Nagios Core vs Pico Corvil Analytics comparison

Nagios and PICO are both solutions in the Network Monitoring Software category. Nagios is ranked #11 with an average rating of 8.2, while PICO is ranked #73. Nagios holds a 3.0% mindshare in NMS, compared to PICO’s 0.5% mindshare. Additionally, 80% of Nagios users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of PICO users who would recommend it.

Nagios Core

Read 51 Nagios Core reviews

4,161 Views
3,242 Comparison Views

80% willing to recommend

Pico Corvil Analytics

Read 9 Pico Corvil Analytics reviews

955 Views
429 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Nagios Core

Pico Corvil Analytics

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 10, 2024

Pico Corvil Analytics and Nagios Core compete in network performance monitoring. Data suggests Pico Corvil has the upper hand with advanced analytics, while Nagios is preferred for its open-source flexibility.

Features: Pico Corvil offers real-time traffic analysis, detailed packet inspection, and intuitive data visualization. Nagios Core provides robust monitoring configurations, plugin support, and alerting for various IT infrastructure components.

Room for Improvement: Pico Corvil could improve its cost, broaden its open-source support, and enhance customizability. Nagios might benefit from more guided deployment, improved vendor support, and streamlined integration.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Pico Corvil offers a guided deployment model with strong vendor support, streamlining enterprise integration. Nagios Core requires more manual setup but offers comprehensive documentation and community support.

Pricing and ROI: Pico Corvil involves a higher initial setup cost but promises significant returns through detailed insights and proactive issue resolution. Nagios Core, being free and open-source, offers a lower entry cost but might impact ROI due to customization and maintenance resources.

To learn more, read our detailed Nagios Core vs. Pico Corvil Analytics Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Nagios Core vs. Pico Corvil Analytics

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 850,671 peers since 2012

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

Nagios Core

Ranking in Network Monitoring Software

11th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

IT Infrastructure Monitoring (13th)

Pico Corvil Analytics

Ranking in Network Monitoring Software

73rd

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of Nagios Core is 3.0%, up from 3.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Pico Corvil Analytics is 0.5%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Network Monitoring Software

Featured Reviews

Nishith-Vyas

Tech Lead at STL Digital Limited

Valuable reporting and alert system with room for PDF export improvements

The NetEase reporting structure needs improvement, especially the availability report, which is weak. It should be generated automatically with minimal human intervention and should be exportable as a PDF. Besides that, an integrated PDF export feature for reports is necessary. Also, the alert mechanism and graphing mechanism need to be integrated properly into Nagios Core. Currently, integrating these requires advanced Linux knowledge. Integration of more visualization tools like Grafana and Prometheus for better graphing and visualization is also recommended.

Read full review

Ted Hruzd

Founder at AI Fit LLC

Helpful support agents, beneficial issue detection, and high availability

The creation of charts and real-time windows was somewhat cumbersome. The vendor's website had an application called App Agent that required improvement. This API was designed to track message rates between microservers ingested into a microservice memory map. It allowed users to monitor the number of transactions that occurred at specific points within the application, and it was quite impressive. However, it had some limitations, and it mainly served as a tool for basic tracking. The protocols it employed could reveal the type of server-to-server communication and the specific order types, but it was not able to provide a more in-depth analysis of the application. The vendor has the potential to integrate application metrics more extensively into their product suite. The product suite could benefit from more out-of-the-box predictive analytics capabilities, such as projecting market or symbol movements. However, it is unclear whether the vendor currently provides this functionality. Users may need to adjust their software to perform such analysis independently.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We use the product to monitor server applications."

"It has made the life of the network operations staff more proactive in managing the resources of the infrastructure. It prevents disasters long before they can take place."

"It is fairly easy to set up, and we can monitor pretty much everything we want to."

"Alert calls occur anytime a service goes down or a matrix is difficult and that helps us to quickly restore service and transfer work."

"Key features include the GUI interface, its notification capabilities, and the real-time reporting."

