We performed a comparison between NetCrunch and Pandora FMS 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."
"Reporting on NetCrunch is pretty good. It's very similar to SolarWinds. It's just a different interface. The majority of everything there was beneficial."
"Thanks to its flexibility, I have been able to adapt the tool to our servers and find out quickly how their console works."
"You can configure several types of architecture for high availability or load balancing."
"This product has allowed us to identify and correct certain issues that were affecting our solution."
"Features I have found most valuable with Pandora are the personalized metrics and the simplicity of data."
"Pandora FMS provides us with a general report (graphical) about all of the connected devices, which helps with planning new stations and tracking them."
"What I value most about Pandora FMS is the simplicity of working with it."
"The solution is so lightweight that with only 4GB of ram, it allows keeping track of up to two hundred agents from a single console."
"Pandora's architecture is interesting. It's open so you can easily extend and enhance it. It's simpler to customize Pandora compared to other solutions. It's also scalable enough to support large environments."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"I didn't care for the role-based, permission-based options, which were not the best."
"It would be useful if Pandora FMS included an ISO image (or «software appliance») for each big company that leases virtual private machines (VPS), just like in AWS."
"When it comes to the definition of local Software Agents for the first time in the open-source version, it can become very tedious."
"It would be helpful to include the generation of reports for times that the network was out of service."
"This solution requires proper training to get 100% out of it."
"I find that this software is resource heavy, and demands a lot of processing capacity."
"Improvements are needed for server and network discovery, including service-based discovery."
"Pandora could deliver better analytics out of the box. You can work around these limitations with the help of other tools like Grafana. The shortcomings are mostly on the graphical side. The built-in report generators are a bit limited in some areas."
"In the future, we may have double the number of devices, and we do not want to have any issues with performance in the data display."
Earn 20 points
NetCrunch is ranked 77th in Network Monitoring Software while Pandora FMS is ranked 28th in Network Monitoring Software with 22 reviews. NetCrunch is rated 8.0, while Pandora FMS is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of NetCrunch writes "A network monitoring platform with a useful reporting feature, but permission-based options could be better". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pandora FMS writes "The open architecture is easy to extend and enhance". NetCrunch is most compared with Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor and Fortinet FortiSIEM, whereas Pandora FMS is most compared with Zabbix, Wazuh, PRTG Network Monitor, Nagios XI and SolarWinds NPM. See our NetCrunch vs. Pandora FMS report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors, best Server Monitoring 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.