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

Icinga vs OpenText Network Operations Management comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 10, 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

Icinga
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
44th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Server Monitoring (17th), IT Infrastructure Monitoring (50th), Cloud Monitoring Software (34th)
OpenText Network Operations...
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
59th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Network Management Applications (20th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of Icinga is 1.1%, down from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Network Operations Management is 0.4%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Monitoring Software Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Icinga1.1%
OpenText Network Operations Management0.4%
Other98.5%
Network Monitoring Software
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2292201 - PeerSpot reviewer
Innovation Service Manager at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
Easy to use, and it's possible to customize the product as per the needs we may have but average multi-tenancy aspect
It's supported by the community. We use Icinga, which is not part of the Open-Source platform but is wrapped into a commercial solution from another provider, a local provider in Italy. Icinga is an open-source platform, so it is supported by the community. It's quite easy to use, and it's possible to customize the product as per the needs we may have. So it's not expensive, and it's quite a general purpose. We can easily monitor any kind of infrastructure we encounter. 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. The alerting is the same as any other monitoring platform. It's not a "wow" feature that has changed our lives, but it's perfectly adequate.
AhmedBahgat - PeerSpot reviewer
Advisor at Saudi Telecom Company
Dynamic discovery and effective network topology make IT monitoring valuable
The solution enables dynamic discovery and incorporates a powerful configuration management database, CMDB, along with a strong correlation engine. It covers the entire span of the infrastructure, including servers and network operations. It also adapts well to different environments, showing network topology effectively, making the network monitoring tool quite valuable.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The value of Icinga is that it has hundreds of plugins, so it's really easy to monitor pretty much anything."
"I would recommend Icinga; it's an open-source solution, it's quite easy and simple to use, and checks can be run with Python code and Shell Script code."
"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."
"We have found the solution to be stable."
"I use it for monitoring infrastructure and it was very good for that issue."
"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."
"We monitor all, starting from UPS to international mail chains."
"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."
"When it comes to customization, Micro Focus is more mature than its competitors."
"The solution enables dynamic discovery and incorporates a powerful configuration management database, CMDB, along with a strong correlation engine."
"We can detect non-compliant devices and automate remediation actions to cover the gap in the configuration standards."
 

Cons

"The connection between Icinga and Icinga Web."
"Sometimes, it is very hard to keep an overview of what's happening."
"There is room for improvement in multi-tenancy. It's not perfect, not even really good. It's average, but it should be improved."
"Network Discovery capabilities would be extremely helpful."
"It needs Trap SNMP. I saw the documentation for Zabbix, that it has its own built-in product which handles SNMP traps, and there's nothing similar in Icinga or Nagios. I think this feature is most important for me."
"The solution lacks many features important to higher-level IT management and network support."
"We have found some problems with Nagios, and support isn't very responsive."
"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."
"Micro Focus Network Management doesn't support end-to-end monitoring of cloud infrastructure."
"Micro Focus Network Management doesn't support end-to-end monitoring of cloud infrastructure. Micro Focus might have different cloud solutions for cloud automation and hybrid cloud management. There are a lot of products that also support automation. That is different, but it should monitor the cloud from an IT operations management perspective."
"The user interface is outdated and needs improvement, especially for service and topology maps."
"It may need a more customizable UI."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This is an open-source solution with paid support."
"The solution is cheap."
"It is cost-effective, and the return on investment can be very interesting because the price is low."
"Even though Icinga's financial cost is low, it is an expensive product regarding the resources required to maintain and operate it."
"It's an open-source solution."
"We're using the free version of Icinga."
"The solution is free to use."
"The product is inexpensive compared to other DBM products."
"Micro Focus' price is on the higher side, but there are other products like CA products and IBM that are more expensive. At the same time, you have to compare the maturity level of the solutions."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
915,383 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
14%
Comms Service Provider
13%
University
12%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Construction Company
23%
Comms Service Provider
13%
Healthcare Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise8
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Network Operations Management?
The user interface is outdated and needs improvement, especially for service and topology maps. The ease of generating dashboards for different situations by users is critical for my environment. I...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Network Operations Management?
I use the solution as the main vehicle to monitor and alert about events in the IT environment. I use it for IT monitoring.
 

Also Known As

Icinga Cloud Monitoring
Micro Focus Network Operations Management
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Puppet Labs, Audi, Spacex, Debian, Snapdeal, McGill, RIPE Network Coordination Centre
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Icinga vs. OpenText Network Operations Management and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
915,383 professionals have used our research since 2012.