We performed a comparison between Datadog and Icinga 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 single dashboard is a valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of Datadog is its logs."
"They have a very good foundation in capturing metrics, logs, and traces. It's a very nice tool for that and it allows you to apply these monitoring tools in almost any technology."
"The management of SLOs and their related burn-rate monitors have allowed us to onboard teams to on-call fast."
"Using the data, our operation teams works with the dashboards to get their statistics, analytics, etc."
"We have a better grasp of what is occurring during the deployment cycle. If something fails, we have an idea what has failed, where it has failed, and how it failed to better mitigate the situation."
"Excellent autocomplete for everything in the UI."
"The ability to send notifications based on metadata from the monitor is helpful."
"Datadog's seamless integration with Slack and PagerDuty helped us to receive alerts right to the most common notification methods we use (our mobile devices and Slack)."
"The value of Icinga is that it has hundreds of plugins, so it's really easy to monitor pretty much anything."
"Macros and the ability to connect it to Google Maps are valuable features."
"There's a module called Icinga Director, which helps us configure the product using an intuitive interface through clicks instead of creating a text configuration. It's very helpful for us."
"Icinga has multiple automation and integration features. There is an API for everything and a web UI for configurations. The APIs enable you to automate tasks in Icinga. We can also use plugins to talk to the API. The Icinga Director talks to a database in the background, and you can import settings from the CMDB to all systems in Icinga."
"The ability to customize scripts and build your own queries to request information from the infrastructure elements you want to monitor. This level of personalization and customization is highly appreciated."
"I like the ability to amend and adjust things really easily, which is useful in a case where you could make it auto-discover and then set a template to say all of these applications or servers under this template have an automatic threshold set that you’d set up manually."
"The best thing about the solution is how it highlights errors, the issues, and what needs my attention. The solution directs me to areas that I should look for first."
"The apply rules feature saves a lot of time."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"The technical support needs improvement."
"The logging could be improved in the future."
"We'd like Datadog to make the log storage cheaper."
"It would be nice to be able to graph metrics by excluding certain tags (like you can do in monitors)."
"The Log Explorer could be better. I don't think it has log manipulation as Splunk does."
"Its pricing model can be improved. Its settings should be improved for a better understanding of billing. They should also provide some alerts when there is an increase in the usage. For example, if there is 20% more increase from one week to another, the customer should get an alert."
"Datadog is so feature-rich that it is often hard to onboard new folks and tough to decide where to invest time."
"Datadog does not have the feature where you can monitor external websites or check the SSL secure for websites."
"For three to four months, we have been experiencing real-time delays. For example, if we're monitoring incoming traffic, the real-time status should be displayed up to a certain point. However, due to delays or issues with Datadog, the real-time data might only be updated at an earlier time. We are experiencing consistent delays in data updates from Datadog, with the most recent data often being delayed by about an hour. This issue has been ongoing for the past four months."
"In general, the product does not look good. However, it does what it is supposed to do. So, the improvements should focus on usability and UI."
"At this time, the layout of the website is a bit difficult. It should be more user-friendly for changing the background and logos."
"There is room for improvement in multi-tenancy. It's not perfect, not even really good. It's average, but it should be improved."
"The user interface should be improved."
"The solution lacks many features important to higher-level IT management and network support."
"It needs Trap SNMP. I saw the documentation for Zabbix, that it has its own built-in product which handles SNMP traps, and there's nothing similar in Icinga or Nagios. I think this feature is most important for me."
"We have found some problems with Nagios, and support isn't very responsive."
"One of the areas that are frustrating is remote monitoring for more than one machine."
More Juniper Mist Premium Analytics Pricing and Cost Advice →
Datadog is ranked 2nd in Network Monitoring Software with 137 reviews while Icinga is ranked 22nd in Network Monitoring Software with 17 reviews. Datadog is rated 8.6, while Icinga is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Datadog writes "Very good RUM, synthetics, and infrastructure host maps". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Icinga writes "A stable, scalable and cost-effective solution that helps with inbuilt scripts for easy modification". Datadog is most compared with Dynatrace, Azure Monitor, New Relic, AWS X-Ray and Elastic Observability, whereas Icinga is most compared with Zabbix, Checkmk, Nagios Core, Nagios XI and OP5 Monitor. See our Datadog vs. Icinga report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors, best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors, and best Cloud Monitoring Software 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.