We compared Datadog and Pandora FMS across several parameters based on our users' reviews. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Features: Datadog users like its customizable displays, error tracking, and advanced AI/ML capabilities. Pandora FMS is highly regarded for its straightforward management process, effective dashboards, and efficient network monitoring capabilities.
Room for Improvement: Datadog could enhance its usability and reduce its learning curve. Users said integration was another pain point. Users say Pandora FMS could make its dashboards more customizable and improve its integration with other systems. Many also said they would like Pandora to add APIs for integration and offer better out-of-the-box analytics.
Service and Support: While many users spoke highly of Datadog’s support team, others reported slow support responses, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. Pandora FMS support received high praise for their expertise, kindness, and fast response time.
Ease of Deployment: Datadog’s setup is considered straightforward, and users often receive help from a partner or vendor. Most users found Pandora FMS’s initial setup to be relatively easy.
Pricing: Opinions about Datadog's price are divided. Some users found it costly, but others thought it was acceptable. Some said the pricing model could be clearer and better explained. Pandora FMS is considered reasonably priced, and the total cost depends on the environment.
ROI: Users said Datadog saved them time and improved visibility into security blind spots. Pandora FMS has also demonstrated advantages in terms of return on investment.
Comparison Results: Datadog is praised for its customizability, easy setup, and robust AI features, but some users say it has room for improvement in areas like usability and integration. Datadog’s pricing and customer service received mixed reviews. Users like Pandora FMS’s management and monitoring capabilities as well as its dashboards, but the solution has been criticized for its compatibility issues, limited customization options, and slower performance.
"The single dashboard is a valuable feature."
"We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"I really enjoy the RUM monitoring features of Datadog. It allows us to monitor user behavior in a way we couldn't before."
"If we have a large load for users using our basic Datadog, it will immediately fire off an alert notifying us either something's wrong or not."
"Its logs are most valuable."
"We find they have a very helpful alert system."
"We can handle debugging and find out why things are breaking in our applications."
"Datadog's ability to group and visualize the servers and the data makes it relatively easy for the root cause analysis."
"The network map is crucial in identifying bottlenecks and determining what needs more attention."
"Because of our client focus, it is easy for us to sell. This is because it is easy to use and easy to set up."
"The solution has good dashboards and graphics."
"This product has allowed us to identify and correct certain issues that were affecting our solution."
"What I value most about Pandora FMS is the simplicity of working with it."
"The official forum is active enough to answer most of the high-end technical questions that you may have."
"The network monitoring and configuration within this solution is very good."
"It provides us with proactive monitoring and is very easy to configure and maintain."
"You can configure several types of architecture for high availability or load balancing."
"Thanks to this software and to the work of the support team, we have everything under control."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"The technical support needs improvement."
"When I started using it years ago, it had stability problems. I remember, specifically, we ran everything in Docker containers. There were some problems getting it into a Docker container with very specific memory limits."
"It lacks consistency in the APIs."
"It would be great if usage metrics were automatically created and we could create custom metrics, instead we ended up building some of our own stuff to track and alert on our own usage."
"We would really like to see more from the Service Catalog."
"There is always room for improvement when dealing with cloud-based technologies. Mainly, I would say, it's just increasing our offerings to attract various other types of industries and businesses across more fields."
"Some of the interface is still confusing to use."
"We need more visibility into the error tracking dashboard."
"Delta traces on the Golang profiler are extremely expensive concerning memory utilization."
"It would be helpful to include the generation of reports for times that the network was out of service."
"Their support is good, but it is just online communication. It would be great to be able to just call someone and talk to them instead of always writing. It works well for me because I am a decent communicator in email, but some people might find it difficult to describe in a written fashion and communicate with them that way. There is a learning curve to the interface, but once you get used to it, it is actually very powerful. They have a lot of options, but people struggle with the interface. They've improved it though, and it is getting better. They need to keep improving the learning curve to help buy-in. I'm the guy that manages it, so I'm comfortable with it. They can refine the upgrade agents to be easier. They can also do more refinement in end-user usability because not everyone is strong technically, and people who aren't strong technically might be averse to the product, even though it has come a long way. It has a complete GUI and everything."
"Improvements are needed for server and network discovery, including service-based discovery."
"We would like the real-time monitoring of an interface to be improved within this solution."
"The product lacks APIs for integration with other systems."
"When it comes to the definition of local Software Agents for the first time in the open-source version, it can become very tedious."
"Third-party integration should be improved for some commonly used products."
"Pandora FMS is an overall great monitoring solution, but it does not have a community that is as large as Zabbix or Nagios."
More Juniper Mist Premium Analytics Pricing and Cost Advice →
Datadog is ranked 2nd in Network Monitoring Software with 137 reviews while Pandora FMS is ranked 28th in Network Monitoring Software with 22 reviews. Datadog is rated 8.6, while Pandora FMS is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Datadog writes "Very good RUM, synthetics, and infrastructure host maps". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pandora FMS writes "The open architecture is easy to extend and enhance". Datadog is most compared with Dynatrace, Azure Monitor, New Relic, AWS X-Ray and Elastic Observability, whereas Pandora FMS is most compared with Zabbix, Wazuh, PRTG Network Monitor, Nagios XI and Centreon. See our Datadog vs. Pandora FMS report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors, best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors, and best Log Management 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.