We performed a comparison between eG Enterprise and Zabbix 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."
"Single pane of glass to review status of the full environment."
"Sometimes when we face issues with the new technologies or very old technologies where we cannot enhance the service, they move to work with us directly and start doing some development on this area which is very good for us."
"The ability to see what the end user response is, so I can get a better understanding of what the end user is seeing when they connect to the Citrix servers."
"The most important feature is the ability to design, then implement monitoring tests on the fly as we are adapting to different situations."
"The topology view which provides a visual representation of a service and quickly allows identification of errors or degraded performance."
"User session details"
"What I like about eG Enterprise is that it's easy to use. It's a simple product. You can get up to seventy-five to eighty percent of the required information based on real user experience and diagnostics."
"The GUI is nicer than all the other graphical interfaces out there."
"Zabbix helps to save time."
"The basic setup is very easy."
"It's a flexible solution."
"Zabbix is an excellent performance monitoring tool."
"I have found that the reporting feature in Zabbix is most valuable. Additionally, the solution has given us bandwidth options, we are able to see where problems are. For example, we noticed a problem that occurred because of a bad interface going in the wireless VLAN."
"The integration capabilities and APIs are the best part."
"It not only provides the preconfigured item monitoring feature, but it is also easy to configure custom items."
"We are able to do problem determination on runaway processes."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"The technical support needs improvement."
"I can understand why they designed the user interface (UI) the way they did, but sometimes in the management of the eG Manager, it can be a bit clunky."
"The UI looks a little dated and could do with a refresh."
"Application TCP latency is an area with room for improvement, but I believe this is already on the roadmap."
"Their dashboards could use some improvement. The ability to customize them a bit more."
"The solution should improve on the security side and include some more API integrations into wider application platforms."
"The integration must be improved."
"Dashboards are difficult to create, and not so useful."
"Back-end configuration is not easy to implement."
"Zabbix is not easy to configure, and upgrading is also an issue."
"Zabbix technical support is sold separately."
"The user interface could be a bit better. They could update it a bit."
"Look and feel."
"Implementing Zabbix is difficult. I've deployed many solutions over the years, and Zabbix is the hardest to implement. You have to do some development to get it to work with IBM, Micro Focus, or HP products."
"Its UI needs to be improved a little bit more so that an end-user is also able to handle it. I can handle it, but others should also be able to handle it in a better way. It becomes complex when we are growing and need to add proxies. We need more scalability features and documentation for different use cases. A lot of articles are available, but they need to be in proper documentation. For example, when you have thousands of servers that have to be monitored in different regions of the world, there should be some kind of documentation to describe how you can create proxies and add them. Sometimes, when you are using the database, it can get overloaded. When the network is growing, the number of transactions becomes very high, and the database gets overloaded. There should be information about how to reduce the load on the MySQL database, which is what Zabbix is using. The market is growing a lot, and it should be enhanced for a lot more things. We are currently bringing enhancements at our end for different use cases. For example, when dockerization is going on, how can we check the logs inside the Dockers. We should also be able to monitor and check the number of logins and add features such as SSO login and two-factor authentication as a protocol. These are the security features and concerns that we have to deal with. Currently, we are developing modules to add features to Zabbix, but they should also work on these features."
"I would like to remotely connect to the computer, and Zabbix doesn't have this capability."
"Implementation is always tailored to the customer and the kind of information we need from the client to carry it out can make them very uncomfortable. Sometimes the clients are not ready to share it."
More Juniper Mist Premium Analytics Pricing and Cost Advice →
eG Enterprise is ranked 52nd in Network Monitoring Software with 20 reviews while Zabbix is ranked 1st in Network Monitoring Software with 101 reviews. eG Enterprise is rated 8.2, while Zabbix is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of eG Enterprise writes "Great visibility, easy to set up, and has very responsive technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zabbix writes "Allows any number of customizations but lacks functionality for finding root causes". eG Enterprise is most compared with Grafana, ControlUp, Dynatrace, PRTG Network Monitor and AppDynamics, whereas Zabbix is most compared with Centreon, Checkmk, Nagios Core, Amazon CloudWatch and SolarWinds NPM. See our Zabbix vs. eG Enterprise report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors, best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability 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.