SaaS Ranking

Alternatives to Icinga

Other Network monitoring vendors we measure, sorted by how much they publish that Icinga does not. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.

12 shown of 21 that differ from Icinga on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Icinga has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “publishes and Icinga does not” is the one that closes them.

VendorScorePublishes, and Icinga does notIcinga publishes, and they do not
Kentikkentik.com 65/100 5 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
LogicMonitorlogicmonitor.com 52/100 5 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +2 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact Compare
Auvikauvik.com 52/100 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, +1 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Paesslerpaessler.com 43/100 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS nothing Compare
Catchpointcatchpoint.com 26/100 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Netgear Insightnetgear.com 39/100 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS nothing Compare
Domotzdomotz.com 22/100 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact Compare
Obkioobkio.com 17/100 2 Status page with history, Public pricing 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact Compare
Aristaarista.com 13/100 2 Certifications named, No third-party tracking before consent 3 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact Compare
Cambiumcambiumnetworks.com 26/100 1 Certifications named nothing Compare
Netskopenetskope.com 26/100 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS 1 Named privacy contact Compare
Nile Networksnilesecure.com 22/100 1 Status page with history 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact Compare

Only criteria we could measure for both are counted. Where we could measure one and not the other, the row is silent: that would be a statement about our measurement, not about either vendor. Every single result with its source is on the two profiles.