Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
OpenNMS vs Zabbix: What are the differences?
Introduction
OpenNMS and Zabbix are both popular network monitoring tools used by organizations to monitor and manage their network infrastructure. While they share common functionalities, there are several key differences between the two. In this article, we will explore and outline these differences.
Architecture: OpenNMS follows a horizontally scalable architecture, allowing for distributed monitoring across multiple servers. On the other hand, Zabbix follows a centralized architecture where all data is processed and stored on a single server. This makes OpenNMS more suitable for large-scale environments that require high scalability.
Flexibility: OpenNMS offers a highly customizable and extensible platform, allowing users to tailor the monitoring system according to their specific needs. It provides a robust event-driven architecture and supports the integration of custom scripts and external applications. Zabbix, while still flexible, has a more standardized approach, offering a narrower range of customization options compared to OpenNMS.
Ease of Installation and Configuration: Zabbix provides a simpler installation and configuration process, making it easier for beginners to set up and start monitoring their network quickly. In contrast, OpenNMS has a slightly more complex installation and configuration process, requiring more advanced technical knowledge. However, this complexity allows for more advanced configurations and customization options.
Alerting and Notification: OpenNMS offers more advanced alerting and notification capabilities compared to Zabbix. It provides flexible and customizable rules for triggering alerts based on various criteria, supports multiple notification methods (such as email, SMS, and SNMP traps), and allows for escalation and acknowledgement of alerts. Zabbix, while also providing alerting and notification features, has a less sophisticated rule engine and limited notification methods.
Supported Technologies: OpenNMS is known for its extensive support for a wide range of technologies and protocols, including SNMP, WMI, JMX, and Netflow, making it suitable for monitoring diverse network environments. Zabbix, while also supporting these technologies, has a more limited set of supported protocols and may require additional configuration for certain advanced features.
Community and Support: OpenNMS has a strong and active open-source community, providing regular updates, bug fixes, and community-driven plugins. It has a dedicated support team and offers both community and commercial support options. Zabbix, while also having an active community, has a more commercially driven support structure, with the majority of updates and support provided through commercial subscriptions.
In Summary, OpenNMS and Zabbix differ in architecture, flexibility, ease of installation and configuration, alerting and notification capabilities, supported technologies, and community and support structures. These differences make each tool more suitable for specific use cases, depending on the organization's requirements and technical expertise.
My team is divided on using Centreon or Zabbix for enterprise monitoring and alert automation. Can someone let us know which one is better? There is one more tool called Datadog that we are using for cloud assets. Of course, Datadog presents us with huge bills. So we want to have a comparative study. Suggestions and advice are welcome. Thanks!
I work at Volvo Car Corporation as a consultant Project Manager. We have deployed Zabbix in all of our factories for factory monitoring because after thorough investigation we saw that Zabbix supports the wide variety of Operating Systems, hardware peripherals and devices a Car Manufacturer has.
No other tool had the same amount of support onboard for our production environment and we didn't want to end up using a different tool again for several areas. That is the major strong point about Zabbix and it's free of course. Another strong point is the documentation which is widely available; Zabbix Youtube channel with tutorial video's, Zabbix share which holds free templates, the Zabbix online documentation and the Zabbix forum also helped us out quite a bit. Deployment is quite easy since it uses templates, so almost all configuration can be done on server side.
To conclude, we are really pleased with the tool so far, it helped us detect several causes of issues that were a pain to solve in the past.
Centreon is part of the Nagios ecosystem, meaning there is a huge number of resources you may find around in the community (plugins, skills, addons). Zabbix monitoring paradigms are totally different from Centreon. Centreon plugins have some kind of intelligence when they are launched, where Zabbix monitoring rules are configured centrally with the raw data collected. Testing both will help you understand :) Users used to say Centreon may be faster for setup and deployment. And in the end, both are full of monitoring features. Centreon has out of the box a full catalog of probes from cloud to the edge https://www.centreon.com/en/plugins-pack-list/ As soon as you have defined your monitoring policies and template, you can deploy it fast through command line API or REST API. Centreon plays well in the ITSM, Automation, AIOps spaces with many connectors for Prometheus, ServiceNow, GLPI, Ansible, Chef, Splunk, ... The polling server mode is one of the differentiators with Centreon. You set up remote server(s) and chose btw multiple information-exchange mechanisms. Powerful and resilient for remote, VPN, DMZ, satellite networks. Centreon is a good value for price to do a data collection (availability, performance, fault) on a wide range of technologies (physical, legacy, cloud). There are pro support and enterprise version with dashboards and reporting. IT Central Station gathers many user feedback you can rely on both Centreon & Zabbix https://www.itcentralstation.com/products/centreon-reviews
We highly recommend Zabbix. We have used it to build our own monitoring product (available on cloud -like datadog- or on premise with support) because of its flexibility and extendability. It can be easily integrated with the powerful dashboarding and data aggregation of Grafana, so it is perfect. All configuration is done via web and templates, so it scales well and can be distributed via proxies. I think there also more companies providing consultancy in Zabbix (like ours) than Centreon and community is much wider. Also Zabbix roadmap and focus (compatibility with Elasticsearch, Prometheus, TimescaleDB) is really really good.
Hi Vivek, what's your stack? If huge monitoring bills are your concern and if you’re using a number of JVM languages, or mostly Scala / Akka, and would like “one tool to monitor them all”, Kamon might be the friendliest choice to go for.
Kamon APM’s major benefit is it comes with a built-in dashboard for the most important metrics to monitor, taking the pain of figuring out what to monitor and building your own dashboards for weeks out of the monitoring.
Pros of OpenNMS
Pros of Zabbix
- Free21
- Alerts9
- Service/node/network discovery5
- Templates5
- Base metrics from the box4
- Multi-dashboards3
- SMS/Email/Messenger alerts3
- Grafana plugin available2
- Supports Graphs ans screens2
- Support proxies (for monitoring remote branches)2
- Perform website checking (response time, loading, ...)1
- API available for creating own apps1
- Templates free available (Zabbix Share)1
- Works with multiple databases1
- Advanced integrations1
- Supports multiple protocols/agents1
- Complete Logs Report1
- Open source1
- Supports large variety of Operating Systems1
- Supports JMX (Java, Tomcat, Jboss, ...)1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of OpenNMS
Cons of Zabbix
- The UI is in PHP5
- Puppet module is sluggish2