Buyer's Guide
Network Monitoring Software
November 2022
Get our free report covering Zabbix, Nagios, SolarWinds, and other competitors of PRTG Network Monitor. Updated: November 2022.
655,994 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of PRTG Network Monitor alternatives and competitors

Network Engineer at a computer software company with 51-200 employees
MSP
Makes onboarding new clients very straightforward, easily mapping the network and saving manual work
Pros and Cons
  • "Among the most valuable features are the hardware life cycle and configuration backups, when applicable... When it does show you the hardware life cycle for, say, a Cisco device and the configuration backup, that's the most useful aspect for me as a network engineer."
  • "Something else I would like to see would be additional vendors for the hardware life cycle. Right now, they mainly focus on Cisco stuff, which is fine, but not every customer we have uses Cisco."

What is our primary use case?

We use it to monitor the network infrastructure and assets of our clients. We are a managed service provider and it fits neatly into our role. We also use it to keep configuration change records, which is something we didn't have before. It's nice to have that in one platform.

How has it helped my organization?

When we are onboarding a new client with network infrastructure for monitoring, Auvik makes it very straightforward and simplified. It can map out and easily visualize the customer's network so that we don't have to manually do it. It definitely has increased automation.

We used PRTG but it lacked the mapping function to visualize the network with an interactive map. It also lacked the configuration backup tool, the hardware life cycle, and good NetFlow insights. Moving to Auvik has saved a good 30 to 50 percent of our time.

Another thing that I love that Auvik does and that PRTG doesn't do is the integration with a lot of our MSP tools like ConnectWise and Teams. PRTG would open tickets via an alert, but it would never close them if the alert cleared. All those tickets from PRTG would go to me and I would have to manually close them. I would get inundated with tickets. Auvik will also open a ticket but, once the alert clears, it will automatically close the ticket, saving me from having to close a lot of tickets. That too has reduced repetitive work for me by 30 to 50 percent.

Our MTTR has almost been automated because of the tickets. About 90 percent of our tickets have been automated. I still have to manually look at the rest and maybe do a little work against them, but it's not crazy. It has unquestionably helped out with resolving issues.

It has also helped tremendously with quarterly business reviews because, with just a click of a button, we can get the hardware life cycle and export all the data to an Excel spreadsheet. That helps our management.

And because most of our clients are remote from us, that visibility that Auvik gives into their environments is in a better overall layout than our previous platform. The UI of PRTG was very '90s-esque, like a poorly designed website. It had the functionality but the UI was lacking tremendously when it comes to ease of use and organization.

The visibility Auvik provides almost makes it so that we don't have to be actively monitoring things. We don't need a NOC or a SOC to get alerts. We're more confident now in the network management solution that we have. Before, we were getting alert upon alert and my phone would be blowing up and then I would get all the tickets. Auvik has put that kind of stress on the back burner.

Overall, it has freed up about 25 to 30 percent of the time I used to have to put into things.

Another advantage is that I didn't want to show a junior tech our previous platform because they wouldn't know what to do with it. Auvik, on the other hand, is more geared toward all levels, rather than just the high-level engineers. It will tell you what might be the cause of a problem rather than just alerting on something that it sees. While we don't have it geared toward our lower-level team yet, it's very easy to use and they should be able to pick it up.

What is most valuable?

Among the most valuable features are the hardware life cycle and configuration backups, when applicable, since that's not applicable for all vendors, platforms, and networking types. When it does show you the hardware life cycle for, say, a Cisco device and the configuration backup, that's the most useful aspect for me as a network engineer.

Once it's set up properly with the SNMP strings or credentials, it's very straightforward to use. It has a small learning curve, which is nice for a network monitoring tool. Ease of use is very high on our list of requirements, not just for me as a network engineer, but when I want the help desk or the level-ones to be able to look at something. It needs to be easy to use.

It's also very much a single pane of glass, which is especially helpful for our business model as an MSP.

In addition, I greatly appreciate Auvik's ability to visualize network mapping. It's very good for visualizing how the network is formed and the interconnections. Since it's interactive, it's more helpful than a static map or static video diagram. It's a very helpful feature.

What needs improvement?

