We compared BMC TrueSight Operations Management and Zabbix across several parameters based on our users' reviews. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: BMC TrueSight Operations Management's initial setup can be complex, depending on the environment and prerequisites, while Zabbix can range from easy to complex depending on technical skills and infrastructure. BMC TrueSight Operations Management is considered to have high pricing, suitable for enterprise customers, whereas Zabbix is free and open-source. The ROI of BMC TrueSight Operations Management is uncertain, while Zabbix has provided a return on investment for users, especially large enterprises. Customer support for both varies, with mixed reviews for BMC TrueSight Operations Management and varying experiences with Zabbix's support.
"The most valuable features of the solution are alert management, alert generation, and event management."
"From an administrative standpoint, what stands out in TrueSight is the ability to implement quickly. When they have a requirement to monitor something, we're able to turn that on quickly in their environment. We're able to set up new apps within a day."
"The solution provides visibility to our infrastructure, how it is, the resources we are monitoring, and quick updates when it has any problems. We have integrated it with ServiceNow to open instances."
"We have one application, which is fairly large. In the past, we had Level 1 and 2 NOC support teams who were responsible for watching dashboards. When they saw an issue in the application, they would call Level 2 or 3 support and escalate the call, if necessary. Now, through the use of this product, we have been able to reduce the headcount by five people, as we are able to eliminate the eyes on the glass. We no longer have people watching the dashboard. We have events which are processed automatically through the system and get to the right people. We had six people in L1s, and now have one. So, we reduced five out of six headcount, which is pretty significant."
"Its event management capabilities are very open and flexible. I haven't seen a use case scenario with a customer that we couldn't actually solve the problem for, so it's really good. There are some interesting things that happen in an enterprise network (things that people don't normally expect), and the event management product is very flexible. You can solve problems as far as your imagination can go with it."
"TSOM's ability to consolidate alerts into a single location and provide filtering of alerts is great."
"The solution has a very good business event manager tool."
"The fact that they have a very integrated relationship with Sentry Software, the Knowledge Module, is valuable... The richest feature for us is the number of Knowledge Modules that we can load into the product to add breadth of service to the customer. It enables us to move up the operational stack from hardware, to operating system, to application, and to cloud... That enables us to provide one pane of glass over all those layers - hardware, OS, app, and cloud."
"We like the user-interface for this solution, which makes it an easy to use tool."
"Our customers also like that they don't have to use multiple modules. Micro Focus and major vendors typically require you to buy several modules and plugins. Our customers do not like that. We offer them a single product for all their monitoring needs."
"It is a great product. The SNMP protocol tracking feature is good. I really like how it tracks SNMP. The alerts are also great."
"Dashboard and the customization of the items and triggers are the most valuable features."
"There is less computing power needed for scaling."
"Setup was straightforward. Initial deployment took two or three months."
"The initial setup was not complex."
"The integration with third-party tools and the alerts are most valuable."
"It would be better if the initial setup and deployment were more straightforward."
"I would like them to improve the deep-dive details, tracing, and data agents in this product. We have EUEM, an end-user experience monitoring appliance. This one's quicker than the current one, and reporting side and filtration side are very bad. There are many details we look at and explain what we receive information in the current one, but we cannot have historical data like we do with EUEM. We cannot have a powerful point to look for specific traffic from a specific application and a specific browser. We don't have it in the new one. The current BMC also needs to add the thing that control versions."
"In our company, we faced some issues with the solution’s application endpoint, IP, and the physical location of the transactions."
"The solution should improve predicting events and flaws in service. It also needs to improve integration with other systems."
"More modules for less popular applications and better documentation."
"The product must provide more AI capabilities."
"Specifically around application performance monitoring, BMC is definitely not the market leader. The Dynatraces, the New Relics and the like are more of the market leaders in that space. I would like to see them grow that space a little bit more aggressively. It has not really been their bread and butter."
"The pricing could be better."
"The product delivers false positives during reporting because of flapping. Other reasonably priced alternatives may have better performance."
"Implementing Zabbix is difficult. I've deployed many solutions over the years, and Zabbix is the hardest to implement. You have to do some development to get it to work with IBM, Micro Focus, or HP products."
"Zabbix isn't very good at automation just yet."
"Look and feel."
"Even though it’s such a powerful monitoring system, it would be more helpful if it had a flexible UI."
"I would like for this solution to be more cloud-friendly."
"Sometimes, the documentation is a little bit written in Estonia – a country in Europe. The language barrier and translation to English can sometimes make it difficult to understand what they're trying to get at. It's just a language thing."
"We would like to see the addition of automatic push functionality to this product. This would save time when monitoring our servers and networks as, at present, we have to manually install the Zabbix agent on any hardware to be monitored."
More BMC TrueSight Operations Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
BMC TrueSight Operations Management is ranked 17th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 49 reviews while Zabbix is ranked 10th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 101 reviews. BMC TrueSight Operations Management is rated 8.2, while Zabbix is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of BMC TrueSight Operations Management writes "The product is reasonably priced, but the solution is a little obsolete because it is deployed on-premise". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zabbix writes "Allows any number of customizations but lacks functionality for finding root causes". BMC TrueSight Operations Management is most compared with BMC Helix Monitor, Dynatrace, ServiceNow IT Operations Management, New Relic and Splunk ITSI (IT Service Intelligence), whereas Zabbix is most compared with Centreon, Checkmk, SolarWinds NPM, Nagios Core and Nagios XI. See our BMC TrueSight Operations Management vs. Zabbix report.
See our list of best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability vendors, best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors, and best Cloud Monitoring Software vendors.
We monitor all Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability 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.
