We compared Zabbix and Pandora FMS across several parameters based on our users' reviews. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Features: Zabbix is highly regarded for its user-friendly interface, scalability, and reliable performance. It provides customizable dashboards, trigger dependencies, SNMP monitoring, and problem tracking. Pandora FMS is highly regarded for its straightforward management process, effective dashboards, and efficient network monitoring capabilities.
Room for Improvement: Zabbix could reduce false positives and improve integration, cloud monitoring, and reporting. Users say Pandora FMS could make its dashboards more customizable and improve its integration with other systems. Many also said they would like Pandora to add APIs for integration and offer better out-of-the-box analytics.
Service and Support: Users had mixed opinions about Zabbix customer service. Some found it helpful, while others feel it needs improvement. Customers generally rely on online documentation and community forums for assistance. Pandora FMS support received high praise for their expertise, kindness, and fast response time.
Ease of Deployment: The complexity of Zabbix's initial setup varies, and it may require an experienced group of administrators and engineers. Most users found Pandora FMS’s initial setup to be relatively easy.
Pricing: Zabbix is a free, open-source solution, but users can purchase support services and additional features. Pandora FMS is considered reasonably priced, and the total cost depends on the environment.
ROI: Users say that Zabbix provides a cost-effective solution. Pandora FMS has also demonstrated advantages in terms of return on investment. Users say Pandora FMS has also demonstrated a return on investment.
Comparison Results: Zabbix is a highly customizable open-source solution with a wide range of monitoring capabilities, including the ability to monitor virtual machines and databases. However, Zabbix’s setup can be complex and may require technical expertise. Users like Pandora FMS’s management and monitoring capabilities as well as its dashboards, but the solution has been criticized for its compatibility issues, limited customization options, and slower performance
"We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"The official forum is active enough to answer most of the high-end technical questions that you may have."
"Thanks to this software and to the work of the support team, we have everything under control."
"It allows me to quickly see the status of all of my printers, switches, computers, and virtual machines to determine if any system has fallen."
"It provides us with proactive monitoring and is very easy to configure and maintain."
"I like this solution a lot because it has a very large Hispanic community and the platform looks very friendly."
"Pandora's architecture is interesting. It's open so you can easily extend and enhance it. It's simpler to customize Pandora compared to other solutions. It's also scalable enough to support large environments."
"Pandora FMS provides us with a general report (graphical) about all of the connected devices, which helps with planning new stations and tracking them."
"The network monitoring and configuration within this solution is very good."
"The overall functionality of Zabbix is very good. The monitoring of bank applications that Zabbix provides is great. The information is displayed on a dashboard that is easily viewed."
"The level of discovery-based configuration that lets us auto-configure the monitoring for various systems is a valuable feature."
"They've already added extra features, such as noise-canceling and facial recognition, which is great."
"Our customers also like that they don't have to use multiple modules. Micro Focus and major vendors typically require you to buy several modules and plugins. Our customers do not like that. We offer them a single product for all their monitoring needs."
"It's a flexible solution."
"The implementation process is very straightforward."
"SNMP monitoring, source discovery, and alert triggering are most valuable."
"The basic setup is very easy."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"I find that this software is resource heavy, and demands a lot of processing capacity."
"We would like the real-time monitoring of an interface to be improved within this solution."
"A nice feature in the next release would be an automation module to run workflow actions."
"When it comes to the definition of local Software Agents for the first time in the open-source version, it can become very tedious."
"Pandora could deliver better analytics out of the box. You can work around these limitations with the help of other tools like Grafana. The shortcomings are mostly on the graphical side. The built-in report generators are a bit limited in some areas."
"Third-party integration should be improved for some commonly used products."
"In the future, we may have double the number of devices, and we do not want to have any issues with performance in the data display."
"I would like for the solution to be faster and have a better tolerance between parallel servers for Pandora and Pest Control."
"The APM monitoring has room for improvement, although I hear that the new 5.2 version has some improvements in that area, and I'd like to give that a go. I would like to see a few more templates out there for different styles of monitoring. I use the Grafana interface for reporting. I would also like it to have an out-of-the-box ability to email reports. You can create reports, but to be able to email those reports would be really helpful. I've got users who are not interested in logging in and generating a report. They want it all pre-canned and sent to an email address. It would also be really handy if we could pin certain reports up onto platforms such as Teams or SharePoint. A GUI for the proxy server would be cool to have for debugging purposes and for the support teams to have a look at, but I don't know whether that's really feasible to do. I get enough from the log files themselves."
"In an upcoming release, there should be automated reports which we are currently doing manually. For example, if we collect a report file every day and want to send it to a moderator for review. We are expecting this feature to come out soon but it would be valuable to have now."
"It could be more stable."
"The networking monitor is not too easy to work with."
"We would like to monitor other touchpoints such as ATM machines. It would be great if it can provide monitoring of ATM machines. Compatibility with other products would also be great."
"The server monitoring could be better."
"Outside of the normal standard monitoring, I would like to extend patching, importing patching, and supporting patching for Windows Servers."
"The reports are not great and should be improved."
Pandora FMS is ranked 21st in Cloud Monitoring Software with 22 reviews while Zabbix is ranked 2nd in Cloud Monitoring Software with 98 reviews. Pandora FMS is rated 9.2, while Zabbix is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Pandora FMS writes "The open architecture is easy to extend and enhance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zabbix writes "Allows any number of customizations but lacks functionality for finding root causes". Pandora FMS is most compared with PRTG Network Monitor, Wazuh, Nagios XI, SolarWinds NPM and Netdata, whereas Zabbix is most compared with Centreon, Checkmk, SolarWinds NPM, Nagios XI and Nagios Core. See our Pandora FMS vs. Zabbix report.
See our list of best Server Monitoring vendors, best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors, and 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.
