Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Prevasio vs Zenoss Cloud comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 3, 2025

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

Prevasio
Ranking in Container Monitoring
11th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (39th), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (28th)
Zenoss Cloud
Ranking in Container Monitoring
10th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Application Infrastructure (33rd), Event Monitoring (14th), Network Monitoring Software (76th), Server Monitoring (23rd), IT Infrastructure Monitoring (53rd), Cloud Monitoring Software (40th), AIOps (20th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Container Monitoring category, the mindshare of Prevasio is 0.1%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Zenoss Cloud is 0.6%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Container Monitoring
 

Featured Reviews

Reviewer75941 - PeerSpot reviewer
An excellent, intelligent tool that is helpful for finding duplicate rules
AFA is helpful when finding duplicate rules, subnets, and policies for your ports that have not been used in the last six months. It also helps to find out which ports have been opened for all firewalls. After that, we run the reports and share them with the customer. After getting approval from the customer, if there is a block on a particular port or ports not used in a current environment, Analyzer is helpful when placing the change request of the users. In this case, AlgoSec provides the link to the user who raises the request though the automation, which is the change request. From that change request, it comes through our ticketing tools, e.g., BMC Remedy. Then, we have to check and approve it. Once it gets approved, we deploy the particular policies, as per the user's request. It provides visibility for the risk. Whenever unnecessary ports have been opened in our environment, whether by mistake or human error, a support ticket gets opened so we can find out about it in an easy way. After that, we can implement or block the particular ports if they are not necessary for the organization's production. The solution has become more helpful during the cleanup rules for the firewall, when we do those activities twice a month. For example, if a user raises a request two to three months ago, then we forget to block the particular port by human error. During the client's cleanup workshop, we can make things clearer, which is more useful for us when cleaning up unnecessary rules and ports from the firewall. AlgoSec enables us to manage these hybrid environments in a single pane of glass. It is an excellent, intelligent tool. The console is user-friendly for understanding and implementing things on firewalls. It is helpful for finding duplicate rules.
ClaudiaChen - PeerSpot reviewer
Generates close to real-time alerts so users can resolve issues, but needs more integration and public cloud monitoring features
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The firewall policy summarization is the most valuable feature. It helps us to cross-check the firewall ruleset. That's the main purpose of it. And of course, it monitors changes of the firewall policy. It provides full visibility into the risk involved in firewall change requests. It helps us to check for any integrity issues and conflicts with other rulesets, and of course the compliance."
"The most unique feature is the ability to help fix any gaps or mismatches in the configuration of the firewall."
"AlgoBot is a Slack chatbot that they've designed to help people identify if the firewalls are going to allow or block specific network traffic. We leveraged this to allow our staff to check themselves if the firewalls are going to be blocking traffic or not. That saves us logging into the firewalls and running the query off the host. We give them the power to use it and it saves us time."
"We have Check Point, Palo Alto, and FortiGate firewalls, and it integrates pretty seamlessly with these firewalls. We have had no issues so far."
"The optimizations are the most useful aspect because most customers have a very unmanaged network with a lot of rules. We use a lot of the optimizations in our reports for improving firewall rules."
"The most valuable feature is the automation that can be accomplished by using scripts. If we didn't have AlgoSec, I would have to do everything manually."
"The workflow and the fact that I can follow up on a request that I've created and clearly see the status it is in are the most valuable features of this solution. When I need things to move on, for example, if the security guys didn't look at the request or the implementation is not going as it should, then I can contact people. There is a mechanism in there that clearly indicates the service level agreement we have for implementation. We can see if it is being attained."
"We have used the solution to implement and manage microsegmentation initiatives. That is the whole point of modeling towards, "Hey, how will this work for a specific situation in the end?" I think it's a great solution because a lot of companies are not just going to the cloud, but microsegmentation and service-delivered products. So, I feel like it is very capable and comparatively better than its peers, if not equal."
"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."
"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."
"They have also accommodated many state-of-the-art technologies like Docker and ZooKeeper."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the flexible discovery mechanism."
 

Cons

"When we send multiple requests across at once, sometimes it causes errors and FireFlow gets stuck. In cases like this, we have to go back in and fix it."
"The technical support response time is low. This might be due to the coronavirus pandemic situation, but I am not getting full support when working with them."
"In the new version H32, there are many, many bugs."
"The analysis part can be improved when I make a flow request. There should be a clear analysis of which metric part needs to be opened and which firewalls will be opened. It should give you a bit more graphical visibility about these."
"Integration with Oracle on the cloud is not supported. I would also like to see integrations with network devices in Layer 2."
"The API integration could potentially improve. I didn't get a chance to look and see how well this solution can integrate with ServiceNow or our GRC environment."
"AlgoSec cannot be integrated with solutions that require two-step or multi-factor authentication. Embedding multi-factor authentication capability into the solution would be a valuable feature."
"There is a little bit of scope for improvement in the risk profiles that come with the AlgoSec Firewall Analyzer module. Currently, AlgoSec provides only three standard zones within a risk profile. These standard zones are external, internal, and DMZ. Everybody's network is divided into different zones within a data center, but AlgoSec only provides three zones. This is a limitation that I see for the risk profile analysis. If there was an option to customize these zones, it would be great."
"It would be ideal if the product offered sound alerts."
"Now it is stable, but they should design threshold parameters in percentage instead of raw values."
"The AI aspect needs to improve."
"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"
"The inclusion of a feature to show a graphical view of the network would be a helpful improvement."
"There was a problem with Zenoss and storage monitoring."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"For the South American market, the prices are very high."
"I heard that the licensing was around $100,000 a year."
"The pricing depends on the environment, the number of services, and the size of the data center. It can go from $100,000 to a million dollars."
"It depends on the customer, what he wants."
"There are additional costs you'll have to pay apart from the license fee for Zenoss Service Dynamics. I can't remember exactly how much my company is paying because I don't handle the finance part, but the cost is paid annually. On a scale of one to five, with one being the cheapest and five being the most expensive, I'm rating the solution three out of five."
"It is very cost-effective compared to the tools I worked with in the past. The company is gaining a lot with respect to the cost factor. It provides agentless monitoring and in a very cheap way."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Monitoring solutions are best for your needs.
849,963 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
24%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is the best network monitoring software for large enterprises?
In my experience, I worked with many monitoring software, but the one that gave me the most functionalities of a large-scale company is Zenoss, due to its ability to monitor completely hybrid and a...
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Also Known As

No data available
Cloud Monitoring, Zenoss Service Dynamics
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
2degrees, Rackspace, State of North Dakota, El Paso Independent School District, NWN Corporation
Find out what your peers are saying about Prevasio vs. Zenoss Cloud and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
849,963 professionals have used our research since 2012.