We performed a comparison between ITRS Geneos and Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring 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."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 great advantage of this tool is real-time monitoring."
"The built-in plug-ins allow administrators to easily configure monitoring components for market data systems such as Thomson Reuters Enterprise Platform and SRLabs Wombat (formerly NYSE)."
"The ability to logically normalize data gathered from multiple types of sources via pre-built plugins is extremely powerful. This functionality, coupled with the ability to import custom data via the Toolkit plugin allows Geneos to be leveraged to monitor every system in the enterprise."
"The NetProbe carries over 100 samplers which are capable of monitoring hardware, OS, and the application layer."
"I would say that it is an easy-to-use monitoring tool. Amongst the available monitoring tools, it is a really good option."
"One of the most valuable features of ITRS Geneos is the active time feature that helps with the trading applications that I support."
"The solution's log monitoring and alerting mechanisms are very user-friendly and easy to plug and play."
"The alerts are the most valuable feature."
"It can monitor, get the data, and then report on the data."
"It is a great resource for us because we have so many different data sources and to be able to aggregate that and put it through a concise dashboard or an alert really helps."
"The data collection from our VMs, containers, databases, and backend components is valuable."
"The most valuable thing that we have seen within our group is the ability to ingest all this raw data and have it organized in a certain way so that different groups can get effective alerting from this massive amount of raw data that is out there."
"The tool is efficient in collecting, monitoring and evaluating logs."
"We haven't really experienced any glitches or bugs."
"The most valuable feature in this solution is the log searching."
"The ITA, the post-incident analytics, could be improved."
"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."
"Their cloud monitoring solution needs to be improved. I have already given them the feedback that it's not capable of meeting the latest technology needs."
"Much of the reporting outside of the user interface is very basic and requires much customization to be useful."
"ITRS have started to make some major changes that we haven't taken on board yet, in the creation of dashboards and more visibility of the metrics that we collect. At the moment, that's something that's lacking, but I know they have addressed it. Still, it’s not that easy to create stuff to help with visibility and dashboarding in Geneos."
"We all look at the same things - CPU, disk space, paging stats, service status with RAG status on each. That could be provided straight out, saving significant time."
"ITRS Geneos cloud monitoring is very weak and can use improvement."
"At the moment Geneos is excellent and handling real time monitoring, however not great at doing historical reporting."
"A lot of customers had a hard time effectively searching within the data in Splunk. There is a learning curve from searches to indexes and using all the macros that we have created. It is a little difficult for somebody who has not used it quite a bit and does not have a lot of practice with it, but the AI features that we have been hearing about through Splunk will make it a lot easier for us to use human language to search this data. That is big. That is pretty powerful, and that will help a lot with our customers."
"There is a lot of room for improvement with the automation."
"I would like to see an improvement and some innovation in the customer interface."
"They do not have all the features that I expect right now."
"Splunk would be better if some tools were integrated to be able to take action on security or network concerns."
"The implementation can be more user-friendly."
"It's a bit difficult to use. It takes some time to get into it and to get it to do what you would like it to do. It is not straightforward to use it."
"The solution's stability is an area that has room for improvement. It needs to provide constant stability to its users."
More Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring Pricing and Cost Advice →
ITRS Geneos is ranked 12th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 10 reviews while Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring is ranked 14th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 13 reviews. ITRS Geneos is rated 8.2, while Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of ITRS Geneos writes "A stable solution, with real-time monitoring". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring writes "Helps to ingest a massive amount of raw data and use it effectively". ITRS Geneos is most compared with Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Grafana, Prometheus and Elastic Observability, whereas Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring is most compared with ServiceNow IT Operations Management, Cisco Intersight, Nagios XI, ControlUp and Amazon CloudWatch. See our ITRS Geneos vs. Splunk Infrastructure Monitoring 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.