I like how you can request features, and one feature that I think they're working on is the ability to export the topology map as a video.

Something else I would like to see would be additional vendors for the hardware life cycle. Right now, they mainly focus on Cisco stuff, which is fine, but not every customer we have uses Cisco. I'm not looking for them to add every networking vendor, and these just might be legacy devices, but Fortinet is a big one that we've used and I don't think Auvik has the hardware life cycle for that. I don't know how it does on Aruba, but we have some legacy HPE as well. I do like the Meraki integration, although it would be nice to see a Juniper Mist and Aruba Central integration.

Another improvement that would be nice, one that should be at the top of their list, is the ability to properly identify vulnerabilities, based on a vendor's security alerts. If it could recognize, "You're on this version of firmware and you're hitting these types of vulnerabilities," that would definitely check off a big security feature for this tool.

For how long have I used the solution?

We demoed Auvik early in the year and we fully signed up sometime in the summer, so we have been using it for several months.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Overall, it is very stable. 

Every platform or NMS has its own quirks or kinks that have to be worked out, but it's nice that Auvik will update on the backend. I don't have to worry about updating a server platform.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Its scalability is very high. It gets a 10 out of 10.

We have Auvik across multiple organizations. We monitor, administer, and maintain, network monitoring for dozens of clients. It's deployed across all their different environments and in organizations with multiple branch offices. Our clients include the smallest, one-branch organizations up to medium-to-large enterprises. It definitely fits all those use cases.

How are customer service and support?

The technical support that Auvik provides is very good. They're very quick to respond. They have a live chat feature, which is very nice. They're pretty knowledgeable since it's their product. There's no comparison between the support from Auvik and the support we received from our previous vendor.

How would you rate customer service and support?

Positive

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We used PRTG before and we're still using it now. We're trying to slowly migrate from it. We put all our eggs in that basket, even though it was a very flimsy basket. We used it for networking servers, mainly.

We didn't use it for endpoint and computer assets. That was handled by ConnectWise Automate. We wouldn't want Auvik to do that.

How was the initial setup?

The deployment was very straightforward because of the user interface. This is where it's more straightforward than Domotz. Sometimes, when you have too many choices, it can be a burden. With Auvik you decide: Do you want the OVA? Do you want to install a .exe? It's very simple. I could probably have someone on our level-one team actually set it up.

It took less than 10 to 15 minutes after the collector was implemented before the network mapping started to populate with basic devices. Then it was a matter of fine-tuning. It was up to me to categorize devices as I saw fit and tune the SNMP so that it got the data that I wanted.

Overall, our implementation of Auvik took a few weeks because of the number of sites and devices and the fine-tuning. Also, an NMS is always being worked on. You're rarely perfectly happy with how it looks. It's constantly being fine-tuned so that alerts generate correctly without over-alerting.

That's one thing I have liked compared to PRTG. Auvik's out-of-the-box alerting is very straightforward and handles the alerts you are likely to see. But that's also where it could do a little bit better, in the customization of alerts. With PRTG, we could alert on almost anything, whereas with Auvik, you're somewhat zoned in.

We have definitely saved a good amount of time on the setup of Auvik, compared to PRTG. PRTG was significantly cheaper, but there was no onboarding help. It was a matter of, "Here you go, do it yourself." Auvik had a customer success team to walk us through and help iron out any kinks, which was greatly appreciated. That was part of what we're paying for. The pricing helps with support. PRTG's support, while it was okay, wasn't as straightforward and easy to get a hold of someone compared to Auvik.

The maintenance involved with Auvik is around fine-tuning for data collection, but it does not involve updating the agent or the backend. It's nice that I don't have to worry about updating the platform itself. I just have to worry about the data getting collected and making sure SNMP strings are updated.

I was the only one involved in the initial deployment, from our side.

What was our ROI?

