We performed a comparison between Checkmk and Nagios Core 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."The single dashboard is a valuable feature."
"We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"It's versatile, scalable, and easier to use compared to other solutions like Nagios and OMD."
"I really like the auto-discovery feature."
"We can monitor multiple sites using the product."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it has a lot of different pieces, and they all work together...It is a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The initial setup of Checkmk was easy...It is a very stable solution."
"The most valuable features of Checkmk are its resource monitoring, infra monitoring, and log factor configuration."
"Provides timely notifications."
"The most valuable features are the reports and the way it generates the report in a graphical manner."
"I like that it's very simple to install, easy to manage and deploy, and easy to use for monitoring."
"Nagios monitors our servers, so we know if anything goes wrong and can solve the problem before it happens."
"Nagios Core is stable."
"Nagios Core is very configurable. Whatever you want, you can do it."
"The most valuable feature of Nagios Core is it allows us to develop and add as many plugins as we want."
"The notifications are definitely one of the most valuable features of Nagios Core. We know what to look for and what to expect when things are down."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"The technical support needs improvement."
"In Checkmk, the documentation can probably be improved a bit more."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"It is easy for tech-savvy people, but newcomers might find it intimidating."
"If an alert is generated for a specific pattern in the log, and if Checkmk catches that log, it will stay there even after the alert is resolved."
"I think that the integration and the exporting of the data collected are areas where Checkmk lacks but should try to improve the most."
"Sometimes we receive alerts, and it can become annoying when you acknowledge an alert. It is very clunky when you acknowledge the alert. The process is not very intuitive, and there are instances where it feels a bit cumbersome to acknowledge an alert."
"The dashboard and monitoring features could be improved."
"The tool needs to improve the integrations."
"Would benefit from aggregations if a particular server goes down."
"Making it a little easier to configure and set up from the start would help. There are multiple layers that you have to wade through to be able to set it up, to do it the right way, and to get it to do what you want it to do."
"The mapping is a little hard."
"Nagios Core does not have a graphic display."
"There is room for improvement in the graphics."
"The user interface could be more interactive because it is pretty basic."
More Juniper Mist Premium Analytics Pricing and Cost Advice →
Checkmk is ranked 21st in Network Monitoring Software with 6 reviews while Nagios Core is ranked 7th in Network Monitoring Software with 46 reviews. Checkmk is rated 8.6, while Nagios Core is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Checkmk writes "A reasonably priced tool for system and application monitoring". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Nagios Core writes "An Open Source Fully Featured Data Centre Monitoring Tool". Checkmk is most compared with Zabbix, Icinga, Netdata, Centreon and Observium, whereas Nagios Core is most compared with Zabbix, Nagios XI, Icinga, Centreon and OP5 Monitor. See our Checkmk vs. Nagios Core report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software 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.