We performed a comparison between Elastic Security and Nagios Log Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Log Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Enables monitoring of application performance and the ability to predict behaviors."
"I like the indexing of the logs."
"It's simple and easy to use."
"It is very quick to react. I can set it to check anomalies or suspicious behavior every 30 seconds. It is very fast."
"Elastic Security is very customizable, and the dashboards are very easy to build."
"I use the stack every morning to check the errors and it's just so clear. I don't see any disadvantage to using Logstash."
"The cost is reasonable. It's not overly pricey."
"It is scalable."
"It provides an easy way to identify errors and spot issues, making troubleshooting more efficient."
"One of the most valuable features is the dashboard because the UI was effective and easy to use. The alert systems are good as well. We had no failovers and had high availability. We can search the queries fast as well in Nagios Log Server."
"The initial setup of Nagios Log Server was easy and straightforward."
"A great feature of the solution involves its internal portal."
"The product is scalable."
"Technical support could respond faster."
"In terms of improvement, there could be more automation in responding to and evaluating detections."
"The solution could also use better dashboards. They need to be more graphical, more matrix-like."
"The solution's query building is not that intuitive compared to other solutions."
"Elastic Security has a steep learning curve, so it takes some time to tune it and set it up for your environment. There are some costs associated with logging things that don't have value. So you need to be cautious to only log things that make sense and keep them around for as long as you need. You shouldn't hold onto things just because you think you might need them."
"We'd like to see some more artificial intelligence capabilities."
"I would like the process of retrieving archived data and viewing it in Kibana to be simplified."
"Anything that supports high availability or ease of deployment in a highly available environment would help to improve this solution."
"The customization and dashboards have shortcomings and need to be improved to make the tool look more presentable."
"The configurations during initial setup could be improved. If they could be agentless, as in the case of the Ansible product, it would be better. I would like to be able to analyze the network bandwidth."
"The support could be better."
"It would be beneficial for Nagios to incorporate a tool that goes beyond log management and includes features to monitor overall system health and assess the effectiveness of antivirus solutions."
"As we are talking about a product which is open to the public, the pricing makes it challenging for us to profit off of its marketing."
Elastic Security is ranked 5th in Log Management with 59 reviews while Nagios Log Server is ranked 38th in Log Management with 5 reviews. Elastic Security is rated 7.6, while Nagios Log Server is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Elastic Security writes "A stable and scalable tool that provides visibility along with the consolidation of logs to its users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Nagios Log Server writes "A scalable and affordable tool for monitoring data centers ". Elastic Security is most compared with Wazuh, Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, IBM Security QRadar and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas Nagios Log Server is most compared with Wazuh, Graylog, LogRhythm SIEM, syslog-ng and IBM Security QRadar. See our Elastic Security vs. Nagios Log Server report.
See our list of best Log Management vendors.
We monitor all Log Management 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.