We performed a comparison between Pandora FMS and Zenoss Cloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Monitoring Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"The most valuable feature is that it is an all-in-one monitoring system."
"We are able to control our business with this all-in-one monitoring tool."
"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."
"The official forum is active enough to answer most of the high-end technical questions that you may have."
"The solution has good dashboards and graphics."
"Features I have found most valuable with Pandora are the personalized metrics and the simplicity of data."
"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 monitoring system within this solution is very good. It is easy to use and navigate, and makes issue alarms easily viewable."
"The custom built integration is one of the most valuable features because you can see all the especially critical items."
"It's easy to use."
"Its Docker Container concept is mind blowing. It is the first monitoring tool which comes with Docker features."
"The product offers good documentation that helps with initial training."
"The most valuable feature is the flexible discovery mechanism."
"They have also accommodated many state-of-the-art technologies like Docker and ZooKeeper."
"What I like most about Zenoss Service Dynamics is that it monitors the devices and gives close to real-time alerts. For example, in case the device is not available, Zenoss Service Dynamics generates an alert so my team can resolve the issue."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"Pandora FMS is relatively new, and the interface with the older version crashes at times. We have several different operating systems, such as Linux and Windows, and Pandora does not run as well in these."
"Third-party integration should be improved for some commonly used products."
"We would like to see improvement in the mainframe integration that this solution is capable of."
"I find that this software is resource heavy, and demands a lot of processing capacity."
"A nice feature in the next release would be an automation module to run workflow actions."
"It would be helpful to include the generation of reports for times that the network was out of service."
"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."
"When it comes to the definition of local Software Agents for the first time in the open-source version, it can become very tedious."
"It would be ideal if the product offered sound alerts."
"As Zenoss Service Dynamics is more for network-centric devices and you want to monitor, for example, a server, its services, IP addresses, and interfaces, if it's a network and you're going to monitor multiple items, you'll be charged multiple times. This is what Zenoss Service Dynamics needs to improve to make sure that customers pay just one fee to monitor the entire server. What I'd like to see in Zenoss Service Dynamics in the future is a public cloud monitoring feature, particularly for the Azure public cloud. Another additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of the solution is integration with the Azure public cloud because I know that there are some services from Azure that Zenoss Service Dynamics is currently unable to monitor."
"Now it is stable, but they should design threshold parameters in percentage instead of raw values."
"The inclusion of a feature to show a graphical view of the network would be a helpful improvement."
"There is room for improvement with the administrative part. They introduced Control Center to manage things in Zenoss 5. The services that Zenoss provides remained the same, but the administrative part, since they introduced Docker, etc., has become a little complex"
"There was a problem with Zenoss and storage monitoring."
"The AI aspect needs to improve."
Pandora FMS is ranked 29th in Network Monitoring Software with 22 reviews while Zenoss Cloud is ranked 57th in Network Monitoring Software with 8 reviews. Pandora FMS is rated 9.2, while Zenoss Cloud is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Pandora FMS writes "The open architecture is easy to extend and enhance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zenoss Cloud writes "Generates close to real-time alerts so users can resolve issues, but needs more integration and public cloud monitoring features". Pandora FMS is most compared with Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor, Wazuh, SolarWinds NPM and Nagios XI, whereas Zenoss Cloud is most compared with Zabbix, Nagios XI, Splunk Enterprise Security, ServiceNow IT Operations Management and ScienceLogic. See our Pandora FMS vs. Zenoss Cloud report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors, best Server Monitoring vendors, and best IT Infrastructure Monitoring 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.