Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Checkmk vs Icinga comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 6, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Checkmk
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
12th
Ranking in Server Monitoring
6th
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
12th
Ranking in Cloud Monitoring Software
12th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Icinga
Ranking in Network Monitoring Software
18th
Ranking in Server Monitoring
7th
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
14th
Ranking in Cloud Monitoring Software
14th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Network Monitoring Software category, the mindshare of Checkmk is 3.1%, up from 2.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Icinga is 3.6%, up from 2.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Network Monitoring Software
 

Featured Reviews

Paolo Sala - PeerSpot reviewer
A reasonably priced tool for system and application monitoring
The main room for improvement is in the solution's presentation and the integration area. In our company, we use the integration capabilities from ServiceNow. We also have another big monitoring solution in place in our company, which is Dynatrace. At the moment, there doesn't exist an out-of-the-box integration for Dynatrace. I think that the integration and the exporting of the data collected are areas where Checkmk lacks but should try to improve the most. The only implementation of Checkmk that allows high availability is the virtual appliance that has the option for the availability of a different box. Otherwise, you have to find a way to implement it manually with some custom solution, which could be an improvement.
Harrison Bulley - PeerSpot reviewer
A stable, scalable and cost-effective solution that helps with inbuilt scripts for easy modification
I think the software is quite good, but we have had problems with getting it to recognize certain areas and amend certain checks, where we needed so we would have to create backend scripts for those checks. Though, being open source, it has the support to create backend scripts, it would be better to have these scripts in-built.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The alerting system in Checkmk really works properly."
"We can monitor multiple sites using the product."
"It's versatile, scalable, and easier to use compared to other solutions like Nagios and OMD."
"The initial setup of Checkmk was easy...It is a very stable solution."
"The most valuable features of Checkmk are its resource monitoring, infra monitoring, and log factor configuration."
"I really like the auto-discovery feature."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it has a lot of different pieces, and they all work together...It is a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"There's a module called Icinga Director, which helps us configure the product using an intuitive interface through clicks instead of creating a text configuration. It's very helpful for us."
"Icinga has multiple automation and integration features. There is an API for everything and a web UI for configurations. The APIs enable you to automate tasks in Icinga. We can also use plugins to talk to the API. The Icinga Director talks to a database in the background, and you can import settings from the CMDB to all systems in Icinga."
"The value of Icinga is that it has hundreds of plugins, so it's really easy to monitor pretty much anything."
"We have found the solution to be stable."
"It is really easy in Icinga to create your own plugin and integrate it without any fuss. And it works just perfectly fine."
"The ability to customize scripts and build your own queries to request information from the infrastructure elements you want to monitor. This level of personalization and customization is highly appreciated."
"Macros and the ability to connect it to Google Maps are valuable features."
"The best thing about the solution is how it highlights errors, the issues, and what needs my attention. The solution directs me to areas that I should look for first."
 

Cons

"I think that the integration and the exporting of the data collected are areas where Checkmk lacks but should try to improve the most."
"The main challenge for us is that we're moving from Nagios to Checkmk, and we're still getting used to the new way of working."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"In Checkmk, the documentation can probably be improved a bit more."
"Sometimes we receive alerts, and it can become annoying when you acknowledge an alert. It is very clunky when you acknowledge the alert. The process is not very intuitive, and there are instances where it feels a bit cumbersome to acknowledge an alert."
"If an alert is generated for a specific pattern in the log, and if Checkmk catches that log, it will stay there even after the alert is resolved."
"It is easy for tech-savvy people, but newcomers might find it intimidating."
"I think the software is quite good, but we have had problems with getting it to recognize certain areas and amend certain checks, where we needed so we would have to create backend scripts for those checks. Though, being open source, it has the support to create backend scripts, it would be better to have these scripts in-built."
"The installation and configuration are very complex."
"We have found some problems with Nagios, and support isn't very responsive."
"Icinga’s automation could be improved."
"It needs Trap SNMP. I saw the documentation for Zabbix, that it has its own built-in product which handles SNMP traps, and there's nothing similar in Icinga or Nagios. I think this feature is most important for me."
"One thing that Icinga lacks is the capability to create advanced and customized dashboards within the tool itself."
"Icinga is a complex solution that's hard to learn. It's a powerful product for monitoring, but new users will have a hard time figuring out what to do."
"The user interface should be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Checkmk is a fairly reasonably priced solution."
"The price of Checkmk is cheaper compared to other enterprise products."
"The product is affordable."
"Even though Icinga's financial cost is low, it is an expensive product regarding the resources required to maintain and operate it."
"The solution is free to use."
"The product is inexpensive compared to other DBM products."
"This is an open-source solution with paid support."
"The solution is cheap."
"It's an open-source solution."
"We're using the free version of Icinga."
"It is cost-effective, and the return on investment can be very interesting because the price is low."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Monitoring Software solutions are best for your needs.
831,020 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Checkmk?
The most valuable feature of the solution is that it has a lot of different pieces, and they all work together...It is a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.
What needs improvement with Checkmk?
The main challenge for us is that we're moving from Nagios to Checkmk, and we're still getting used to the new way of working. But basically, we're okay with it. The difficult part was adapting fro...
What is your primary use case for Checkmk?
We use it to monitor mainly Linux servers, including operating system metrics, processes, services, and so on. We also use scripting and monitoring logs.
What do you like most about Icinga?
The best thing about the solution is how it highlights errors, the issues, and what needs my attention. The solution directs me to areas that I should look for first.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Icinga?
It is cost-effective, and the return on investment can be very interesting because the price is low. If you want to include this product in the services you offer to your customers, the return on i...
What needs improvement with Icinga?
There is room for improvement in multi-tenancy. It's not perfect, not even really good. It's average, but it should be improved. For instance, multi-tenancy for monitoring the virtual infrastructur...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Icinga Cloud Monitoring
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Puppet Labs, Audi, Spacex, Debian, Snapdeal, McGill, RIPE Network Coordination Centre
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmk vs. Icinga and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.
831,020 professionals have used our research since 2012.