We performed a comparison between Microsoft System Center and Zabbix based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Monitoring Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We like Microsoft System Center's Operations Manager. That is primarily why we use it."
"System Center helps to create the basis for ITIL alignment."
"The detail in the alarms is great."
"The availability performance matrix and the reporting capabilities are the solution's most valuable features."
"Good for managing and administering the infrastructure."
"The deployment and asset management features are the most valuable. These are the product's main features."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft System Center is its GUI (graphical user interface)."
"Many processes could be implemented out-of-the-box, and this helped to adopt processes in areas which we lacked."
"The most valuable feature is that it provides network segregation for server monitoring."
"It meets my organizational needs. It's pretty easy to use."
"The solution allows you to configure and customize how you want to collect information from servers or other systems."
"Setup was straightforward. Initial deployment took two or three months."
"The most valuable feature is monitoring."
"The initial setup was very quick. The first time it was long because I didn't know it yet. I was only using Windows. The first time was very difficult because of the operating system."
"Zabbix helps to save time."
"They've already added extra features, such as noise-canceling and facial recognition, which is great."
"Could be more user friendly."
"Implementation and integration in the case of multi-tenant environments needs improvement."
"Less server consumption would help, as would better, more flexible reports."
"They should have some customized solutions or internal development, then maybe it could be easier to use different solutions or some self-developed solution."
"The platform performance and responsiveness need improvement. It still demands high computing resources."
"In Microsoft System Center, it is difficult to follow the steps to create dataflows at times."
"The solution's dashboard needs improvement."
"System Center hasn't updated to keep up with the industry. It needs improvements in the user interface, ease of use, and overall product functionality, particularly the cloud-monitoring features. It needs more capabilities to monitor AWS and Azure infrastructure."
"Implementing Zabbix is difficult. I've deployed many solutions over the years, and Zabbix is the hardest to implement. You have to do some development to get it to work with IBM, Micro Focus, or HP products."
"In the next release, I'm hoping for features targeted towards larger users with more customizable options. Despite this, I think pre-canned reports that can be used straight out of the box would be beneficial rather than having to configure each report individually. Additionally, a deeper dive into software configurations on the machines would be useful, although I understand there may be challenges in implementing this due to scripting requirements. More documentation would also be appreciated."
"The stability could be better."
"Its UI needs to be improved a little bit more so that an end-user is also able to handle it. I can handle it, but others should also be able to handle it in a better way. It becomes complex when we are growing and need to add proxies. We need more scalability features and documentation for different use cases. A lot of articles are available, but they need to be in proper documentation. For example, when you have thousands of servers that have to be monitored in different regions of the world, there should be some kind of documentation to describe how you can create proxies and add them. Sometimes, when you are using the database, it can get overloaded. When the network is growing, the number of transactions becomes very high, and the database gets overloaded. There should be information about how to reduce the load on the MySQL database, which is what Zabbix is using. The market is growing a lot, and it should be enhanced for a lot more things. We are currently bringing enhancements at our end for different use cases. For example, when dockerization is going on, how can we check the logs inside the Dockers. We should also be able to monitor and check the number of logins and add features such as SSO login and two-factor authentication as a protocol. These are the security features and concerns that we have to deal with. Currently, we are developing modules to add features to Zabbix, but they should also work on these features."
"There are a lot of areas for improvement, specifically in the dashboards and reports functionalities."
"Implementation is always tailored to the customer and the kind of information we need from the client to carry it out can make them very uncomfortable. Sometimes the clients are not ready to share it."
"We had some scalability issues with a large number of nodes."
"I had problems using Zabbix when working with SUSE Enterprise; many companies use SUSE."
Microsoft System Center is ranked 29th in Cloud Monitoring Software with 17 reviews while Zabbix is ranked 2nd in Cloud Monitoring Software with 100 reviews. Microsoft System Center is rated 7.8, while Zabbix is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft System Center writes "Good review of configurations, effective antivirus administration, and has weekly reports". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zabbix writes "Allows any number of customizations but lacks functionality for finding root causes". Microsoft System Center is most compared with Oracle SOA Suite, whereas Zabbix is most compared with Centreon, Checkmk, SolarWinds NPM, Nagios Core and Nagios XI. See our Microsoft System Center vs. Zabbix report.
See our list of best Cloud Monitoring Software vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Monitoring Software 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.