"Nagios Core is very configurable. Whatever you want, you can do it."

"The reporting structure and the feature set are valuable to me."

"Dashboard provides monitor of total assets."

More Nagios Core pros

"We like the dashboards because they essentially organize all the sessions into one viewpoint."

"The analytics features of Corvil are really good... As long as you know what the field is in the message, you can build your metrics based on that field... It means you can do the analytics that you actually care for. You can customize it..."

"The performance metrics are pretty good. We've got everything from the network layer to the actual application layer. We can see what's going on with things like sending time and batching."

"We use the data to analyze how much time we spend within the applications. Then, based on that, we are doing multiple analyses and types of investigations to work on reducing the amount of time spent on the latency, which helps our applications."

"Time-series graphs are very good for performance analysis. We can do comparisons... We can say this is the latency in the last 24 hours, and this was the same 24-hour period a week ago and overlay the two time-series graphs on top of each other, so we can see the difference. That's a really powerful tool for us."

"We're able to quickly drill down and find answers to events that are happening in real-time, using Corvil's analytics tools. That's the feature which is most in the spotlight..."

"As part of my role in monitoring multiple client connections, I would use Pico Corvil Analytics to set up alerts for performance issues, such as TCP resends and dropped packets. These alerts would trigger when the volume was low and performance was poor, allowing me to work with our trading partners to find a resolution. I would present them with the statistics I had and together, we would identify the source of the issue. This collaboration resulted in the client often reconfiguring their systems. For example, we may find that a network connection needed to be made. Overall, this proactive approach helped to maintain strong connections with our clients and minimize disruptions to trading revenue."

"What is most valuable is the ability to troubleshoot when a client complains of spikes in latencies. It gives us the ability to go granular, all the way down to looking at the network packets and analyze them."

More Pico Corvil Analytics pros

Cons

"The NetEase reporting structure needs improvement, especially the availability report, which is weak."

"It is a bit slow due to latency."

"The interface could be improved."

"The dashboard should be improved."

"Would benefit from aggregations if a particular server goes down."

"Making it a little easier to configure and set up from the start would help. There are multiple layers that you have to wade through to be able to set it up, to do it the right way, and to get it to do what you want it to do."

"There is room for improvement in the graphics."

"I would like to see a sensor that shows the traffic of a user and what they're doing on the network."

More Nagios Core cons

"There is definitely room for improvement in the reporting. We've tried to use the reporting in Corvil but, to me, it feels like a bolt-on, like not a lot of thought has gone into it. The whole interface where you build reports and schedule them is very clunky."

"While the product is scalable, it's not easy to scale. It needs investment hardware and network bandwidth consideration. It's not something you can just do overnight."

"For FIX protocol, maybe we could have built-in configurations for signatures and decoders. Also, for certain protocols, which are newer, we would like to just add the signatures within the decoders itself."

"It's quite difficult to see, sometimes, how hard your Corvil is working. When we had a very busy feed that chucked out a lot of data it wasn't working very well on Corvil. We had to raise a case for it. It turned out to be that, in fact, we were overloading Corvil."

"Overall, the Corvil device needs a little bit of training for people to handle it. If that could be reduced and made more user-friendly, more intuitive, it would be better."

"The analytics feature is very nice, but it's mostly software. We are hoping that it could be embedded in ASICs, so it could be faster."

"The creation of charts and real-time windows was somewhat cumbersome. The vendor's website had an application called App Agent that required improvement. This API was designed to track message rates between microservers ingested into a microservice memory map. It allowed users to monitor the number of transactions that occurred at specific points within the application, and it was quite impressive. However, it had some limitations, and it mainly served as a tool for basic tracking. The protocols it employed could reveal the type of server-to-server communication and the specific order types, but it was not able to provide a more in-depth analysis of the application. The vendor has the potential to integrate application metrics more extensively into their product suite."

