We performed a comparison between AppDynamics Server Monitoring and Nagios XI 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 solution offers great visibility that allows you to track where errors originated."
"The product has the ability to drill down to the errors whenever we have issues."
"We can view the server activities, including issues in the process, with a single click."
"The auto-discovery of the logs is the most valuable feature. It requires minimal configuration, we just need to set up on once and it automatically detects through the code."
"The platform is reliable in identifying the core system issues."
"This solution gives us quite good insights that we might otherwise overlook, or it might take a really long time to debug those issues."
"I like Business iQ the most, so far. It has great analytics configurations and I can get real-time updates. We have eCommerce releases every week. So the one use case that I use Business iQ is to compare before and after release performance using AppDynamics."
"The product provides a nice end-user experience."
"The most valuable feature of Nagios XI is customization. We can customize based on our requirements. We can do modifications and implement a lot of scripts. Additionally, it is easy to use."
"Nagios XI helped me to draw the network and check for system failures."
"It is an open-source platform with valuable features for performance and stability."
"Nagios XI is a simple monitoring tool with performance management."
"Though I downplayed the administrative NCC GUI, this is by far the strongest aspect of the Nagios XI product."
"The dashboard allows you to see what's going on in the overall system."
"An excellent solution that is easy and intuitive to implement."
"Nagios is a custom API manager, and we can expose custom APIs for our integration. This is a great feature."
"I could not find a user-friendly interface for querying, and analytics sometimes gives the wrong results...I feel that analytics could have been better in searching and running the analytical queries."
"The configuration is tricky and requires a lot of tools."
"The one thing that I find it difficult in using AppDynamics is, for any new user, it's not easy for him or her to configure the transactions in AppDynamics because the UI is pretty complex. The configuration is pretty complex for a new, fresh user. They can make the UI simpler, that'll be very helpful for anyone to configure their website in AppDynamics."
"An area for improvement in AppDynamics Server Monitoring is integration; in particular, it needs a better way to integrate with custom applications such as Siebel CRM. Right now, it's challenging to integrate AppDynamics Server Monitoring with Siebel CRM because it sometimes gives an error and cannot integrate properly."
"The solution has performance issues after we deploy the agent."
"If we consider the implementation of alternative solutions, such as Dynatrace, there is a notable difference in the approach to agent-based service monitoring. For instance, Dynatrace employs a single-agent solution, which can pose security concerns. When installing Dynatrace, granting the agent ld pro payload rights is a requirement. In contrast, our solution ensures a more secure approach by not requiring root and administration access. While we currently utilize an agent-based solution, there may be a shift in the next one or two years, possibly with the adoption of Open Telemetry. It's anticipated that many APM vendors, including Dynatrace, may alter their structure or strategy for implementation. However, as of now, the trend is towards an increasing number of implementations daily."
"AppDynamics Server Monitoring has room for improvement in terms of pricing. If the price could be cheaper, it would be great for both the customer and the integrator. What I'd like to see in the next release of AppDynamics Server Monitoring is a better dashboard for the customer. The dashboard should be more interactive."
"I would like the ability to choose from some pre-defined dashboards and reports because as it is now, you have to define them separately for each implementation."
"The technical support is variable - sometimes I get answers, but most of my tickets go unanswered."
"The reporting structure could be more streamlined."
"Nagios XI can improve its GUI for users with a new look."
"I would like to see support for notification via SMS."
"It can be quite difficult to know which drivers and agents to use when setting up."
"I would like to see more customization in the network map because it is a bit tricky to use it."
"It is really difficult to integrate Nagios XI with another system to generate logs and alert our management of failures in security infrastructure."
"The product's stability could be even better."
More AppDynamics Server Monitoring Pricing and Cost Advice →
AppDynamics Server Monitoring is ranked 19th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 16 reviews while Nagios XI is ranked 9th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 54 reviews. AppDynamics Server Monitoring is rated 8.2, while Nagios XI is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of AppDynamics Server Monitoring writes "A highly stable and scalable solution that provides real-time information on servers". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Nagios XI writes "Great for monitoring IT services infrastructure with nice tools and helpful notifications". AppDynamics Server Monitoring is most compared with OpsRamp, ITRS Geneos, Zabbix, Nutanix Prism and PRTG Network Monitor, whereas Nagios XI is most compared with Nagios Core, Zabbix, PRTG Network Monitor, Wireshark and Icinga. See our AppDynamics Server Monitoring vs. Nagios XI 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.