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

Icinga vs Statseeker comparison

 

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
27th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Server Monitoring (12th), IT Infrastructure Monitoring (31st), Cloud Monitoring Software (26th)
Statseeker
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
76th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
38
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of Icinga is 1.3%, down from 3.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Statseeker is 0.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Monitoring Software Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Icinga1.3%
Statseeker0.5%
Other98.2%
Network Monitoring Software
 

Featured Reviews

Harrison Bulley - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Infrastructure Engineer at Net Consulting
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.
JE
Team Leader at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
We can set up a dashboard to monitor the status of an entire site, which provides more insight into any issues across devices
One engineer is enough for the solution's maintenance. There has been a significant improvement in Statseeker in the last few versions. It includes a wallet map and features we plan to implement when deploying the latest or penultimate versions across all our sites. This will significantly assist in identifying sites surpassing thresholds or KPIs, making issue detection much more accessible. The threshold feature is handy for identifying delays and major outages. This graphical map enables us to quickly assess the scope of nationwide problems, allowing for swift action and efficient reporting to management and service providers. This tool facilitates monitoring by visualizing all network elements with their respective coordinates, highlighting any downtimes or issues through color-coded green for operational, orange for approaching thresholds, yellow for minor alarms, and red for critical issues. The tool is a monitoring tool that helps in identifying problems. It is necessary to have someone trained to set up the dashboards because they might require some programming or specific configuration skills. Once it's configured, it works well. It's not as straightforward as other tools where you plug in the device, and everything works. With Statseeker, you still need to put in some effort to set up your dashboard properly. It requires someone with good training and proficiency in setting up these dashboards. They can benefit the technical and operations teams, providing useful insights into the network and the executive management team to receive reports on the overall network health. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"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."
"If you have a small infrastructure or a small number of devices that you want to monitor, then I think it's a good solution."
"We have found the solution to be stable."
"We monitor all, starting from UPS to international mail chains."
"It is really easy in Icinga to create your own plugin and integrate it without any fuss. And it works just perfectly fine."
"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 use it for monitoring infrastructure and it was very good for that issue."
"I like this product and would recommend it to a colleague at another company."
"It is very scalable, stable, easy to use and manage."
"The solution reduces the complexity of our network monitoring because it can make my engineers do their jobs faster. The solution also reduces troubleshooting time for network administrators to pinpoint issues quicker."
"We can quickly see at a glance the overall status of devices on the network."
"Customer service is excellent, with a brilliant support team that is always responsive and always positive."
"We are a smaller enterprise, but we're watching approximately fifteen-thousand switchboards with no problem at all."
"This solution allowed us to track down trouble users."
"If you need a product that's able to monitor all the ports in your environment or all the ports that you want, this is a great product to use."
 

Cons

"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."
"There is room for improvement in multi-tenancy. It's not perfect, not even really good. It's average, but it should be improved."
"The installation and configuration are very complex."
"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."
"It is not really adequate for our current needs. It causes additional issues which we have to work around and takes us time that a better solution would not."
"Icinga’s automation could be improved."
"At this time, the layout of the website is a bit difficult. It should be more user-friendly for changing the background and logos."
"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."
"Some of their basic licensing model is a bit of a ripoff."
"I would like to see the solution incorporate diagnosis of the workstation."
"I'd say the interface could improve a little bit. I find with new users, I tend to have to spend a bit of time walking them through how to use the interface. It could be a little more user friendly."
"We would like to see improvements in reporting and multiple-user integration."
"If it had more detailed NetFlow information then it would be far better."
"That user interface for selecting things needs to be a little more intuitive."
"I would like to see a friendlier user interface in the administration tool."
"I would like to see a friendlier user interface in the administration tool."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's an open-source solution."
"The product is inexpensive compared to other DBM products."
"We're using the free version of Icinga."
"This is an open-source solution with paid support."
"The solution is free to use."
"Even though Icinga's financial cost is low, it is an expensive product regarding the resources required to maintain and operate it."
"The solution is cheap."
"It is cost-effective, and the return on investment can be very interesting because the price is low."
"This tool would probably be priced well if it had deeper NetFlow capabilities, but for our use case, in particular, we're only recovering ports after ninety days and looking at circuit congestion, it's pretty pricey."
"Compared to other solutions such as Zabbix and AKiPS, this solution is very well priced."
"We paid $5,000 to $10,000 a year in maintenance."
"The licensing cost is yearly and it's $5,000 to $8,000, I think."
"We pay somewhere between $5,000 and $8,000 yearly in licensing fees."
"We now feel the pricing is a good value. Previously we had a just a normal license but now we've got an Enterprise license. Since the Enterprise, it's been a lot better value. We did think it was pretty expensive before, but with the Enterprise license it's almost less than half that price. If you have a number of accounts within the organization that use Statseeker, I would suggest get the Enterprise license."
"One thing that needs improvement is how it's licensed. I understand historically the company licensed it off a same charge for everyone. I understand the company needs to make money, but how they introduced the tiered licensing model, and then multiple layers of licensing was a bit of an issue. So, on the whole, coming up with a licensing model that isn't confusing and complicated and is easy to understand would be one way to improve the product. They have told me lately that they're changing how they license stuff, but they haven't made that - as I understand it - in their marketing material public knowledge as of yet. I would say that at the moment it's a bit convoluted. It's confusing. Some of their basic licensing model is a bit of a ripoff. If you go over five or ten support calls in the basic licensing model they start charging you for support calls. I think that's a bit rich."
"It would definitely be a yearly licensing cost, but I don't know what it is."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
894,807 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
14%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Marketing Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise8
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise34
 

Questions from the Community

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...
What is your primary use case for Icinga?
We use Icinga as a monitoring solution to monitor customers' infrastructures. We work as a managed service provider, so we offer monitoring and many other services to our customers. So we use it in...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Icinga Cloud Monitoring
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Puppet Labs, Audi, Spacex, Debian, Snapdeal, McGill, RIPE Network Coordination Centre
With active deployments in over 22 countries and many Fortune 100 firms, Statseeker monitors millions of interfaces in real-time. Some example customers include: FedEx, Optus, Verizon, California State University, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Monash University, Texas A&M University.
Find out what your peers are saying about Icinga vs. Statseeker and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
894,807 professionals have used our research since 2012.