I previously used Nagios before Zabbix and switched because Nagios required more clicks for monitoring. There is a lot of work when working with Nagios because it needs much maintenance. It was a large deployment, and I didn't have templates or standards for the kinds of hosts required.

View full review »

I was using Centurion previously but I decided to switch to Zaddix because of costs. I was using the community edition of Centurion and it was very limited but with Zabbix, you can have an enterprise-class monitoring solution for free. I did research quickly and then I phoned Zaddix to see if they could solve all my problems without having to pay anything. This is when they confirmed I could and then I switched.

View full review »

A long time ago, I used Zenoss. Zenoss basically focused more on larger enterprises. The community version of Zenoss was less well-maintained. Zabbix has a better community. That was a major reason for switching. 

View full review »

We used Centreon previously.

View full review »

There are many options available. Today, you can use alternatives that provide better-detailed information. For instance, we have alerts concerning specific issues. I'm using Azure as part of this organizational setup. 

In Zabbix, for metrics, the latest release is better, and we can also find some metrics. Essentially, we don't incur any cost of the same magnitude. In Zabbix, images allow us to view the bot system today for Windows, Linux, infrastructure, and networking processes.

View full review »

I do not have experience with other products. 

View full review »

We previously used Microsoft Teams. The number of possibilities in Zabbix was better than in Teams, and it also integrates very well with the hardware solutions from Cisco which was why we switched.

View full review »

We also use Nagios, but we are going to stop using this solution as it has specific limitations that we require. 

View full review »

The previous product was really outdated and, literally, it was broken.

We were afraid it was so unstable it would just stop working entirely. It was running but struggling. For example, it would get behind on its checks, and once it got too far behind, it would just throw them all away and start over. It was constantly missing things. It was clearly overloaded and not designed for our scale, so we were happy to move away from it. The difference after switching to Zabbix has been night and day.

I used to get paged at least once a day, sometimes multiple times. Now, with Zabbix, there might be weeks without any pages. We've never had a problem where we missed an alert.

One thing is that the checks are much more intelligent. For example, rather than just saying, tell me when the load goes over five, you can say, "Tell me if the load is over five for more than ten minutes." So, if it doesn't go over for ten minutes, you'll never get notified. It only waits for a combination of conditions to be true before it alerts you. That really cuts down a lot on the false positives.

We used Nagios.

View full review »

There are a few problems but if they fix them, then Zabbix is a very good tool compared to others. This includes tools that you have to pay for.

View full review »

We were previously using Nagios, but with Nagios the reporting features are very poor. If you want to improve on the reporting with Nagios, you have to construct other features and software on top of it, whereas Zabbix is more to the point and straightforward.

Zabbix's reporting isn't very good, either, in my opinion, but it's better compared to Nagios.

View full review »

In my last job, I worked with Nagios. I found that Zabbix is a good system for monitoring and it is easier to implement, and it is also less expensive.

View full review »

I had used other solutions before but the licensing was too expensive for our company and still, other solutions were limited because we have a multi-vendor environment.

View full review »

We used Cacti, which worked well for our uses. We moved because we needed a more updated solution that had support for a myriad of devices. The community is also active in development of plugins.

View full review »

I have more experience with the WhatsUp Gold Monitoring tool. I still have WhatsUp Gold but we are going to replace it.

We are testing other tools that are free.

View full review »

Previously, we used Splunk and we switched because the solution's pricing was too high.

View full review »

We previously used Centreon, another open-source solution, about four years ago. I wasn't used to this kind of software, but now I can understand them a little bit better.

View full review »

We have used DX Spectrum previously and it was stable in operation in WAN and LAN networks.

View full review »

In my community, we were previously using Nagios and Cacti.

View full review »

I have already used Nagios and PRTG. After using Zabbix, I did not try new tools. I adapted and believe it would be difficult to convert all the rules to another system.

View full review »

Yes, previously used and consulted on HPE SiteScope, HPE Operations Manager, Micro Focus Operations Bridge and others.

Sitescope is useful, but doesn't have the muli-tenancy or proxy facilities and is agentless only making it unjustifiable in an MSP environment.

Operations Manager was too complex to maintain and became obsolete.

Operations Bridge is resource hungry, complex to install and configure and extremely expensive.

View full review »

We did not previously use a different solution, so I asked my manager to look into it.

View full review »

Zabbix was our first choice for infrastructure monitoring. We are using Prometheus/Grafana stack for metrics from other environments.

View full review »

I also am familiar with Datadog.

I'm not sure if we used anything before Zabbix.

View full review »

Many of our clients have an IT department and most of them work with WhatsUp Gold but some of them are starting to use Zabbix and when we started this project for telemetry it was not specifically for IT. We found many examples using Zabbix. Apparently, Zabbix is more user-friendly for non-IT people.

View full review »

I need to be able to monitor stuff and I can't monitor these things now, so I am using other products for it.

View full review »

Previously, I was using the PRTG Network Monitor. It's an expensive solution. 

I chose Zabbix because it's a free edition, and I don't require a lot of monitoring. Also, I was limited.

View full review »

We switched from our previous solution because of cost.

View full review »

We are actually looking for another solution that meets our needs better. That is not because Zabbix is necessarily a bad solution. Our needs changed and there are better solutions available.

I previously used ManageEngine OpManager in another organization, so I guess the reason as to why I switched was that I changed jobs. That product was excellent, but it is also out of the reach of my current budget.

