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

Nagios Fusion vs Zenoss Cloud comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 9, 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

Nagios Fusion
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
48th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Zenoss Cloud
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
55th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Application Infrastructure (33rd), Event Monitoring (14th), Network Monitoring Software (73rd), Server Monitoring (25th), Container Monitoring (11th), Cloud Monitoring Software (40th), AIOps (21st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the IT Infrastructure Monitoring category, the mindshare of Nagios Fusion is 0.2%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Zenoss Cloud is 0.5%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
IT Infrastructure Monitoring
 

Featured Reviews

SI
A suitable choice for unified and efficient infrastructure monitoring across diverse environments providing user-friendly GUI, cost-effectiveness, and versatility
We use it for this specific client, they've deployed multiple instances of it across various locations to facilitate monitoring. To effectively monitor their infrastructure, it seems necessary to implement additional monitoring solutions for all three types of devices they have Nagios Fusion…
ClaudiaChen - PeerSpot reviewer
Generates close to real-time alerts so users can resolve issues, but needs more integration and public cloud monitoring features
As Zenoss Service Dynamics is more for network-centric devices and you want to monitor, for example, a server, its services, IP addresses, and interfaces, if it's a network and you're going to monitor multiple items, you'll be charged multiple times. This is what Zenoss Service Dynamics needs to improve to make sure that customers pay just one fee to monitor the entire server. What I'd like to see in Zenoss Service Dynamics in the future is a public cloud monitoring feature, particularly for the Azure public cloud. Another additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of the solution is integration with the Azure public cloud because I know that there are some services from Azure that Zenoss Service Dynamics is currently unable to monitor.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is easier for client installation, and the configurations are doable even for a newcomer in the field."
"Being open source lets us customize it for our monitoring needs, saving us money."
"Nagios Fusion version 12.8 excels in user-friendly GUI design, cost-effectiveness, and ease of deployment."
"It's very easy to manage and monitor it."
"The product offers good documentation that helps with initial training."
"It's easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the flexible discovery mechanism."
"The custom built integration is one of the most valuable features because you can see all the especially critical items."
"They have also accommodated many state-of-the-art technologies like Docker and ZooKeeper."
"Its Docker Container concept is mind blowing. It is the first monitoring tool which comes with Docker features."
"What I like most about Zenoss Service Dynamics is that it monitors the devices and gives close to real-time alerts. For example, in case the device is not available, Zenoss Service Dynamics generates an alert so my team can resolve the issue."
 

Cons

"Nagios Fusion should include a 'remember me' option when logging in, so we don't need to enter a username and password every time."
"Adding application performance monitoring to the product alongside infrastructure monitoring would make it a more complete and useful solution."
"In future iterations of this solution, there is a desire for more seamless integration with other monitoring software."
"There are some bugs, although not that many. There are some situations where the solution is not stable but the number of problems is not very high."
"Now it is stable, but they should design threshold parameters in percentage instead of raw values."
"There was a problem with Zenoss and storage monitoring."
"The AI aspect needs to improve."
"There is room for improvement with the administrative part. They introduced Control Center to manage things in Zenoss 5. The services that Zenoss provides remained the same, but the administrative part, since they introduced Docker, etc., has become a little complex"
"As Zenoss Service Dynamics is more for network-centric devices and you want to monitor, for example, a server, its services, IP addresses, and interfaces, if it's a network and you're going to monitor multiple items, you'll be charged multiple times. This is what Zenoss Service Dynamics needs to improve to make sure that customers pay just one fee to monitor the entire server. What I'd like to see in Zenoss Service Dynamics in the future is a public cloud monitoring feature, particularly for the Azure public cloud. Another additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of the solution is integration with the Azure public cloud because I know that there are some services from Azure that Zenoss Service Dynamics is currently unable to monitor."
"It would be ideal if the product offered sound alerts."
"The inclusion of a feature to show a graphical view of the network would be a helpful improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is quite reasonable, especially when compared to the broader market."
"It is very cost-effective compared to the tools I worked with in the past. The company is gaining a lot with respect to the cost factor. It provides agentless monitoring and in a very cheap way."
"It depends on the customer, what he wants."
"There are additional costs you'll have to pay apart from the license fee for Zenoss Service Dynamics. I can't remember exactly how much my company is paying because I don't handle the finance part, but the cost is paid annually. On a scale of one to five, with one being the cheapest and five being the most expensive, I'm rating the solution three out of five."
"The pricing depends on the environment, the number of services, and the size of the data center. It can go from $100,000 to a million dollars."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions are best for your needs.
832,765 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
22%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Nagios Fusion?
Nagios Fusion version 12.8 excels in user-friendly GUI design, cost-effectiveness, and ease of deployment.
What needs improvement with Nagios Fusion?
In future iterations of this solution, there is a desire for more seamless integration with other monitoring software.
What is the best network monitoring software for large enterprises?
In my experience, I worked with many monitoring software, but the one that gave me the most functionalities of a large-scale company is Zenoss, due to its ability to monitor completely hybrid and a...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Cloud Monitoring, Zenoss Service Dynamics
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

NuBlue, St.Elisabeth Hospital, Akamit Systems, National Radio Astronomy Observatory, ValueClick, Sunrise Banks
2degrees, Rackspace, State of North Dakota, El Paso Independent School District, NWN Corporation
Find out what your peers are saying about Nagios Fusion vs. Zenoss Cloud and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
832,765 professionals have used our research since 2012.