We performed a comparison between Nagios Log Server and Wazuh based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Log Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."One of the most valuable features is the dashboard because the UI was effective and easy to use. The alert systems are good as well. We had no failovers and had high availability. We can search the queries fast as well in Nagios Log Server."
"The product is scalable."
"It provides an easy way to identify errors and spot issues, making troubleshooting more efficient."
"A great feature of the solution involves its internal portal."
"The initial setup of Nagios Log Server was easy and straightforward."
"The tool is stable."
"Integrates with various open-source and paid products, allowing for flexibility in customization based on use cases."
"Wazuh automatically scans the host for CIS benchmarks for the latest updates and vulnerabilities and gives a host score. It provides a percentage of perceived risk due to of non patches or any missing patches on that work."
"Wazuh is free and easy to use. It is also adjustable, and we can use it on the cloud and on-premises."
"It is a stable solution."
"Wazuh is simple to use for PCI compliance."
"I find the PCI DSS feature the most valuable, along with the feature that monitors the compliance of Windows and the CIS benchmarks on other devices like Unix or Linux systems."
"Wazuh has very flexible and robust features."
"The configurations during initial setup could be improved. If they could be agentless, as in the case of the Ansible product, it would be better. I would like to be able to analyze the network bandwidth."
"The support could be better."
"The customization and dashboards have shortcomings and need to be improved to make the tool look more presentable."
"As we are talking about a product which is open to the public, the pricing makes it challenging for us to profit off of its marketing."
"It would be beneficial for Nagios to incorporate a tool that goes beyond log management and includes features to monitor overall system health and assess the effectiveness of antivirus solutions."
"One area where Wazuh could use some improvement is in its reporting mechanism, especially for high-level management like CSOs and CEOs."
"Log data analysis could be improved. My IT team has been looking for an alternative because they want better log data for malware detection. We are also doing more container implementation also, so we need better container security, log data analysis, auditing and compliance, malware detection, etc."
"They could include flexibility and customization capabilities by modifying for customers based on partner agreements."
"Wazuh needs more security and features, particularly visualization features and a health monitor."
"We would like to see more improvements on the cloud."
"The tool doesn't detect anomalies or new environments."
"The implementation is very complex."
"While it is scalable, it can suffer from reduced latencies."
Nagios Log Server is ranked 38th in Log Management with 5 reviews while Wazuh is ranked 3rd in Log Management with 38 reviews. Nagios Log Server is rated 7.8, while Wazuh is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Nagios Log Server writes "A scalable and affordable tool for monitoring data centers ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Wazuh writes "It integrates seamlessly with AWS cloud-native services". Nagios Log Server is most compared with Graylog, LogRhythm SIEM, syslog-ng, SolarWinds Kiwi Syslog Server and Fortinet FortiAnalyzer, whereas Wazuh is most compared with Elastic Security, Security Onion, Splunk Enterprise Security, AlienVault OSSIM and Graylog. See our Nagios Log Server vs. Wazuh report.
See our list of best Log Management vendors.
We monitor all Log Management 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.