"Before I got the Corvil training... one thing that was not very efficient was that every time you had to create a new stream or a new session from within Corvil... you had to tell it what protocol the message is going to come through and how to correlate messages, etc... After I went for the training, they had already added these nice features in the 9.4 version where it could do auto-discovery... Based on the traffic that it has already seen, it could create sessions on the fly."

More Pico Corvil Analytics cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Most the plugin features are free."

"Nagios Core is a cheap solution."

"Lessening the price point would be an improvement."

"It's free."

"We are using the free version of Nagios Core."

"The enterprise version has technical support. The version we are using is free."

"It's free."

"We are using the open-source, unpaid version."

More Nagios Core pricing and cost advice

"The pricing is very expensive. Corvil could work on the pricing."

"I like the way they've decoupled the hardware now... Everything's based on the licensing side now. The way they do the packs is fair. It's very flexible in that we're not charged per decoder, we're charged for a certain pack. Whether we use one decoder or 20 decoders, as long as they're in the same pack, there's no extra charge. Expensive but fair is how I'd summarize it."

"It is pricey versus its competitors."

"Pico Corvil Analytics is expensive. There are several competitors in the market. Selling this solution to a trading firm might be challenging as there are several other solutions available that can perform basic similar operations, such as using Wireshark and Python scripts to obtain the required values. However, that does not nearly approach the comprehensive end-2-end automated depth of metrics and their correlations that Pico Corvil Analytics provides."

"Corvil has reduced the time it takes us to isolate root causes."

"We bought a box from Corvil and it was $200,000 for one big CNE. Then there are obviously the recurring maintenance fees. The licensing is perpetual but the maintenance fees are not."

"As I am working more with Corvil, it looks like it is improving diagnostic times."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

850,671 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

15%

Government

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

56%

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

Educational Organization

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Nagios Core?

What I like about Nagios Core is that it helps me ensure everything is running smoothly by checking the status of hosts and services.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Nagios Core?

Nagios Core is a free and open-source product. We don't charge for the product itself, but we charge for the man-hour costs related to installation, configuration, ongoing operation, and maintenance.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Nagios Core?

The dashboard should be improved. It's very simple. I don't have a very clear or specific suggestion. You can change the skin of the dashboard, however, it's good for me.

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Icinga vs Nagios Core

Compared 25% of the time

Nagios XI vs Nagios Core

Compared 17% of the time

Zabbix vs Nagios Core

Compared 14% of the time

Centreon vs Nagios Core

Compared 8% of the time

OP5 Monitor vs Nagios Core

Compared 4% of the time

More Nagios Core Competitors

NETSCOUT nGeniusONE vs Pico Corvil Analytics

Compared 33% of the time

Datadog vs Pico Corvil Analytics

Compared 30% of the time

ExtraHop Reveal(x) vs Pico Corvil Analytics

Compared 20% of the time

NIKSUN NetVCR vs Pico Corvil Analytics

Compared 17% of the time

More Pico Corvil Analytics Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Nagios Core

April 2025

Download Nagios Core product report

Buyer's Guide

Pico Corvil Analytics

April 2025

Download Pico Corvil Analytics product report

Also Known As

No data available

Corvil

Overview

This is IT infrastructure monitoring's industry-standard, open-source core. Free without professional support services.

Nagios

Corvil transforms Network Data with speed and precision into the powerful real-time truth. Corvil captures, decodes, reassembles, and enriches vast amounts of data in motion, adding analytics and making the resulting enriched data and IT Operations Analytics available to humans, machines and other systems.

PICO

Sample Customers

Airbnb, Cisco, PayPal, FanDuel

NASDAQ, Commerzbank, Pico Quantitative Trading, CME Group, Interactive Data, Tokyo Stock Exchange Inc.

Buyer's Guide

Nagios Core vs. Pico Corvil Analytics

April 2025

Free Report: Nagios Core vs. Pico Corvil Analytics

Find out what your peers are saying about Nagios Core vs. Pico Corvil Analytics and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,671 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Nagios Core vs. Pico Corvil Analytics report.

See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors.

We monitor all Network 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.