I didn't set up PRTG but compared to my brief time with PRTG, Auvik has been night and day and the value has been very quick. For some of our customers, we never had a solution in place to back up configurations. Auvik now provides that. There's definitely peace of mind knowing a config backed up. It is definitely proving its value.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I don't think Auvik's pricing should be based on device, which it is right now. I don't know what their market share is or how they compete with Domotz, but if they want to stay competitive, Auvik should have simpler pricing. Domotz is $21 per month per site, whereas Auvik is per device, so it definitely adds up very quickly.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

In addition to the other issues I mentioned, Auvik and our previous platform are night and day in the following way as well. We would almost be scared to put in a subnet for PRTG to scan because we wouldn't know what we got. Now, it's easy to see what we're getting in terms of the devices and prune it from there. 

It's also helpful that it's not onsite because we're trying to move servers and services off-prem. Auvik is definitely a step in the right direction. It's one less piece of infrastructure to worry about. You don't have to open up your environment to collect monitoring information. It just needs outbound traffic, which makes things easier. That's where it shines compared to an on-prem solution. Also, you don't have to maintain or update software or the agent. It does that automatically. I don't have to worry about updating firmware.

With an on-prem solution, everything is hub and spoke and everything has to go back to our data center. Auvik, as a cloud solution, eases up on that usage of our circuits and internet.

While Auvik is geared toward network infrastructure for an MSP, it could probably do a little bit better on the server side. PRTG definitely had that as an advantage over Auvik. It could monitor servers and that type of infrastructure better than Auvik can. 

Auvik also doesn't have some customizable automations for a specific use case that might need an if-then-that statement to run a script or commands. That might be very niche, but one of our clients is using PRTG like that. 

It is nice to see that Auvik has an expanding roadmap. I don't know what PRTG has on its roadmap for new features, but it's nice to see that Auvik is not getting stale.

I did evaluate Domotz and the pricing worked out in favor of Domotz, but we ended up going with Auvik. We're only in Auvik for a year and we'll see how it goes, but unless the pricing becomes too high, I don't see us moving away from it. Domotz was the only other one that was within reach and more geared toward MSPs.

An MSP business can almost flip a coin between Domotz and Auvik. Auvik is priced per device, whereas Domotz is priced per location or site. It works out in Domotz's favor, although I can't speak for its feature sets. Domotz does have a leg up in terms of deployability. It has a hardware appliance, almost like a Raspberry Pi, so it's easy to deploy on anyone's network, whereas you have to run Auvik as a virtual appliance. It can't run on ARM, which is not a deal-breaker, but it is nice to have options when deploying. You're somewhat locked in with Auvik for deployment because you need to run it on a server or in someone's vCenter. It's not that customizable, whereas Domotz can run on ARM as well, I believe.

Auvik has two versions, Essentials and Performance, which is similar to Domotz's model. With Performance you get NetFlow visibility and another feature and that increases the price per device. But the device types they charge for are only those that are part of network infrastructure. Overall, it's probably cheaper via Domotz, but if you have a lot of sites with just one device, it might be cheaper to go with Auvik. Auvik doesn't charge for access points, but they do charge for switches, routers, and firewalls.

What other advice do I have?

Auvik definitely helps keep device inventories up to date. If I have the scan running, it does a really good job of finding devices on the network when the subnets are put in. However, the network infrastructure shouldn't change that much, so I don't typically have it running scans all the time. We're mainly using it for network infrastructure and not as much for endpoint devices. It primarily shines when it comes to network infrastructure, but it did do a pretty good job of doing the initial inventory of the networks.

My advice would be to do a proof of concept if you are in an MSP role or organization, because the costs can quickly add up.

Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor. The reviewer's company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: MSP
Flag as inappropriate
AashishGiri - PeerSpot reviewer
Chief Technology Officer at Leads Innovation
Reseller
Top 10
Gives us a single, consolidated view of our system, network, and ITSM requirements, while helping us achieve ISO certification targets
Pros and Cons
  • "The role-based dashboards provide data points and charts and topology diagrams in a single window. It's like a spider web, where the application, connectivity, and everything is defined for each user of those applications."
  • "I would like to see an integrated view of Infraon IMS and Infraon Desk. It would be very helpful if that were integrated into the solution."

What is our primary use case?

We have been using it to monitor our data center services, including servers, storage, and all our security appliances. We have a 24/7 NOC operating at our data center and they have been using Infraon IMS extensively for network and data center monitoring.

We also are using Everest Infraon Desk to manage our assets, our incident management system, and our ticketing system, and it's helping us to achieve our ITSM rules.

