We performed a comparison between Moogsoft and Pandora FMS 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."Moogsoft is easily deployable and ready to use."
"Moogsoft AIOps integrates seamlessly with 50-plus IT monitoring, automation, service management, notification, and collaboration tools. It also provides a great and easy-to-use interface for observing."
"The solution is extremely helpful with correlating IP failures and it has a very good sort of flow chart of IP systems. For example, if you see a failure in system A, you can track it down to the system causing the issue. This is a very handy feature."
"Incident management is streamlined with Moogsoft. One standout feature is its unique situation-creation capability, differentiating it from other fault management tools. While other tools typically convert alarms directly into tickets or incidents, Moogsoft adds a middle layer where multiple alarms can be aggregated into one incident. Moogsoft's strong AI capabilities also allow it to correlate similar alarms automatically based on past experiences."
"Moogsoft's most valuable features are event management, correlation, and observability."
"I like the prediction features."
"The Event Management feature is quite valuable."
"The AI component allows you to check previous cases and diagnose problems easily."
"The official forum is active enough to answer most of the high-end technical questions that you may have."
"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."
"What I value most about Pandora FMS is the simplicity of working with it."
"The solution has good dashboards and graphics."
"Features I have found most valuable with Pandora are the personalized metrics and the simplicity of data."
"Thanks to its flexibility, I have been able to adapt the tool to our servers and find out quickly how their console works."
"The administration of the console is very easy. I like that Pandora FMS is interactive and easy to manage."
"You can configure several types of architecture for high availability or load balancing."
"They should consider including Chatbot."
"Some additional API interfacing would be great to enable getting the data out of AIOps programmatically."
"I would like to see how Moogsoft integrates with the multi-cloud and brings out a single pane of glass, to see everything on one screen."
"I would like to see more integrations. It is rather difficult to install the enterprise systems with the agents."
"I would like to see additional reports or information on the dashboard that includes metrics about CPU usage and memory."
"The tool needs to improve its support. It appears that the support responsiveness from Moogsoft is not aligned with the severity of the incident. Instead of proactively addressing issues, customers have to chase Moogsoft for resolution. In Moogsoft, unlike other tools like Splunk, the process follows a step-by-step sequence. You need to start each process in a specific order, typically following a sequence."
"It is taking a long time to set it up and could do more to roll out quickly."
"The documentation and flexibility for generic integration could be improved."
"I find that this software is resource heavy, and demands a lot of processing capacity."
"I would like to have a dashboard with all assets displayed, with a quick hover-over status."
"We would like the real-time monitoring of an interface to be improved within this solution."
"Pandora FMS is an overall great monitoring solution, but it does not have a community that is as large as Zabbix or Nagios."
"I would like for the solution to be faster and have a better tolerance between parallel servers for Pandora and Pest Control."
"Pandora FMS is relatively new, and the interface with the older version crashes at times. We have several different operating systems, such as Linux and Windows, and Pandora does not run as well in these."
"Third-party integration should be improved for some commonly used products."
"Their support is good, but it is just online communication. It would be great to be able to just call someone and talk to them instead of always writing. It works well for me because I am a decent communicator in email, but some people might find it difficult to describe in a written fashion and communicate with them that way. There is a learning curve to the interface, but once you get used to it, it is actually very powerful. They have a lot of options, but people struggle with the interface. They've improved it though, and it is getting better. They need to keep improving the learning curve to help buy-in. I'm the guy that manages it, so I'm comfortable with it. They can refine the upgrade agents to be easier. They can also do more refinement in end-user usability because not everyone is strong technically, and people who aren't strong technically might be averse to the product, even though it has come a long way. It has a complete GUI and everything."
Moogsoft is ranked 38th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 11 reviews while Pandora FMS is ranked 25th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 22 reviews. Moogsoft is rated 7.6, while Pandora FMS is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Moogsoft writes "A cost-efffective cloud solution for noise filtration but needs enhanced interfaces". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pandora FMS writes "The open architecture is easy to extend and enhance". Moogsoft is most compared with ServiceNow IT Operations Management, BigPanda, Dynatrace, OpsRamp and Dell CloudIQ, whereas Pandora FMS is most compared with Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor, Wazuh, Nagios XI and SolarWinds NPM. See our Moogsoft vs. Pandora FMS 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.