We performed a comparison between Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) and Nagios Log Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Log Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's easy to use."
"The features that I have found most valuable are its graphs - if I need any statistics, in Kubernetes or Kong level or VPN level, I can quickly get the reports."
"I like the monitoring feature."
"Google's technical support is very good."
"The cloud login enables us to get our logs from the different platforms that we currently use."
"Our company has a corporate account for Google Cloud and so our systems and clusters integrate really well."
"Provides visibility into the performance uptime."
"The most valuable feature is the multi-cloud integration, where there is support for both GCP and AWS."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Pros →
"The product is scalable."
"The initial setup of Nagios Log Server was easy and straightforward."
"One of the most valuable features is the dashboard because the UI was effective and easy to use. The alert systems are good as well. We had no failovers and had high availability. We can search the queries fast as well in Nagios Log Server."
"It provides an easy way to identify errors and spot issues, making troubleshooting more efficient."
"A great feature of the solution involves its internal portal."
"It is difficult to estimate in advance how much something is going to cost."
"The product provides minimal metrics that are insufficient."
"The logging functionality could be better."
"It could be even more automated."
"It could be more stable."
"This solution could be improved if it offered the ability to analyze charts, such as a solution like Kibana."
"Lacking sufficient operations documentation."
"While we are satisfied with the overall performance, in certain cases we must add additional metrics and additional tools like Grafana and Dynatrace."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Cons →
"The configurations during initial setup could be improved. If they could be agentless, as in the case of the Ansible product, it would be better. I would like to be able to analyze the network bandwidth."
"The support could be better."
"The customization and dashboards have shortcomings and need to be improved to make the tool look more presentable."
"As we are talking about a product which is open to the public, the pricing makes it challenging for us to profit off of its marketing."
"It would be beneficial for Nagios to incorporate a tool that goes beyond log management and includes features to monitor overall system health and assess the effectiveness of antivirus solutions."
More Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is ranked 27th in Log Management with 9 reviews while Nagios Log Server is ranked 38th in Log Management with 5 reviews. Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is rated 7.8, while Nagios Log Server is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) writes "Good logging and tracing but does need more profiling capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Nagios Log Server writes "A scalable and affordable tool for monitoring data centers ". Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) is most compared with AWS X-Ray, Datadog, Azure Monitor, Amazon CloudWatch and Grafana, whereas Nagios Log Server is most compared with Wazuh, Graylog, LogRhythm SIEM, syslog-ng and SolarWinds Kiwi Syslog Server. See our Google Cloud's operations suite (formerly Stackdriver) vs. Nagios Log Server report.
See our list of best Log Management vendors.
We monitor all Log Management 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.