It's on our own private cloud.

How has it helped my organization?

We were using a lot of open source products to manage our ITSM. We didn't have asset management. We needed to have a network monitoring solution and we needed to have a system monitoring solution. We were using a lot of tools in our data center. That meant that our NOC and system guys had to maintain all these different kinds of devices, and maintaining those products was a headache. With Everest, we have a single, consolidated view of our system, our network, and even our ITSM requirements, like asset management, change management, and incident management. We are even using their ticketing system for our organization. It's been a great help for us in terms of managing our ITSM policies. 

In addition, it has helped us to achieve our ISO certification targets for which we need to maintain all incident management and incident reporting. We can also find an SLA report for our appliance.

We have also tested the workflow management, to try to find dormant VMs, machines that haven't had any traffic or that are not being used by customers; or if there are any VMs that are using very high CPU or memory or choking our network bandwidth. We're also monitoring NetFlow to see the traffic behavior of the VMs: What kind of traffic have they been using? We're using these workflows and NetFlow monitoring tools to zero in on the VMs, if there are any infections going on or if there are any management activities going on that have been using our infrastructure.

What is most valuable?

What I really like about it are the details that it provides whenever we click an icon or any of the objects on the dashboard. We get a detailed description. We're running 200-plus VMs in our infrastructure. If I click on any of the symbols I can see detailed information about a VM: the traffic, the resources utilized by that VM, and whether the SLA is being met by that VM and the services. That is visible on the dashboard. It's just a few clicks and you get all the details as required.

There are role-based access policies defined for our employees. For example, at the L1 level, we define the policies that they can view and the devices they can access. They can only view them, they cannot edit. Our higher-level guys can edit, add devices, and they can create multiple dashboards as required. This is important because each person in our NOC or our data center has specific, targeted goals. Some of the network admins only require seeing network traffic utilization. Some will require port utilization. They may require specific ports and specific devices to monitor a single application.

For example, we have a database system and we need to monitor the underlying network infrastructure related to it, as well as the application related to it. We created a customized dashboard and handed it to the application custodian or database custodian of that system so that he can get an overview of the condition of all the infrastructure that he is using.

We have set a role-based access policy for network admins and network operators so they will only be monitoring VPNs, network device connectivity, and all the tunnels. We are connected with multiple internet service providers, so we can monitor which of them is using a lot of traffic and where the traffic is coming from. 

The role-based dashboards provide data points and charts and topology diagrams in a single window. It's like a spider web, where the application, connectivity, and everything is defined for each user of those applications.

The granularity that Infraon IMS provides to us is really spectacular. If we see a VM in what may be an unhealthy state, we drill down and see what the issue is, whether it's a memory issue or a CPU issue, what time it was triggered, and how it was recovered. All these kinds of measurements are available via drill-down from an events list base.

In addition, the GUI is very interactive and customizable, because the dashboards are customizable. There are two parts to the GUI. One is the operation part where we can see reports and customize them. The other is the admin part where you can add devices. That has to be very quick because we are adding new devices every day, and it is very helpful. We are pretty satisfied with the GUI.

We were also amazed by the reporting capabilities. Previously, we were using open source monitoring systems, like Nagios and Cacti, and we were having a hard time with them. You need to customize each and every module and every parameter to generate an intuitive report view and a summarized query. So getting analytics or doing capacity planning was difficult. With Infraon IMS we're happy with the number of reports and the granularity. And its summarized view of the infrastructure helps us in planning.

What needs improvement?

In terms of improvements, I would like to see an integrated view of Infraon IMS and Infraon Desk. It would be very helpful if that were integrated into the solution.

In terms of additional functionality, a feature they may have but that I haven't been able to find is the ability for a manager to see all the tickets of his subordinates. It would be good if a manager could see every incident ticket, even those not assigned to him. That way, a manager could see every incident ticket that has been opened in the organization and assign them to individuals.

For how long have I used the solution?

We've been using Infraon IMS for more than six months.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I have not seen any hiccups since the deployment. There haven't been any issues.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We have not scaled it that much, but per the information that I have, and from what we have seen in the infrastructure and system, increasing resources or trying to add modules is not too difficult. Because we were not previously using NetFlow monitoring, we added a small module for NetFlow monitoring, and the system was scaled out for the database sizing to retain the NetFlow sizes. It was straightforward.

