We performed a comparison between Grafana Loki and Nagios Log Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Log Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The best feature of Grafana Loki is that it integrates well with our other tool."
"The tool can be used in multi-cluster environments."
"Loki also utilizes the same service discovery mechanism as used by Prometheus. So, whatever labeled metadata you see in Prometheus, you have the exact same metadata in the Loki system. Given this level of intricacy and the attempt to address these challenges, I firmly believe that Loki deserves praise for the work."
"We are using Grafana Loki as a database for real-time metrics."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the tool's GUI. The solution's GUI is very user-friendly."
"The log collection feature is good and the solution is easily understandable. v"
"I appreciate the capability to process logs from microservices and seamlessly integrate them into Grafana."
"The solution's stability has never been a problem. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine to ten out of ten."
"One of the most valuable features is the dashboard because the UI was effective and easy to use. The alert systems are good as well. We had no failovers and had high availability. We can search the queries fast as well in Nagios Log Server."
"The product is scalable."
"A great feature of the solution involves its internal portal."
"It provides an easy way to identify errors and spot issues, making troubleshooting more efficient."
"The initial setup of Nagios Log Server was easy and straightforward."
"The solution has shortcomings regarding security monitoring-oriented features that need improvement."
"Enhancing speed could be a game-changer, and while it might vary depending on the application, it's a factor worth exploring."
"In Grafana Loki, the creation of metrics is not so easy, making it an area that could be made easier."
"The correlation of requests is not simple in Grafana Loki and can be improved."
"The product must improve its UI."
"The Docker container partition feature needs improvement as they do not reuse the space and goes into a pending state."
"My main concern is the recommended production-grade setup. They suggest using tools like Tanka or Jsonnet. They should simplify the process to increase adoption."
"Visualization-wise, Grafana Loki's dashboard looks a little outdated compared to other open-source visualization tools like Chronograf."
"As we are talking about a product which is open to the public, the pricing makes it challenging for us to profit off of its marketing."
"The support could be better."
"The customization and dashboards have shortcomings and need to be improved to make the tool look more presentable."
"It would be beneficial for Nagios to incorporate a tool that goes beyond log management and includes features to monitor overall system health and assess the effectiveness of antivirus solutions."
"The configurations during initial setup could be improved. If they could be agentless, as in the case of the Ansible product, it would be better. I would like to be able to analyze the network bandwidth."
Grafana Loki is ranked 13th in Log Management with 12 reviews while Nagios Log Server is ranked 38th in Log Management with 5 reviews. Grafana Loki is rated 8.0, while Nagios Log Server is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Grafana Loki writes "Effective for Logging, recovery from node failures is fast and single UI supports metrics, logs, and even tracing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Nagios Log Server writes "A scalable and affordable tool for monitoring data centers ". Grafana Loki is most compared with Graylog, Wazuh, syslog-ng, Splunk Enterprise Security and Fortinet FortiAnalyzer, whereas Nagios Log Server is most compared with Wazuh, Graylog, LogRhythm SIEM, syslog-ng and Security Onion. See our Grafana Loki vs. Nagios Log Server report.
See our list of best Log Management vendors.
We monitor all Log Management 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.
