We performed a comparison between Checkmk and Nagios Core 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."The single dashboard is a valuable feature."
"We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"The most valuable features of Checkmk are its resource monitoring, infra monitoring, and log factor configuration."
"It's versatile, scalable, and easier to use compared to other solutions like Nagios and OMD."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it has a lot of different pieces, and they all work together...It is a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"I really like the auto-discovery feature."
"We can monitor multiple sites using the product."
"The initial setup of Checkmk was easy...It is a very stable solution."
"I like that it's very simple to install, easy to manage and deploy, and easy to use for monitoring."
"Dashboard provides monitor of total assets."
"The most valuable feature is the performance parameters of the system."
"Nagios Core is stable."
"The application performance monitoring feature is valuable."
"Other products are good but from the configuration point of view Nagios is really very lightweight. The price is really good in my opinion. Another important thing is that my Nagios engine still works with Dual core 8GB ram for the last 10 years."
"Our customers like that Nagios Core is an open source solution. It can be customized to our customers' specific needs."
"Nagios monitors our servers, so we know if anything goes wrong and can solve the problem before it happens."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"The technical support needs improvement."
"If an alert is generated for a specific pattern in the log, and if Checkmk catches that log, it will stay there even after the alert is resolved."
"Sometimes we receive alerts, and it can become annoying when you acknowledge an alert. It is very clunky when you acknowledge the alert. The process is not very intuitive, and there are instances where it feels a bit cumbersome to acknowledge an alert."
"It is easy for tech-savvy people, but newcomers might find it intimidating."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"I think that the integration and the exporting of the data collected are areas where Checkmk lacks but should try to improve the most."
"In Checkmk, the documentation can probably be improved a bit more."
"I would like to see more training videos."
"Bandwidth monitoring is the pain point for me because Nagios Core does not monitor bandwidth effectively like Cacti does."
"Nagios Core does not have a graphic display."
"The core version is no match for the XI version."
"The dashboard and monitoring features could be improved."
"The UI is a little outdated and graphics could be displayed in a better way."
"The scalability needs improvement, it's not scalable at this time."
"The initial setup process could be easier."
More Juniper Mist Premium Analytics Pricing and Cost Advice →
Checkmk is ranked 19th in Network Monitoring Software with 6 reviews while Nagios Core is ranked 7th in Network Monitoring Software with 46 reviews. Checkmk is rated 8.6, while Nagios Core is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Checkmk writes "A reasonably priced tool for system and application monitoring". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Nagios Core writes "An Open Source Fully Featured Data Centre Monitoring Tool". Checkmk is most compared with Zabbix, Icinga, Netdata, Centreon and Observium, whereas Nagios Core is most compared with Nagios XI, Zabbix, Icinga, Centreon and OP5 Monitor. See our Checkmk vs. Nagios Core report.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software 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.