Regarding expanding use of the solution, because we are providing services to our customers, we want to create a type of tenant-based model and sell it to our customers.

In addition, as of now we are only monitoring the infrastructure that we are handling, like data center services, meaning our infrastructure. We're planning to enhance it so that all our data center colocation customers can also have their own ITSM tools.

How are customer service and technical support?

As far as I know, the experience with their technical support has been very wonderful. Whenever we have had any queries, they have responded promptly. The technical guys are in touch with our project team all the time. Whenever they need any plugins or tweaks, they have been helped by the Everest technical team.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We were using open source tools, like Cacti and Nagios, and we were using another solution for our ticketing system. We decided to switch because there are limitations with open source. We had to have a dedicated team assigned to the open source solutions and that team had to manage the system. There was a lot to tweak with open source, per our organization's requirements. 

We had Cacti for network monitoring to provide a graphical representation. For SLAs we needed to maintain a Nagios system where we had to add all our devices and network monitoring tools. We were also using a separate asset management tool which was not fully functional. It was a separate system and we needed to train our guys on multiple systems. It was a pain for the operation team, and the NOC team also had to look at different consoles and different solutions to find any compliance issues.

And the ticketing system also created a lot of impact, because previously we were using a plain vanilla ticketing system that was open source and not very feature-rich. It was just a basic ticketing system, and generating reports to get any analytics on incidents required a lot of manual work.

With Infraon IMS what we have found is a single pane of glass to view all our network monitoring requirements for our NOC system. 

How was the initial setup?

The setup was pretty straightforward for our team because Everest sent a guy who helped us to develop the infrastructure and that helped a lot when it came to the initial deployment.

They required some VM cloud infrastructure information, like space and sizing. We had to prepare those machines before deploying the solution.

We had our guys trained on it within a week or so. They understand the architecture, as there are a lot of components built into this solution. There are databases, collectors, and some network connectors. But it's pretty easy to learn Infraon IMS because there aren't too many components that you need to set up.

Within a month or so our ticketing and NMS were already deployed.

As of now, our whole NOC team of 10 to 15 guys is using the solution. Our system team, which has about another eight people, is also using it, as are the executives to generate asset, compliance, and SLA reports.

What about the implementation team?

We assigned two of our staff to the deployment, one from the network team and one from the system team, and the Everest guys were aligned with that. They helped our team to get it deployed and, in the next month, we rolled it out to production.

What was our ROI?

We have not done an ROI calculation yet, but I'm seeing a lot of impact as a result of the deployment of this infrastructure, with our guys needing less time to manage the NMS solution itself. We have a technical pool that manages our system and the operations of the data center. When they need to spend all their time managing the NMS system, we're losing all that time. Now, they don't need to focus on the management tools. They can monitor another customer and do other work. It's saving a lot of time for them, something like 20 to 30 percent of their time.

We had a lot of tools and products in the data centers and we were getting bogged down. All these solutions required resources and our guys needed to be trained on them. Whenever someone would leave, we needed to train the newer guy. It was creating a lot of havoc.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The pricing is reasonable, given the features that they provide. There have not been any additional costs beyond the standard fees.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We looked into ManageEngine, PRTG, and other tools. But for our infrastructure and our scale, we required something that could be scaled out and something that was customizable. We also needed something to provide us with ITSM tools, a help desk with workflow and a ticketing system.

We also evaluated Zabbix about a year and a half ago but the deployment cost was very high. It was going to take more than two months to deploy. Our guys were not so aligned with or trained on Zabbix. They would find it very difficult to manage all the plugins. So we opted not to go with open source.

With Infraon, we get a one-stop view of all infrastructure and every ITSM requirement that we have, from a single vendor and solution. It had good reviews in the international market also. We came across it because we had proposed it to one of our customers and we saw that the customer was very happy. While managing the system, we found that it is a very helpful tool.

What other advice do I have?

