We performed a comparison between ITRS Geneos and Zabbix based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability 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 flexibility of the product is most valuable. It is highly customizable. If you put your mind to it and think of something you could do, there's a good possibility you can get it integrated within the console, if it's not readily available. The simplicity or ease of customization has been valuable."
"The Netprobe is so lightweight compared to the agents that most monitoring tools use. It's really superior to the competition. The agent that is used by almost every competitive tool takes a lot more system resources. It's slower and it requires a greater effort and more compromises in terms of security to install on the monitored servers. With Geneos, because it lives outside the code, it is far easier and far less taxing on the monitored systems."
"In my experience, being able to monitor our databases is a valuable feature as we can create our own queries and aren't reliant on the in-built ones."
"The ability to build integrations to tools that are not monitored out of the box is the most valuable feature."
"I always appreciate Geneos's stability and ease of use."
"It's also easy to implement. The implementation of Geneos is very easy and interesting. It's not complicated. It's very quick to implement. The installation is very easy. There are many topics about ITRS Geneos that explain more about the features of the function of Geneos."
"The solution's log monitoring and alerting mechanisms are very user-friendly and easy to plug and play."
"The NetProbe carries over 100 samplers which are capable of monitoring hardware, OS, and the application layer."
"The most valuable feature is the alert and alarm monitoring."
"Zabbix is both stable and scalable."
"The solution is stable."
"The integration with third-party tools and the alerts are most valuable."
"Zabbix is good for discovery."
"The most valuable feature is that it provides network segregation for server monitoring."
"The performance and bandwidth are valuable features."
"The solution is quite mature and very stable."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"For the last year or two, I've been asking the vendor about the mobile app. This is something that probably everyone asks when they see the tool and they see how powerful it is. If there is any mobile app for this or if there is any way this tool can be more easily accessible other than having a big client installed, it would be great. I know you can build dashboards, et cetera, but there is no quick and easy way. I should be able to download an app, log in, and see my status. That will put this product above everything else out there. I believe it's on their roadmap."
"Data visualization – real time and historical – is a weakness."
"Backward compatibility with deprecated features and in system documentation on what configuration areas are needed to be updated."
"Much of the reporting outside of the user interface is very basic and requires much customization to be useful."
"One area where there is room for improvement is the log file. I would like to be able to do a pre-run on the log files. When you are testing log files for regular expressions, it would be good to be able to do a quick check up front on that side of things before you release that into production."
"I would like better access to the data that is being collected."
"They have the Webslinger solution where you can see when something is alerting. It's a little bit cumbersome."
"I would like to see ITRS integrate its setup editor with a SVN to check-in setup XML after major changes."
"The performance reporting could be improved."
"There's a small module of APM, however, it is not an enhanced version. People usually ask for a full-fledged APM solution."
"The user web interface is a little bit too basic, we need to link Zabbix to Grafana to have more options, such as graphs and charts. The interface needs to be improved. Additionally, there could be better integration with Grafana API."
"The GUI could be more intuitive. Also, we'd like streaming telemetry. Zabbix might have this feature, but I haven't seen it yet. It took us a long time to get started because the documentation isn't very descriptive. We had to go through various sources like YouTube and forums to get this solution working."
"Zabbix is not easy to configure, and upgrading is also an issue."
"For us, the initial setup was complex"
"The graphical user interface could be customized a little bit more, and also the dashboard could be more friendly."
"The product delivers false positives during reporting because of flapping. Other reasonably priced alternatives may have better performance."
ITRS Geneos is ranked 11th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 57 reviews while Zabbix is ranked 10th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 98 reviews. ITRS Geneos is rated 8.2, while Zabbix is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of ITRS Geneos writes "The flexible dashboard sets it apart from competing tools, but it's costly and lacks scalability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zabbix writes "Allows any number of customizations but lacks functionality for finding root causes". ITRS Geneos is most compared with Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Grafana and Prometheus, whereas Zabbix is most compared with Centreon, Checkmk, SolarWinds NPM, Nagios XI and Nagios Core. See our ITRS Geneos vs. Zabbix report.
See our list of best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability vendors, best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors, and best Network Monitoring Software vendors.
We monitor all Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability 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.