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

Goliath Performance Monitor vs PRTG Network Monitor comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 15, 2025

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

Goliath Performance Monitor
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
61st
Average Rating
7.6
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
PRTG Network Monitor
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
6th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
102
Ranking in other categories
Network Monitoring Software (5th), Cloud Monitoring Software (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the IT Infrastructure Monitoring category, the mindshare of Goliath Performance Monitor is 0.2%, down from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PRTG Network Monitor is 4.3%, down from 4.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
IT Infrastructure Monitoring
 

Featured Reviews

networke29316 - PeerSpot reviewer
Monitors well with Citrix, stable, and the support is very responsive
It looks like it is easy to scale, but I don't know how far it can go out. We are only a 300, or 400 person company. We are not terribly large. It looks like it should be able to scale up until 10,000 at least. There are two users in the company who use this solution, I use it, and the helpdesk.
Noman-Saleem - PeerSpot reviewer
Detects suden changes but significant pricing concerns affect the effectiveness of network traffic troubleshooting
We use PRTG Network Monitor for monitoring traffic on interfaces and the behavior of network traffic. If there are sudden changes in traffic or any configuration issues, we can sort them out using PRTG. It's very helpful for troubleshooting and monitoring traffic utilization on our interfaces…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I like that it not only has the ability to monitor but that it can do a lot of specific Citrix monitoring."
"Offers a diversity of features."
"The sensors and remote probes are phenomenal. We use them for all of our global sites. The problem with our global sites are that they are all VPNs. If the link goes down, you can't monitor other solutions, as it just goes off the grid. Having remote probes allows them to still carry on and get the information that we need when it comes back up, sending the information to us."
"The technical support seems to be quick, clever, and has a comprehensive knowledge base online, which is fantastic."
"The most valuable features of PRTG Network Monitor are the threshold notification when certain traffic increases and goes beyond the defined threshold. The up and down status email notifications and other notifications are useful. Additionally, it is user-friendly, and customizable, and there are many features available."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to span multiple technologies and multiple vendors."
"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."
"The email notifications are helpful, and the dashboards are user-friendly for people with little network monitoring knowledge."
"I think net flow is PRTG's most valuable feature because it doesn't cost much for us because the net flow sensor is already included in the PRTG license. We can monitor our traffic in our proxy and router."
"The product is simple and easy to implement."
 

Cons

"I would love to be able to tell what ISP the user is coming from."
"Issues with generating reports; consistency is not there."
"Along with more room for automation, more room for advanced configuration can be integrated into the solution."
"When using PRTG Network Monitor it is beneficial if you have prior experience with it, the user interface could improve."
"PRTG access works best from the web GUI. There are dedicated apps on Windows/Android/iOS, but they are slow and don’t work as well as the web GUI."
"PRTG's application monitoring sensor is not strong."
"The operations dashboard is only available in PRTG's enterprise version, but I wish it could be accessed in the standard licensing. It would also be nice if PRTG had templates for dashboard monitoring, software monitoring, etc. It can help me set up a dashboard because now we don't have a template from PRTG, so we need to create one from scratch."
"I would like to see a more robust platform and a new dashboard. In addition, the code is good, but it needs improvement."
"Once you start going above 5000 sensors, things do start to get a bit shaky. There are some best practice out there that you will need to adopt and be aware of."
"The icons on PRTG's network diagram are hard to find. For example, finding the icons for firewalls and servers is difficult, so we're struggling to create the network topology."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price seems reasonable."
"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."
"The price of PRTG is reasonable. PRTG's competitors like SolarWinds and ManageEngine charge more for the same functionality."
"The pricing is okay and it is cheaper than some competing products."
"We pay for a perpetual license and we have a support fee."
"We pay nothing for it. Its 100 sensors have allowed us to put a magnifying glass on some systems, providing an extra layer of detail. Therefore, our outgoing is nothing and our incoming is a lot of useful data that we can react to proactively."
"I would like better pricing models for smaller businesses. The free version is fantastic, but it's too restrictive. If they could just get up to 200 sensors for a reasonable fee for on-premise, I would give PRTG my credit card right now."
"We bought a license for 4000 sensors."
"The pricing is comparable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions are best for your needs.
861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user174738 - PeerSpot reviewer
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
Healthcare Company
22%
Computer Software Company
14%
University
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Educational Organization
21%
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Government
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 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 do you like most about PRTG Network Monitor?
The tool is integrated with our email for the alerts.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PRTG Network Monitor?
The pricing is in the middle. It's not too high, nor too low, but it's reasonable.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Walmart, Facebook, Xerox, UHS, ADP, Wyndham Worldwide
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 Goliath Performance Monitor vs. PRTG Network Monitor and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.