We don't use Infraon IMS to automatically trigger processes to help resolve issues when it detects compliance violations, but we have triggered reports. We don't want any automation as of now, so we are only using manual intervention to take any actions. We need to be sure about our workflows. Once the actions are tried and tested then we will put in the automation.

The biggest lesson I have learned is around the consolidation of all our NOC and ITSM requirements in a single solution. We were only looking for an NMS solution, but they provided us with a workflow, automation, a ticketing system, and an incident management system. It has been a revelation for us.

Overall, it's a wonderful one-stop ITSM solution for infrastructure.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Private Cloud
Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor. The reviewer's company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Reseller.
Network & Systems Administrator Individual Contributor at T-Systems
Real User
Top 10
Good monitoring and reporting tools with useful dashboards
Pros and Cons
  • "It can monitor, get the data, and then report on the data."
  • "The deployment can be quite complex."

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use the solution in order to monitor the servers as well as the VM infrastructure.

How has it helped my organization?

We are now able to monitor our infrastructure and get the information in real-time should anything happen. In terms of the hard drive hitting the threshold, then we'll get notified and the technician can attend to it. It reduces the time to attend to the incidents and allows you to be aware of our infrastructure as the status of our infrastructure is visible via dashboards.

What is most valuable?

The monitoring and the reporting tools are great. It can monitor, get the data, and then report on the data. 

You have the dashboard to see your different items. You create the dashboard to see if there was any incident as well; it creates incident reports for you. For example, if the hard drive goes beyond a certain limit, you can get notified. You can look at your CPU utilization or memory as well. You can set thresholds and monitor for all different types of information.

The solution is stable and reliable.

Technical support is helpful. 

We have witnessed an ROI while using it. 

What needs improvement?

Overall, I cannot think of any features that are missing.

The deployment can be quite complex. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for two years now. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We have about 100 people on the solution. Some of them don't use the solution directly, however, they benefit from the solution.

How are customer service and support?

Technical support is fairly good. We are satisfied with their assistance. 

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I used other solutions before, which were LiveAction, and Cisco Prime. They were used to monitor.

Currently, I'm using PRTG for network monitoring, to monitor the network devices. With Splunk, we monitor servers, and with PRTG, we monitor the network devices such as routers, IPs, and switches.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is very straightforward. That said, the configuration and all those things you need to do to make it work according to what you want, you need to deploy some apps, and some that part is what is not straightforward about the setup.

The deployment took about three months.

There are three of us that handle deployment or maintenance. 

What about the implementation team?

We are an integrator team; we actually had help from Splunk themselves to implement the solution.

What was our ROI?

We have seen an ROI.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

It's affordable when you compare it to HPSA - the HP Server Administration.

You get the things according to your data - the data that you need to report on. The capacity of the data that you need to report on. Right now, it's set to 100GBs. We've got the license for 100GBs.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

There are different companies or customers that we support within the company. Whichever product they have that's what we go with. For example, we might use AlgoSec, Cisco Prime, or LiveAction as the customer that was using it. We don't evaluate other solutions, we use what is already there.

I did not handle the choice of Splunk. I got into the stage where the system or the application was already implemented. I did not participate in the stage where we had to choose which solution to pick or how to implement it.

What other advice do I have?

We partner with Splunk. We use the product to deliver it to our customers. We're an integrator. We're just using the product to service our customers.

I'd advise new users that it is a very good product, however, you need to have some knowledge and do some training on the product in order to gather knowledge so that you can understand and implement it effectively. 

I'd rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Private Cloud
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer:
Flag as inappropriate
Information Security Officer at Kenmare Resources Mauritius
Real User
Top 5
Effective monitoring, scalable, and useful online resources
Pros and Cons
  • "We are able to monitor our virtual infrastructure, virtual machines, windows servers, databases, and the network using a simple network management protocol. We are able to pull almost all the metrics that we want, receive notifications, and have them integrate with telegrams for certain devices that are critical, such as UPSs."
  • "Zabbix does not draw automatic mapping of the network, this is something they should add in the future. There is a lot of effort that is involved in tailoring some of the settings which could be made easier."

What is our primary use case?

We are using Zabbix in my workplace to monitor the infrastructure.

What is most valuable?

