We performed a comparison between Checkmk and Infraon IMS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Monitoring Software 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 initial setup of Checkmk was easy...It is a very stable solution."
"The most valuable features of Checkmk are its resource monitoring, infra monitoring, and log factor configuration."
"It's versatile, scalable, and easier to use compared to other solutions like Nagios and OMD."
"We can monitor multiple sites using the product."
"I really like the auto-discovery feature."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it has a lot of different pieces, and they all work together...It is a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Their discovery is very quick and they have a CSV file upload mechanism that allows you to onboard five thousand devices a day."
"The most valuable feature is alerting. We get email alerts when a link is down that tell us which device is having a problem."
"It is a stable product. After the initial configuration, you don't have to tweak it much. All systems of Everest IMS work perfectly."
"Our response time is within 30 minutes for any support. This solution provides alerts immediately, so we are within our SLA, giving efficiency to our support."
"The backup, restore, and comparison features are all good."
"The feature that I like the most and the best part is the customization."
"The role-based dashboards provide data points and charts and topology diagrams in a single window. It's like a spider web, where the application, connectivity, and everything is defined for each user of those applications."
"We use the solution to automatically trigger processes to help us resolve issues. The whole IT process has been automated, such as trying to map all the users and the escalation process. So, if any issue happens, we get an SMS and WhatsApp of the report. If there is a critical issue this has to be sorted out, like the entire data center being down, then there is an alarm."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"If an alert is generated for a specific pattern in the log, and if Checkmk catches that log, it will stay there even after the alert is resolved."
"It is easy for tech-savvy people, but newcomers might find it intimidating."
"Sometimes we receive alerts, and it can become annoying when you acknowledge an alert. It is very clunky when you acknowledge the alert. The process is not very intuitive, and there are instances where it feels a bit cumbersome to acknowledge an alert."
"In Checkmk, the documentation can probably be improved a bit more."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"I think that the integration and the exporting of the data collected are areas where Checkmk lacks but should try to improve the most."
"I would like to have the option to add a new device or meet with the next release. Right now, it needs to be done from the backend which results in a heavy reliance on R&D."
"The graphical view of the topology does not show us all of the connectivity in our network, which is something that could be improved."
"We have enquired if there are any possibilities of monitoring non-IPBS devices."
"This solution is available in SaaS. The reason why we have not gone to SaaS is they do not have a country-specific separation of assets. There are GDPR and other requirements that might require country-specific sensitive information to be filtered as well as other things that need to be taken care of. Normally, if we need to do any compliance, like ISO27000 compliance, they don't have such a report within their system. This kind of report is missing from their SaaS. That is one of the reasons that we have gone to the on-prem version, where I am assured that my data is secure."
"Email support is a bit slow. Once you drop an email, it takes time."
"I would like to see an integrated view of Infraon IMS and Infraon Desk. It would be very helpful if that were integrated into the solution."
"The GUI is in need of improvement. It is not drag-and-drop or easy to use."
"There might be some features in other products that are currently not there in Everest IMS and can be included. I have not yet compared it with any other product."
Checkmk is ranked 21st in Network Monitoring Software with 6 reviews while Infraon IMS is ranked 82nd in Network Monitoring Software. Checkmk is rated 8.6, while Infraon IMS is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Checkmk writes "A reasonably priced tool for system and application monitoring". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Infraon IMS writes "Provides data accuracy for availability and policy harmonization". Checkmk is most compared with Zabbix, Icinga, Netdata, Centreon and Observium, whereas Infraon IMS is most compared with Zabbix and Microsoft Configuration Manager. See our Checkmk vs. Infraon IMS report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors, best Server Monitoring vendors, and best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all Network Monitoring Software 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.
