We performed a comparison between Cisco Intersight and Nagios Core 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."Provides an overall view using a single portal."
"The tool helps to manage Cisco servers."
"I like Intersight because of the integration with HashiCorp, Kubernetes, and each cloud because Intersight is the IO module."
"Cisco Intersight has valuable features for workflow automation and inventory administration."
"Intersight can validate our environment."
"What I like most about Cisco Intersight is its manageability."
"Scalable portfolio of services for remote device management, with good cloud integration. It's also easy to set up."
"We enjoy having an inside view of all the data centers and all the EdgeX nodes within a single portal rather than going into the EdgeX connections one by one."
"Nagios monitors our servers, so we know if anything goes wrong and can solve the problem before it happens."
"Dashboard provides monitor of total assets."
"Nagios Core is stable."
"The most valuable feature of Nagios Core is it allows us to develop and add as many plugins as we want."
"The most valuable feature is the performance parameters of the system."
"Key features include the GUI interface, its notification capabilities, and the real-time reporting."
"It has made the life of the network operations staff more proactive in managing the resources of the infrastructure. It prevents disasters long before they can take place."
"The application performance monitoring feature is valuable."
"An area for improvement in Cisco Intersight is automation. It needs more automation capabilities. Apart from enhanced automation, I want Cisco Intersight to integrate with third-party monitoring tools in its next release."
"It's a very complex solution."
"Cisco Intersight needs some improvement in terms of stability. Hybrid cloud management and proper hyperscaler tie-up are other areas for improvement."
"The solution needs some enhancement in order to build the cluster in two nodes."
"The unique problem with Cisco Intersight is that it's not supporting some players."
"When new features are added, the service becomes full of bugs."
"The usability must be better."
"In the future, the solution needs to plan on an extension to cover a broader range of objects since, at present, there are some Cisco devices within the range of Intersight UCS that it can't manage."
"The scalability needs improvement, it's not scalable at this time."
"The tool needs to improve the integrations."
"The initial setup process could be easier."
"The UI is a little outdated and graphics could be displayed in a better way."
"Cloud monitoring is an area for improvement because there aren't too many plugins available."
"The user interface could be more interactive because it is pretty basic."
"Nagios Core does not have a graphic display."
"Would benefit from aggregations if a particular server goes down."
Cisco Intersight is ranked 26th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 10 reviews while Nagios Core is ranked 7th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 46 reviews. Cisco Intersight is rated 7.8, while Nagios Core is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Intersight writes "Scalable and easy to set up portfolio of services; good for remote device management and other functions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Nagios Core writes "An Open Source Fully Featured Data Centre Monitoring Tool". Cisco Intersight is most compared with Cisco UCS Manager, HPE OneView, IBM Turbonomic, Cisco UCS Director and VMware Aria Operations, whereas Nagios Core is most compared with Zabbix, Nagios XI, Icinga, Centreon and OP5 Monitor. See our Cisco Intersight vs. Nagios Core 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.