We performed a comparison between BigPanda and Icinga based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."BigPanda integrates well with other solutions, such as WatchGuard,"
"The most valuable features of BigPanda are the API integration was good. It enables us to do faster onboarding."
"The main thing that we like about BigPanda is the user interface."
"The event correlation is really good and it is able to reduce the noise. It is a good tool for anomaly detection."
"The program is very stable."
"The best of a bad lot was the error message deduping."
"One of the most valuable features of BigPanda is its user-friendly interface."
"Easy integration - We've had challenges in the past integrating all of our various monitoring sources and tools into one central system. BigPanda, with the integrations that it already has, as well as offering webhook/REST API, has made it very easy for us to plug everything in."
"This solution has a self-healing handler where if the service is down, it is automatically restarted."
"The apply rules feature saves a lot of time."
"It is really easy in Icinga to create your own plugin and integrate it without any fuss. And it works just perfectly fine."
"I like the ability to amend and adjust things really easily, which is useful in a case where you could make it auto-discover and then set a template to say all of these applications or servers under this template have an automatic threshold set that you’d set up manually."
"There's a module called Icinga Director, which helps us configure the product using an intuitive interface through clicks instead of creating a text configuration. It's very helpful for us."
"Icinga has multiple automation and integration features. There is an API for everything and a web UI for configurations. The APIs enable you to automate tasks in Icinga. We can also use plugins to talk to the API. The Icinga Director talks to a database in the background, and you can import settings from the CMDB to all systems in Icinga."
"Macros and the ability to connect it to Google Maps are valuable features."
"The value of Icinga is that it has hundreds of plugins, so it's really easy to monitor pretty much anything."
"Our infrastructure is quite large - tens of thousands of servers, often with 30-plus checks running on each host with one minute intervals. This generates a lot of data often in bursts (when we have a large scale failure). This has caused some delay in the ingestion pipeline."
"The observability can be enriched with regards to infrastructure and the application-integrated environment. The dashboard and reports could be improved."
"The usability needs to improve, because it is a pure code environment."
"BigPanda can improve the correlations. We didn't see any big value. It is still good at the same event deduplication, event processing, and ticket creation, but I was more looking at event analysis and event correlation. In that area, it is still no big difference between the other solutions on the market. All of them, are in the same immature stage."
"BigPanda attempts a little of everything and fails at most."
"BigPanda could improve by syncing its threshold settings with Dynatrace to align with users' familiarity."
"The cost of this product is too high compared to New Relic."
"We had to use a partner for the deployment."
"The user interface should be improved."
"Icinga’s automation could be improved."
"I think the software is quite good, but we have had problems with getting it to recognize certain areas and amend certain checks, where we needed so we would have to create backend scripts for those checks. Though, being open source, it has the support to create backend scripts, it would be better to have these scripts in-built."
"We have found some problems with Nagios, and support isn't very responsive."
"In general, the product does not look good. However, it does what it is supposed to do. So, the improvements should focus on usability and UI."
"Icinga is a complex solution that's hard to learn. It's a powerful product for monitoring, but new users will have a hard time figuring out what to do."
"The solution lacks many features important to higher-level IT management and network support."
"The installation and configuration are very complex."
BigPanda is ranked 40th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 12 reviews while Icinga is ranked 23rd in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 16 reviews. BigPanda is rated 7.2, while Icinga is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of BigPanda writes "Offers comprehensive alert monitoring and a user-friendly interface but requires manual validation to provide accurate alerts". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Icinga writes "A stable, scalable and cost-effective solution that helps with inbuilt scripts for easy modification". BigPanda is most compared with ServiceNow, Moogsoft, PagerDuty Operations Cloud, IBM Tivoli NetCool OMNIbus and ServiceNow IT Operations Management, whereas Icinga is most compared with Zabbix, Checkmk, Nagios Core, Nagios XI and Centreon. See our BigPanda vs. Icinga report.
See our list of best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all IT Infrastructure 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.