We are able to monitor our virtual infrastructure, virtual machines, windows servers, databases, and the network using a simple network management protocol. We are able to pull almost all the metrics that we want, receive notifications, and have them integrate with telegrams for certain devices that are critical, such as UPSs.

What needs improvement?

Zabbix does not draw automatic mapping of the network, this is something they should add in the future. There is a lot of effort that is involved in tailoring some of the settings which could be made easier. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Zabbix for approximately four years.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Zabbix is scalable because depending on the size of your infrastructure you can have distributed proxies servers across your network that will feed to the main server for the metric. It is similar to branches, where you can have one product for each branch and then the central server speaking in your central location, it works perfectly.

Our entire IT department is using Zabbix, which is 15 people, but we have approximately 600 devices being monitored.

How are customer service and support?

I have never had an issue that I needed to contact support. However, everything I have needed was able to be found online from the community or the Zabbix site manuals. Zabbix does offer support based on a subscription.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I was using Centurion previously but I decided to switch to Zaddix because of costs. I was using the community edition of Centurion and it was very limited but with Zabbix, you can have an enterprise-class monitoring solution for free. I did research quickly and then I phoned Zaddix to see if they could solve all my problems without having to pay anything. This is when they confirmed I could and then I switched.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was easy. It took approximately three hours to get the server up and running.

What was our ROI?

By using Zabbix you minimize the cost of operation because you recieve an enterprise-class monitoring solution for free.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The solution is free to use but they offer support as a paid service. If you can go read the manuals and do the fine-tuning based on your needs, you do not need to pay anything and you will have a full solution.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I have evaluated PRTG and SolarWinds.

What other advice do I have?

You do not need to spend a lot of money on solutions that have similar functionality, such as PRTG or Solar Winds. With Zabbix, you receive a free enterprise-class monitoring solution for free, as long as you know how to use it.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Zabbix a nine out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Senior Network Engineer at a mining and metals company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
Responsive support, beneficial performance monitoring, but database optimization could improve
Pros and Cons
  • "The most valuable feature of SolarWinds NPM is the performance monitoring to see the memory, and CPU utilization."
  • "SolarWinds NPM can be very slow at times. The database optimization can be done to improve the product performance."

What is our primary use case?

SolarWinds NPM is used to monitor our devices' to see uptime, availability, and performance.

How has it helped my organization?

SolarWinds NPM has helped our organization by proactively indicating if we are low on resources for a particular server.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature of SolarWinds NPM is the performance monitoring to see the memory, and CPU utilization.

What needs improvement?

SolarWinds NPM can be very slow at times. The database optimization can be done to improve the product performance.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using SolarWinds NPM for approximately 10 years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

SolarWinds NPM is very unstable. We often have website loading issues. We have to call support, and they fix it. Then a month later, we're going to have the same problem.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

SolarWinds NPM can be used at multiple locations, and increase the capacity as needed with additional licensing. It's very scalable. 

We have three people using this solution. It's used globally at all our sites and we plan to increase our usage in the future.

How are customer service and support?

SolarWinds NPM technical support is very responsive. They're available by phone, which is a plus.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I did not use a solution previously.

How was the initial setup?

SolarWinds NPM's initial setup was straightforward. It took about a year to complete the full process of the implementation. The strategy we used was we worked on the setup of vCore and Microsoft Azure, and then for each of our sites, we did afterward.

What about the implementation team?

We did the deployment in-house.

What was our ROI?

I have not seen a substantial return on investment with SolarWinds NPM.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

We pay approximately $4,000 annually for SolarWinds NPM. There are no additional fees required other than the standard fees.

I rate the price of SolarWinds NPM a three out of five.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I have evaluated other solutions, such as PRTG Network Monitor and WhatsUp Gold. We choose SolarWinds NPM because it had better licensing and architectural options.

What other advice do I have?

My advice to others is to follow the best practices.

I rate SolarWinds NPM a seven out of ten.

The solution has good support they're constantly improving it.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud

If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

Microsoft Azure
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
Buyer's Guide
Network Monitoring Software
November 2022
Get our free report covering Zabbix, Nagios, SolarWinds, and other competitors of PRTG Network Monitor. Updated: November 2022.
655,994 professionals have used our research since 2012.