We performed a comparison between Catchpoint and Zabbix based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability 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 solution offers three different ways of slicing data to look for abnormalities."
"The drill-down feature of this product was very good. It allowed us to identify the exact page or area of the site that was causing our customers an issue."
"The thing I like most is the tech support in this company, because they have 24/7 chat support. We can chat immediately and ask them about an issue and they keep responding. They create tickets on our behalf and respond."
"Catchpoint's customer service and support are valuable."
"We really need the API monitoring, as well as client side session monitoring, the global synthetic monitoring, to track the availability of the systems from the customer side."
"Catchpoint helped us establish that something is in a provider network, so we could tell our customers to check their internet provider because the traffic is not getting to us. You need to be gentle when you tell them that, but the fact that we could do it was crucial."
"The best feature in Catchpoint is the alert or the notification my company gets frequently, in particular, every five minutes. It's the notification you get whenever a respective market has an issue. There's also a dashboard in Catchpoint that shows the markets you support, so all the markets will be highlighted graphically in the dashboard whenever there's downtime that could affect you. If there's no issue for a specific market, it will be in green, so in this way, anybody would be able to understand which market has issues and which market has no issues through Catchpoint. The tool is very useful for monitoring activities."
"Catchpoint provides a great amount of information."
"The solution is stable."
"Dashboard and the customization of the items and triggers are the most valuable features."
"Zabbix helps to save time."
"We like the user-interface for this solution, which makes it an easy to use tool."
"There are lots of great features and functionality within the solution."
"It's a very reliable platform and we've never had any issues regarding the scalability or the stability of Zabbix."
"Like other common Linux distributions, some of the most valuable features of this solution are the ease of use and deployment. It's simple and has a lot of packages and a lot of software."
"We are able to monitor our virtual infrastructure, virtual machines, windows servers, databases, and the network using a simple network management protocol. We are able to pull almost all the metrics that we want, receive notifications, and have them integrate with telegrams for certain devices that are critical, such as UPSs."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"The old user version was better, it was more user-friendly."
"Trending needs improvement. Currently, out-of-the-box, they provide only seven days availability. So, we have to do queries and we have to go into a separate analysis module, we have to run lot of queries to long-term trends."
"There's still too much manual involvement in getting customized test configurations out there. It's good, but it still takes a lot of effort. In other words, it's when you need to configure it to collect a specific variable and that kind of thing."
"Catchpoint can be improved by focusing solely on network monitoring."
"There are essentially a lot of quotas. Nobody wants to sit and manually create monitors for someone who uses synthetic monitoring."
"if we need to do performance analysis, we have to click too many times. For example, if there is an issue that is caught by Catchpoint, we need to understand what the error is and at which step it failed, or which transaction that is impacted. To drill down, we have to click too many things to get the answer."
"A large selection of nodes are available but it is a challenge to test reliably in China and the Middle East."
"We would like the script creation feature of this solution to be improved, as it currently requires a complicated manual process to update the scripts."
"The reports are not great and should be improved."
"There is a bit of a learning curve during installation."
"There are a lot of areas for improvement, specifically in the dashboards and reports functionalities."
"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."
"To improve Zabbix, adding more features to support the monitoring of modern workloads like containers would be beneficial."
"The solution needs to add remote features."
"I would like to see a more flexible mobile client, and better HA out of the box."
"Look and feel."
Catchpoint is ranked 20th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 12 reviews while Zabbix is ranked 10th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 100 reviews. Catchpoint is rated 8.2, while Zabbix is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Catchpoint writes "The UI is well designed, so it's easy to get the visibility you want". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zabbix writes "Allows any number of customizations but lacks functionality for finding root causes". Catchpoint is most compared with Dynatrace, ThousandEyes, Datadog, Splunk Enterprise Security and AppDynamics, whereas Zabbix is most compared with Centreon, Checkmk, SolarWinds NPM, Nagios Core and Nagios XI. See our Catchpoint vs. Zabbix report.
See our list of best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability vendors and best Network 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.
