We performed a comparison between Tenable SecurityCenter Continuous View [EOL] and Zabbix based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Zabbix, Datadog, Auvik and others in Network Monitoring Software."We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"The next big one is supportability. In a large enterprise, we have many types of technologies. The technology we previously had didn't even support authentication to a lot of those technologies."
"We can manage everything with only a single console on the Tenable SecurityCenter. We can pull and define the policy. We can perform every task on the Tenable SecurityCenter."
"The first of the valuable features is how easy it is to access all of the information that's gathered from the assessments... With a lot of other technologies, like Rapid7, if you're using Nexpose you effectively have to be a DBA to get some of the lower-level results from the scans. And Qualys wasn't very intuitive."
"The scanning itself is really the core of the tool, and it's what we're most interested in."
"Through porting, we can see how the improvement is happening over a period of time. We can see the overall scenario from the last year, where were we were and where we currently stand."
"The initial setup, while not simple, is easier than other products."
"The solution's design has recently changed and it is visually pleasing with more color, for example, there is blue, black, and white."
"The level of discovery-based configuration that lets us auto-configure the monitoring for various systems is a valuable feature."
"Zabbix is quite stable once it is set up. We haven't had any post-setup issues."
"Like other common Linux distributions, some of the most valuable features of this solution are the ease of use and deployment. It's simple and has a lot of packages and a lot of software."
"Every new asset placed in the environment can be automatically detected, predicting human failures."
"The solution is quite mature and very stable."
"We value the auto-host discovery, template import, bulk import/export features. Newer versions also add nice features, such as multi-IP per host."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"When it comes to... dynamic application scanning, I think they are lagging behind the curve. They have a lackluster solution, to the point where I think they need to determine, as a company, whether or not that's a space they even want to play in."
"There are certain circumstances where they may have found a vulnerable service and they just removed the service completely from the device because nobody was using it. There's no way to go into SecurityCenter and mark it, to say, "This is no longer an issue. It doesn't exist anymore." Or, "The risk was accepted for one year, so let's not report it as 'high' until that one year period is done." The handling of operational flow around vulnerability management could be improved."
"In terms of what could be improved, some customers have a problem with SecurityCenter's ticket system. If I want them to assign one of the issues, they may want to assign someone to it or to assign it somewhere else and I may want to break up the ticket."
"One area which is missing is cloud security because there are a lot of configurations. Rapid7 has a product called a DV cloud. I would like to have a similar kind of solution and feature."
"I think the reporting part of Zabbix can be improved in terms of more user-friendly graphics to display the collected data. Many simple users who don't know how to use Zabbix properly might get confused by the reporting, although at the same time it is very versatile for my company."
"Implementation is always tailored to the customer and the kind of information we need from the client to carry it out can make them very uncomfortable. Sometimes the clients are not ready to share it."
"If Zabbix had a better dashboard then it would be nice."
"There are not too much documentation or manuals. We found the tutorials very easy to understand but do not go deep enough in the use of Zabbix. We need more manuals, proper use, documentation, etc."
"Zabbix could improve when it comes to large-scale use cases. Additionally, the inventory could be better when connecting to other solutions, such as ServiceNow. There show to be better integration with other platforms and storage."
"The main problem with Zabbix is that you have to spend time writing templates for all of the products that you have."
"My company wanted to do an exercise command to access IT from Cameroon. They wanted to access an FSS to a second host with second equipment that was on another coast but it is not possible on Zabbix to do it. They want to directly access from the front-end of Zabbix to access a prompt in Zabbix to an access terminal. In the front-end, there is no way to do that. That would be an important improvement."
"It should be easy to modify the front end."
More Tenable SecurityCenter Continuous View [EOL] Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Tenable SecurityCenter Continuous View [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Network Monitoring Software while Zabbix is ranked 1st in Network Monitoring Software with 98 reviews. Tenable SecurityCenter Continuous View [EOL] is rated 8.4, while Zabbix is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Tenable SecurityCenter Continuous View [EOL] writes "Provides the best network-based vulnerability scanning, but the dynamic scanning is lackluster". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zabbix writes "Allows any number of customizations but lacks functionality for finding root causes". Tenable SecurityCenter Continuous View [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Zabbix is most compared with Centreon, Checkmk, SolarWinds NPM, Nagios XI and Nagios Core.
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software 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.
