No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Cloudian HyperIQ vs PRTG Network Monitor comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cloudian HyperIQ
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
81st
Average Rating
10.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
PRTG Network Monitor
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
5th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
Network Monitoring Software (5th), Cloud Monitoring Software (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the IT Infrastructure Monitoring category, the mindshare of Cloudian HyperIQ is 0.3%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PRTG Network Monitor is 3.2%, down from 4.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
IT Infrastructure Monitoring Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
PRTG Network Monitor3.2%
Cloudian HyperIQ0.3%
Other96.5%
IT Infrastructure Monitoring
 

Featured Reviews

Kiran Rajanna - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Solutions Architect and Cloud Security Consultant at Cgi Deutschland KG
Includes a Grafana dashboard that helps to improve monitoring and reporting
The installation process needs to be improved, and the tool needs a better script. Cloudian HyperIQ runs on Docker containers. Sometimes, the file system gets filled. The tool needs to have separate Docker volumes in the installation script. The documentation for reporting needs to be improved. I am not able to generate reports using it. The alert mechanisms also need to be improved. It should integrate with AI and give more metrics to be taken up next year. We can show the response peak as an improvement to our leadership.
madhan kumar hs - PeerSpot reviewer
software engineer at Capgemini
Alerting precision has reduced incident response times and improved department-level network visibility
The auto-pause sensor during the maintenance window is good without any false alerts, and it prevents me from getting flooded with alerts during planned maintenance, helping department heads understand their own network usage better. It has reduced incident response time by giving clearer ownership of each alert, ensuring alerts go to the proper recipient. SNMP testers and auto-pause are among the best features of PRTG Network Monitor, which is particularly useful for different departments such as HR and finance, where alerts can be filtered accordingly. The alerting features and dashboard of PRTG Network Monitor are very helpful, especially in our industry. However, the dashboard can look cluttered on smaller screens, which is one negative aspect. PRTG Network Monitor has impacted us positively; we have stopped getting flooded with alerts during planned maintenance or unplanned outages. Compared to others, this gives specific alerts very quickly and helps department heads understand their own network usage better, thus reducing incident response time so that each alert has clear ownership.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The tool has a very good interface and helps to monitor the nodes and resources. The most valuable feature is the S3 dashboard. It helps in migration, and we can monitor the data for at least three months."
"It's very easy to manage when you've got time to do some work on it: things like adding devices, adding groups, adding sensor clusters, and being able to clone and move stuff around."
"PRTG Network Monitor helped us detect the failing RAID controller before it completely collapsed, allowing us to avoid potential data loss."
"The remote probe feature in PRTG Network Monitor helps you monitor remote systems or your network at a lower cost than other solutions."
"The solution is scalable."
"The best feature is that it lets me know what is going on. I need to know if something has gone down, I need to know if something is running very slowly. PRTG tells me that."
"The remote probes are very useful. They allow us to provide a reference across different areas in the network. In trying to localize issues, that's very useful."
"My company runs a large scale SAAS infrastructure with a large mix of technologies, and PRTG is the first software product we have used to accurately alert the right people of trouble."
"PRTG Network Monitor has positively impacted our organization by saving us a significant amount of money; during maintenance windows or patching, we used to receive false alerts, but since implementing PRTG, it has saved us thousands of dollars and has become a boon for us by providing convenience and being time and cost-saving."
 

Cons

"The installation process needs to be improved, and the tool needs a better script. Cloudian HyperIQ runs on Docker containers. Sometimes, the file system gets filled. The tool needs to have separate Docker volumes in the installation script. The documentation for reporting needs to be improved. I am not able to generate reports using it. The alert mechanisms also need to be improved. It should integrate with AI and give more metrics to be taken up next year. We can show the response peak as an improvement to our leadership."
"PRTG Network Monitor needs to enhance network performance monitoring. Moving towards observability, similar to what Datadog offers, could be beneficial."
"Improvements in data storage flexibility, such as allowing customers to specify data retention periods, would enhance PRTG."
"The dashboarding definitely needs improvement."
"I would like to have a VM version that can be installed on a cloud such as Azure. We're using Azure, and we're eliminating on-premise servers. It would be helpful to have a PRTG version that can be installed on the Azure cloud."
"I've encountered a challenge in my functions, particularly in adding and printing."
"I would like to see Office 365 monitoring. Essentially, it doesn't do it. I assumed not at all, but apparently it does it slightly. However, due to issues with APIs, they currently don't provide full monitoring for O365."
"It's expensive to maintain."
"The licensing policy needs more flexibility."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Cloudian HyperIQ's licensing is cheap."
"PRTG is now available as PRTG Enterprise Monitor, and the price varies depending on the total number of sensors the customer buys"
"Pricing for PRTG Network Monitor is a nine out of ten. It meets my company's budget and monitoring requirements. My company is on a perpetual license."
"We pay for PRTG Network Monitor annually. The price is approximately 10,000 rupees annually."
"Because we are only on the free version, we have a limited number of sensors. Therefore, we are not monitoring as much as we want to be to obtain historical information."
"The price is actually on the cheaper side. If you're going with the unlimited license code, it's very cheap compared to competitors unless you're going for something free, like Zabbix. But you get what you pay for, and it doesn't have the full suite of products or tools like SolarWinds or a ScienceLogic."
"If you are not too sure about it, try the free version. Then, if you like it, you can go to the paid version and roll it out."
"We used a product called SolarWinds in the past, and its cost was high. Whereas, PRTG came in at a third of SolarWind's cost."
"I rate the price of PRTG Network Monitor an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is a high price, and ten is a low price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions are best for your needs.
909,099 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user174738 - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Developer at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
May 31, 2015
Nagios vs. Zabbix vs. PRTG vs. Spiceworks vs. Solarwinds Network Performance Monitor
I have researched a quite a few network monitoring tools which can be used for various monitoring purposes of not only the servers, but the intermediate routers as well. There are majorly three types of these softwares. Ones which are completely open-source, you can do almost anything you want…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
11%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Healthcare Company
7%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business60
Midsize Enterprise19
Large Enterprise50
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is the best network monitoring software for large enterprises?
PRTG network monitor is one of the best tool i have ever used for the monitoring. It have auto discovery option. it avoid the configuring the device in PRTG. It automatically discover the device an...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PRTG Network Monitor?
The pricing was higher at the beginning, but the recurring licensing cost is affordable and reasonable. Overall, the pricing, setup cost, and licensing is fair for our industry. They have quoted us...
What needs improvement with PRTG Network Monitor?
The reporting features look very technical and that can be improved. If they can change the report so everyone can understand it, that would be helpful.
 

Also Known As

HyperIQ
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

University of Leicester, NTT Communications ICT Solutions , City of Montebello, WGBH Boston , Italian Service Provider Zuchetti Informatica
Jameson Bank, Sidnix, RungeICT, MedicalAnimal, Truck-lite, GamingGrids, The Covell Group, Forsythn County Schools, NetMass, Musgrove Park Hospital, Lanes Health, Columbia Southern University, Vodafone, Intrust Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Zabbix, Datadog, Splunk and others in IT Infrastructure Monitoring. Updated: July 2026.
909,099 professionals have used our research since 2012.