We performed a comparison between Checkmk and Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I really like the auto-discovery feature."
"The most valuable features of Checkmk are its resource monitoring, infra monitoring, and log factor configuration."
"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."
"It's versatile, scalable, and easier to use compared to other solutions like Nagios and OMD."
"The initial setup of Checkmk was easy...It is a very stable solution."
"We can monitor multiple sites using the product."
"The ability to create custom dashboards is one of the best features and that's typically why most people deploy Splunk. Users can create dashboards for just about anything."
"The initial setup was straightforward. We didn't find it to be too complex."
"The Add data feature lets you gather any type of log and easily analyze it."
"Great monitoring of network devices."
"It can monitor, get the data, and then report on the data."
"It's a very easy-to-use solution."
"The vibrant dashboards are valuable."
"Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring gives us complete visibility without the need for storage."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"It is easy for tech-savvy people, but newcomers might find it intimidating."
"In Checkmk, the documentation can probably be improved a bit more."
"The implementation can be more user-friendly."
"There is a lot of room for improvement with the automation."
"The clustering part of indexes can be more refined."
"Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring's data analytics can be improved by including suggestions for various types of continuous monitoring."
"The solution's stability is an area that has room for improvement. It needs to provide constant stability to its users."
"They need more EDR functionalities."
"The end-to-end visibility is lacking because Splunk cannot directly monitor network devices."
"Splunk would be better if some tools were integrated to be able to take action on security or network concerns."
More Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring Pricing and Cost Advice →
Checkmk is ranked 20th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 6 reviews while Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring is ranked 13th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 24 reviews. Checkmk is rated 8.6, while Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Checkmk writes "A reasonably priced tool for system and application monitoring". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring writes "Helps to ingest a massive amount of raw data and use it effectively". Checkmk is most compared with Zabbix, Icinga, Netdata, Centreon and Observium, whereas Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring is most compared with ServiceNow IT Operations Management, Nagios XI, Amazon CloudWatch, Cisco Intersight and ITRS Geneos. See our Checkmk vs. Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring report.
See our list of best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors and best Cloud Monitoring Software vendors.
We monitor all IT Infrastructure Monitoring 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.
