We performed a comparison between Microsoft Configuration Manager and Zabbix based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Server Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We are happy with the collaboration of SCCM with Patch My PC, which allows us to do patch work."
"It's helped us solve problems surrounding patching, installing, and reporting different patches, etc., on the virtual machines."
"There is a faster time to rollout. If we get a new PC, it can be ready for productivity right away."
"It uses detailed descriptions of the workstations, and that is good for me."
"SCCM does everything from A to Z for a Windows operating system."
"Microsoft has done a good job with authentication solutions, such as single sign-on, or open authentication."
"It is a very good solution. It has a good interface and is easy to use. On top of that, it is very reliable in terms of distribution as well as getting the report."
"It's a stable product."
"The solution is open-source, easy to manage, and user-friendly making it easy for anyone to use."
"The basic setup is very easy."
"The most valuable feature is network traffic monitoring."
"We use it to monitor and manage our servers."
"During my testing, the features that I like the most are that it can be integrated with my system, and it provides me with reports of all of my servers."
"The solution allows you to configure and customize how you want to collect information from servers or other systems."
"Zabbix can use old data to current data to set the threshold. We can use previous data to set the threshold."
"Zabbix is very easy to implement."
"The solution does not support remote devices so the CMG is still required."
"A lot of experience is needed in terms of troubleshooting, as this is one of the most difficult tasks in MECM. We were seven people in a group and I was the only one that had the patience to do the troubleshooting at times."
"This solution should be simpler, and more consistent across modules/sections."
"The reports are too busy. They could be simpler. I'm a technician, so I don't care how pretty the reports look. They should be easy to read. I'm designing this for production folks. They need to read the reports quickly when they're patching in the middle of the night."
"The main thing is that SCCM has to become an appliance instead of a server. When I say appliance, it has to come preconfigured so that it is drop-shipped into the enterprise and then you activate the feature sets that you want. It should pull down all the latest binaries. Once that is all there, it should have a discovery tool which goes out and discovers the assets within an enterprise. If the server, workstation, and applications are all coming from the same vendor, why not have the vendor do this work for us and automate it as much as it possibly can?"
"SCCM can improve on third-party application support."
"Built in PowerShell cmdlets would be a nice feature because managing clients remotely can be a pain without knowing the WMI calls to run."
"The deployment process is lengthy and should be quicker to complete."
"Documentation terminology could be improved."
"The reporting features need improvement, especially detailed inventory reporting. Since it's freeware, reporting may not be a major focus."
"Zabbix could improve when it comes to large-scale use cases. Additionally, the inventory could be better when connecting to other solutions, such as ServiceNow. There show to be better integration with other platforms and storage."
"There are some features of Zabbix that are not good for reporting. The DX Spectrum solution has better reporting."
"The APM monitoring has room for improvement, although I hear that the new 5.2 version has some improvements in that area, and I'd like to give that a go. I would like to see a few more templates out there for different styles of monitoring. I use the Grafana interface for reporting. I would also like it to have an out-of-the-box ability to email reports. You can create reports, but to be able to email those reports would be really helpful. I've got users who are not interested in logging in and generating a report. They want it all pre-canned and sent to an email address. It would also be really handy if we could pin certain reports up onto platforms such as Teams or SharePoint. A GUI for the proxy server would be cool to have for debugging purposes and for the support teams to have a look at, but I don't know whether that's really feasible to do. I get enough from the log files themselves."
"If you want to use all of the features then you have to pay a licensing fee."
"Sometimes, the documentation is a little bit written in Estonia – a country in Europe. The language barrier and translation to English can sometimes make it difficult to understand what they're trying to get at. It's just a language thing."
"They should open an SSH session from the web interface."
More Microsoft Configuration Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Configuration Manager is ranked 2nd in Server Monitoring with 78 reviews while Zabbix is ranked 1st in Server Monitoring with 101 reviews. Microsoft Configuration Manager is rated 8.2, while Zabbix is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Configuration Manager writes "Affordable, easy to use, and easy to understand". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zabbix writes "Allows any number of customizations but lacks functionality for finding root causes". Microsoft Configuration Manager is most compared with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, ManageEngine Endpoint Central, BigFix and Tanium, whereas Zabbix is most compared with Centreon, Checkmk, Nagios Core, Amazon CloudWatch and SolarWinds NPM. See our Microsoft Configuration Manager vs. Zabbix report.
See our list of best Server Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all Server Monitoring 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.
