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

Packetbeat vs Statseeker comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Packetbeat
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
62nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
2.5
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
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 July 2026, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of Packetbeat is 0.3%, up from 0.1% 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 (%)
Packetbeat0.3%
Statseeker0.5%
Other99.2%
Network Monitoring Software
 

Featured Reviews

Mohammed-Abdelalim - PeerSpot reviewer
Assistant Vice President at QualityKiosk Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Network analytics have delivered lightweight, integrated visibility for search, observability, and security
Packetbeat analyzes specific protocols and is not suitable for full capture of all network traffic and network flows. I recall that Packetbeat can cover a limited number of protocols including ICMP, but not as deeply as other solutions. It covers NetFlows and these types of flows, but not at the level of a deep packet capture that you can find in the market where it taps every single packet in the network. Packetbeat is more about bringing statistics about the packets, but it doesn't capture these packets. The development intention of Packetbeat appears to be to provide a window for application monitoring and performance analytics, and for that purpose, it is doing sufficiently well. However, if the vendor has another goal to build a similar network monitoring solution that exists in the market, which is outside of Elastic's business nature, Packetbeat is a sensor that needs to be improved to the level of deep packet capture where it loses no packets in the network. That improvement would take Elastic to another level.
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

"Elastic's scalability, in terms of cluster robustness, is definitely the most valuable feature."
"The beauty of Packetbeat is that it is easy, free, and lightweight, while other solutions are expensive and will accumulate a huge amount of data."
"The most important for us is how fast this solution is, as well as the granularity that you can get to, such as per-minute statistics."
"The graphics and trends are the most valuable for us."
"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. Statseeker is quite flexible in tailoring the product, spending time tailoring the product with you. It's fairly low maintenance. It's quite quick."
"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 have used this product since the organization was established and it has been an integral part of our business as usual functions and I would suggest that if we stopped using it then this would have a negative impact on our operations."
"This solution will help to find problem endpoints sooner, or other issues such as throughput and network congestion."
"This solution allows us to have fewer employees, reduces the complexity of our network monitoring, and we are better able to manage all of our components."
"In terms of network visibility, Statseeker can be very granular. We can tell it exactly where we want it to go and where we want it to check, or it can do an SNMP walk and find out where everything is. It's very detailed."
 

Cons

"The scalability of the agent itself could be improved."
"Packetbeat analyzes specific protocols and is not suitable for full capture of all network traffic and network flows."
"The interface looks like a Windows 3.1 program. It needs a complete refresh."
"I would like to have soft alarming. If an inner-base all of a sudden triggers a threshold, we have to rely on a lot of other tools and then we go into Statseeker to verify it. If Statseeker would confirm it preemptively and trigger it into our network panel, that would be nice."
"It could use more features on Netflow analyser, such as time series graphs and a single network export UDP port and UDP forwarding."
"There is no high availability over multiple locations (datacenters) and if you want to maintain what is monitored, I suggest you use the host file."
"The user interface needs a great deal of improvement."
"The user interface needs to be made more intuitive."
"I don't know that the solution has had much of an impact on the complexity of our network monitoring."
"More private MIB object support, such as WAN optimisation performance and wireless, would be helpful."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"It's probably $5K a year for the license."
"We paid $5,000 to $10,000 a year in maintenance."
"We pay a yearly maintenance fee of approximately $40,000 USD."
"It would definitely be a yearly licensing cost, but I don't know what it is."
"When it came to selecting this solution, it came down to cost."
"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."
"Up until we actually talked to Statseeker, and Statseeker came and gave us an enterprise licensing model for multiple accounts, I would have said the pricing was not good value. The fact they've come to the party now and given us a very good discount, I would say it's probably about right, the pricing they're giving us now. But the retail pricing, if I went out and, as a separate company, and asked for pricing for one account, I probably would say their retail pricing is not competitive. The fact that they've given us a discount now because we have multiple servers across multiple accounts, I would say that pricing is about right, but not their retail pricing. It's too expensive."
"We pay somewhere between $5,000 and $8,000 yearly in licensing fees."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Construction Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Marketing Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise34
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Packetbeat?
Elastic is pretty cheap for large enterprises but unaffordable for small ones.
What needs improvement with Packetbeat?
Packetbeat analyzes specific protocols and is not suitable for full capture of all network traffic and network flows. I recall that Packetbeat can cover a limited number of protocols including ICMP...
What is your primary use case for Packetbeat?
I have dealt with all of them: Elasticsearch, Kibana, Logstash, Beats, Elastic Agent, and Fleet, because I need to use all of them to achieve a solution for customers. These solutions are typically...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
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 Packetbeat vs. Statseeker and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.