, the deposit server, and the domain. It is a little bit complex as compared to other common server installations. The deployment took two months.

We have a consultant.

This is a good software. I would definitely recommend this software.

I would rate SCOM an eight out of ten.