View full review »

Yes, the principal reasons to switch to Zabbix were: Flexibility (Zabbix allowed the monitoring of something the other product does not), cost (no license costs, it was possible to monitor something with no extra costs, the hardware necessary for Zabbix was much lower) and in the tests Zabbix outperformed the other products evaluated.

View full review »

We also use ManageEngine for monitoring.

Comparing the two is tricky. When it comes to Zabbix flow, I would not be comfortable working with Zabbix as there's a bit of a lack on the reporting and automation front. That's the negative part of Zabbix at this point in time. When it comes to ManageEngine, they have been very proactive. They have a very good reporting dashboard and they have very good automation. The only concern that comes to us when we go to the customer is that I can sell Zabbix at very low costs as I don't have any investment in it. I can fulfill almost 75 to 80% of the customer's request with very little overhead. However, when it comes to ManageEngine, it's expensive as you will need the licenses.

Even though ManageEngine gives you better reporting and automation, there's a cost to it. That is where we are trying to make Zabbix more efficient. We have started working on the automation front. When it comes to reporting, we have reached a level where we can say that we are okay with the reports. We are using a couple of other reporting tools to extend the data. However, with automation, we're starting at zero. That's where we are working hard.

View full review »

Before I knew about Zabbix I was working at another company where we where using Nagios (opsview). Glad I had a chance to learn Zabbix, there is just no way to compare Zabbix. This is real time monitoring :) View full review »

Earlier we used all kinds of other tools, all for a part of the stack. Oracle enterprise manager for oracle databases, PEM for postgres databases, SCOM for Windows, prtg for network, appman for applications. This required to run and maintain all those tools .... Now consolidating to 1 saves a lot of time and gives a single point of truth.

View full review »

I switched from Nagios to Zabbix. For me Zabbix is more intuitive, flexible, offering more options out-of-the-box.

View full review »

In fact, even if I have looked at Nagios first, before Zabbix I did not really use it or any other monitoring solution.

View full review »

This is the first monitoring product that we have worked with. Prior to this, we were dealing with NMS and CMS products.

View full review »

We did not previously use a different solution. Zabbix was the first solution we worked on. However, right now we are in the process of exploring other solutions.

We are evaluating Motadata. This is a solution based out of India. We are in touch with them, but we are in the very initial stages. We also don't know how it will work out.

View full review »

Prior to using Zabbix, we used Nagios. We switched because it became unstable and clumsy when we grew to have more than 2,000 devices. Zabbix was much better in terms of scalability.

View full review »

Previously, we were using Nagios coupled with Centreon. We switched because Centreon has some paid features and so, there are some hidden costs. In addition, we needed to use an agent in our client OS because some metrics are deprecated by SNMP and are only available via WMI; WMI is known for its performance problem in monitoring.

View full review »

Yes, we used a lot of other monitoring tools (6 at the same time with distinct functions). We switched to ZABBIX because:

• ZABBIX is a 'all-in-on' monitoring solution
• ZABBIX is 'true open source'
• ZABBIX is 'Commercial/Professional' supported
• ZABBIX has a 'centralized' approach. All things are done using the ZABBIX GUI

View full review »

Zabbix was my first love for network monitoring and I just adopted it. I did not previously try a different solution.

View full review »

Before Zabbix, It was another Open Source solution: Nagios. Actually, I set them both up simultaneously.

So, I had a chance to compare them side-by-side. Finally, I chose Zabbix.

View full review »

I was using Kaseya Traverse, which I bought because I have a large Kaseya installation. I thought that it would monitor sFlow, but it didn't, so I returned it and then replaced it with LogicMonitor.

Basically, the problem was that in order to support sFlow, I would have to have a virtual machine for each of the network switches that I wanted to monitor. So if I had 50 switches then I would need 50 virtual machines to monitor sFlow. When they told me that it supports sFlow, then technically, they are correct. However, what they didn't tell me was that for each switch, you have to create a separate collector, which didn't make any sense.

With SolarWinds NetFlow, you can have multiple switches with one collector.

View full review »

We were not using any other solution.

View full review »

Before using Ubuntu Linux, I used CentOS, Debian, and Kali Linux. 

View full review »

We previously used Spiceworks. View full review »

We did not use a solution previous to this one.

View full review »

We used Cacti for data visualization. We switched because of the benefits of using Zabbix as a central monitoring solution instead of having multiple tools to manage.

View full review »

We switched in order to get the benefit of the ability to redefine metrics server-side, nested templates, and the really powerful graphs available at the time.

View full review »

We did previously use a different solution prior to Zabbix. It was a suite of applications that included, for example, DLP and myShell. I haven't used it in a very long time, so I can't speak too much about my experience with it or how it compares.

View full review »

Previously, we were using Nagios. The front end was poor so we switched over to Zabbix.

View full review »

Because zabbix is a open source NMS however it is very powerful and highly scalable.

View full review »

Yes, we used to use another solution. We migrate to Zabbix after evaluating when it was implemented as a part of a web-based software solution that was acquired by the company in which I was working at that time.

View full review »

A fork of Nagios called Icinga, it’s pretty good, but something like the Zabbix Maps feature was a must have for us. We needed something very schematic and flexible to show the overall status of our systems.

View full review »

Yes, previously used Cacti or Nagios but Zabbix has node communication.

View full review »

I have previously used SolarWinds.

View full review »