Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Evanios vs Icinga comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 9, 2024

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

Evanios
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
65th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Event Monitoring (17th), IT Operations Analytics (18th)
Icinga
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
25th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Network Monitoring Software (17th), Server Monitoring (12th), Cloud Monitoring Software (18th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the IT Infrastructure Monitoring category, the mindshare of Evanios is 0.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Icinga is 4.0%, up from 2.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
IT Infrastructure Monitoring
 

Featured Reviews

DM
Customizable solution that provides the ability to ingest alerts from different systems
The price could be cheaper. That was one reason why we switched to PagerDuty. We wanted to switch to something that provided the same features but at a lower cost. We also switched because PagerDuty provided other features like integration with ServiceNow and the scheduling of engineers. Evanios was only for event integration. Evanios created too much noise. For every alert, it would create an incident. We received too many alerts and incidents from monitoring. It wasn't able to intelligently ingest alerts. It created 4,000 incident tickets in a month, which didn't reflect what was happening. If we received an alert, the synthetic monitoring and volume drop would give us the same alert. Evanios should include alert ingestion and de-duplication of alerts and noise reduction. We couldn't have people resolving each and every incident. PagerDuty gives us reports on how many alerts are being ingested, how many are noise, how many have bigger incidents, and which of the alerts are creating noise. It would be helpful if Evanios had metrics on the amount of alerts and types of the alerts to show which ones were serious incidents and which ones were just noise.
Harrison Bulley - PeerSpot reviewer
A stable, scalable and cost-effective solution that helps with inbuilt scripts for easy modification
I think the software is quite good, but we have had problems with getting it to recognize certain areas and amend certain checks, where we needed so we would have to create backend scripts for those checks. Though, being open source, it has the support to create backend scripts, it would be better to have these scripts in-built.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The ability to manipulate events via JavaScript getting the exact data that we want."
"Provided up to a 90% noise reduction in some our noisy monitoring tools."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with various alert-generating systems because you might have synthetic alerts or monitoring alerts for volume drops."
"It is really easy in Icinga to create your own plugin and integrate it without any fuss. And it works just perfectly fine."
"Icinga has multiple automation and integration features. There is an API for everything and a web UI for configurations. The APIs enable you to automate tasks in Icinga. We can also use plugins to talk to the API. The Icinga Director talks to a database in the background, and you can import settings from the CMDB to all systems in Icinga."
"The drafts are easy but what I like about Icinga is that there are many add-ons that you can download."
"The apply rules feature saves a lot of time."
"I like the ability to amend and adjust things really easily, which is useful in a case where you could make it auto-discover and then set a template to say all of these applications or servers under this template have an automatic threshold set that you’d set up manually."
"The value of Icinga is that it has hundreds of plugins, so it's really easy to monitor pretty much anything."
"There's a module called Icinga Director, which helps us configure the product using an intuitive interface through clicks instead of creating a text configuration. It's very helpful for us."
"The ability to customize scripts and build your own queries to request information from the infrastructure elements you want to monitor. This level of personalization and customization is highly appreciated."
 

Cons

"More complex correlation rules would be nice. The ability to clearly define a parent event in a correlation and nested correlations, specifically."
"The price could be cheaper."
"We would like the ability to have an "exit" option for events when they are being processed."
"We have found some problems with Nagios, and support isn't very responsive."
"At this time, the layout of the website is a bit difficult. It should be more user-friendly for changing the background and logos."
"The installation and configuration are very complex."
"I think the software is quite good, but we have had problems with getting it to recognize certain areas and amend certain checks, where we needed so we would have to create backend scripts for those checks. Though, being open source, it has the support to create backend scripts, it would be better to have these scripts in-built."
"In general, the product does not look good. However, it does what it is supposed to do. So, the improvements should focus on usability and UI."
"Icinga’s automation could be improved."
"The solution lacks many features important to higher-level IT management and network support."
"Icinga is a complex solution that's hard to learn. It's a powerful product for monitoring, but new users will have a hard time figuring out what to do."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The solution is cheap."
"The solution is free to use."
"We're using the free version of Icinga."
"The product is inexpensive compared to other DBM products."
"It's an open-source solution."
"Even though Icinga's financial cost is low, it is an expensive product regarding the resources required to maintain and operate it."
"It is cost-effective, and the return on investment can be very interesting because the price is low."
"This is an open-source solution with paid support."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions are best for your needs.
861,803 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Icinga?
The best thing about the solution is how it highlights errors, the issues, and what needs my attention. The solution directs me to areas that I should look for first.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Icinga?
It is cost-effective, and the return on investment can be very interesting because the price is low. If you want to include this product in the services you offer to your customers, the return on i...
What needs improvement with Icinga?
There is room for improvement in multi-tenancy. It's not perfect, not even really good. It's average, but it should be improved. For instance, multi-tenancy for monitoring the virtual infrastructur...
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Also Known As

No data available
Icinga Cloud Monitoring
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Greenville Health System, Land O’Lakes, AstraZeneca
Puppet Labs, Audi, Spacex, Debian, Snapdeal, McGill, RIPE Network Coordination Centre
Find out what your peers are saying about Evanios vs. Icinga and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
861,803 professionals have used our research since 2012.