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

HPE OneView vs Zenoss Cloud 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

HPE OneView
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
27th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
84
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Zenoss Cloud
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
51st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Application Infrastructure (26th), Event Monitoring (13th), Network Monitoring Software (75th), Server Monitoring (24th), Container Monitoring (7th), Cloud Monitoring Software (42nd), AIOps (25th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the IT Infrastructure Monitoring category, the mindshare of HPE OneView is 1.2%, down from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Zenoss Cloud is 0.9%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
IT Infrastructure Monitoring Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
HPE OneView1.2%
Zenoss Cloud0.9%
Other97.9%
IT Infrastructure Monitoring
 

Featured Reviews

SA
Sr. Systems Engineer at a media company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Efficient management and upgrades streamline complex setups
My main complaint is about the blades on the frames, which seem to have a lot of problems. We often have to call HPE for replacements, such as for memory. Constant issues arise, leading to frequent replacement of blade parts. Additionally, the upgrade process is lengthy, requiring careful planning as we cannot match ESXi versions without aligning OneView first, leading to delays.
ClaudiaChen - PeerSpot reviewer
Cloud Architect - Senior Technology Architect at Telstra
Generates close to real-time alerts so users can resolve issues, but needs more integration and public cloud monitoring features
As Zenoss Service Dynamics is more for network-centric devices and you want to monitor, for example, a server, its services, IP addresses, and interfaces, if it's a network and you're going to monitor multiple items, you'll be charged multiple times. This is what Zenoss Service Dynamics needs to improve to make sure that customers pay just one fee to monitor the entire server. What I'd like to see in Zenoss Service Dynamics in the future is a public cloud monitoring feature, particularly for the Azure public cloud. Another additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of the solution is integration with the Azure public cloud because I know that there are some services from Azure that Zenoss Service Dynamics is currently unable to monitor.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It enables you to view the entire infrastructure, and if you have blades, storage, or any HPE environment, it enables you to manage it in a single pane, and it is easy to manage."
"It's great because it tracks warranty and support status but it also gives me the ability to go in and configure server profiles."
"Its ease of use and that it is a single-pane-of-glass are the most valuable features."
"Overall, OneView is a fantastic replacement for Virtual Connect Manager and it's a fantastic replacement for Insight Manager."
"The single-pane-of-glass and a full view of the environment are the most valuable features."
"Its ease of use, i.e., just being able to easily deploy a server is the most valuable feature."
"I definitely recommend OneView; if you are an HPE shop, it's the way of the future."
"Easy to see if all my servers are on correct firmware levels, with SPP packaging."
"Its Docker Container concept is mind blowing. It is the first monitoring tool which comes with Docker features."
"The custom built integration is one of the most valuable features because you can see all the especially critical items."
"It's easy to use."
"What I like most about Zenoss Service Dynamics is that it monitors the devices and gives close to real-time alerts. For example, in case the device is not available, Zenoss Service Dynamics generates an alert so my team can resolve the issue."
"What I like most about Zenoss Service Dynamics is that it monitors the devices and gives close to real-time alerts, for example, in case the device is not available, Zenoss Service Dynamics generates an alert so my team can resolve the issue."
"Its Docker Container concept is mind blowing."
"The product offers good documentation that helps with initial training."
"They have also accommodated many state-of-the-art technologies like Docker and ZooKeeper."
 

Cons

"It needs to support more types of equipment. Some types of equipment we have are not supported with OneView, so we cannot monitor those on OneView."
"There is room for improvement, especially with the speed of things."
"I think HPE could make more user-friendly interfaces, exclude Java and move to an HTML5 platform, make more detailed documentation, and lower the price."
"I would like to see a change in the GUI, so that you can navigate easier."
"To be honest, we've been having some issues with the stability of the product."
"In OneView, we only have the web interface to check the switch. It lacks flexibility."
"We've had a few issues. We just upgraded to the 3.9.0 version. We think that now that we are on that version, hopefully a lot of those things are going to go away for us."
"I would love the ability to either import a range of IPs for the ILO, or be able to do a scan."
"As Zenoss Service Dynamics is more for network-centric devices and you want to monitor, for example, a server, its services, IP addresses, and interfaces, if it's a network and you're going to monitor multiple items, you'll be charged multiple times."
"It would be ideal if the product offered sound alerts."
"Technical support is 3/10, poor: Incomplete and poor documentation Undocumented processes Inconsistent solutions to problems depending on source"
"There is room for improvement with the administrative part. They introduced Control Center to manage things in Zenoss 5. The services that Zenoss provides remained the same, but the administrative part, since they introduced Docker, etc., has become a little complex"
"Now it is stable, but they should design threshold parameters in percentage instead of raw values."
"This solution is complex for beginners so it takes some time to learn."
"The inclusion of a feature to show a graphical view of the network would be a helpful improvement."
"There was a problem with Zenoss and storage monitoring."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I would rate the cost as six out of ten."
"HPE had some other solutions, but they were actually quite expensive to buy. So, when OneView came along, it was kind of reasonable in terms of price for licenses, etc."
"HPE could lower the price."
"This license cost for OneView was $3,000 USD."
"I think that the price of OneView is $500 USD per server, which is a little high."
"The solution is free to use, but if you want the management aspect you require a virtual machine such as C7000 or Synergy which require licenses."
"​I am happy with the price."
"​Use it. It is free."
"The pricing depends on the environment, the number of services, and the size of the data center. It can go from $100,000 to a million dollars."
"It is very cost-effective compared to the tools I worked with in the past. The company is gaining a lot with respect to the cost factor. It provides agentless monitoring and in a very cheap way."
"It depends on the customer, what he wants."
"There are additional costs you'll have to pay apart from the license fee for Zenoss Service Dynamics. I can't remember exactly how much my company is paying because I don't handle the finance part, but the cost is paid annually. On a scale of one to five, with one being the cheapest and five being the most expensive, I'm rating the solution three out of five."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions are best for your needs.
885,667 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Healthcare Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Transportation Company
8%
Performing Arts
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise15
Large Enterprise51
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Large Enterprise5
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with HPE OneView?
From the dashboard and reporting perspective, HPE OneView could be improved by having multiple modules rather than just a single customization option.
What is your primary use case for HPE OneView?
The typical use case for HPE OneView addresses a shift from manual monitoring, where clients needed to log in to the server every hour. After integrating everything on HP Service Manager and HP Ope...
What advice do you have for others considering HPE OneView?
Regarding the integration capabilities of HPE OneView with platforms such as VMware, SAP, or other platforms, I work for Telecom VAS servers, for SMSC, CMC, and CRB. We already have an HP team in p...
What is the best network monitoring software for large enterprises?
In my experience, I worked with many monitoring software, but the one that gave me the most functionalities of a large-scale company is Zenoss, due to its ability to monitor completely hybrid and a...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

HP OneView
Cloud Monitoring, Zenoss Service Dynamics
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Asante, ITS Nordics, Columbus Communications, Mansfield Oil
2degrees, Rackspace, State of North Dakota, El Paso Independent School District, NWN Corporation
Find out what your peers are saying about HPE OneView vs. Zenoss Cloud and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
885,667 professionals have used our research since 2012.