No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Checkmk vs Elastic Observability comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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

Checkmk
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
26th
Ranking in Cloud Monitoring Software
23rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
Network Monitoring Software (17th), Server Monitoring (10th)
Elastic Observability
Ranking in IT Infrastructure Monitoring
13th
Ranking in Cloud Monitoring Software
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability (10th), Log Management (14th), Container Monitoring (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the IT Infrastructure Monitoring category, the mindshare of Checkmk is 1.6%, down from 4.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Elastic Observability is 1.3%, down from 3.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
IT Infrastructure Monitoring Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Elastic Observability1.3%
Checkmk1.6%
Other97.1%
IT Infrastructure Monitoring
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1704309 - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Administrator at a construction company with 201-500 employees
Utilizing data monitoring capabilities and scripting potential to optimize system management
I frequently program functions with PowerShell, and although Bash could be used, my specialization is in PowerShell. Two of us focus on programming in PowerShell for infrastructure optimization. I set up a dedicated server to run scripts every hour, generating files for Checkmk output. However, Checkmk does not allow running scripts at varying intervals. I am working on this in the raw version of Checkmk.
Stefan Decuypere - PeerSpot reviewer
Technology Consultant at Hybrid software
Real-time dashboards and visual insights have streamlined issue analysis and monitoring
After careful consideration about areas for improvement in Elastic Observability, aspects such as pricing, customization, implementation, and scalability could be improved. As a user of the system, I know what it costs but am not directly involved in cost-benefit evaluations or maintenance, which is handled by another team. I develop the visual representation of the data and frankly, I don't see major gaps in my application or anything I would really miss; I appreciate the fast pace of the developments that have occurred in the last couple of years. Regarding room for improvement in Elastic Observability, I would have preferred built-in tools to manage the indexes on deployment for better visual representation, as the initial feedback regarding system performance and data storage was fairly primitive and lacking.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I really like the auto-discovery feature."
"The alerting system in Checkmk really works properly."
"Overall, from one to ten, I rate Checkmk a nine."
"The most valuable features of Checkmk are its resource monitoring, infra monitoring, and log factor configuration."
"Checkmk was built on a platform that was user-friendly, and I could build my charts easily."
"The initial setup of Checkmk was easy...It is a very stable solution."
"It's versatile, scalable, and easier to use compared to other solutions like Nagios and OMD."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it has a lot of different pieces, and they all work together...It is a very scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"It's easy to deploy, and it's very flexible."
"From my experience with several major customers, the most valued feature of Elastic is its log analytics capabilities."
"It is a powerful tool that allows users to collect and transform logs as needed, enabling flexible visualization and analysis."
"It is very stable, and I would rate it ten out of ten based on my interaction with it."
"Elastic provides built-in features for queries and report generation. It's a very good tool for monitoring integration capabilities."
"The solution is open-source and helps with back-end logging. It is also easy to handle."
"Machine learning is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"Its diverse set of features available on the cloud is of significant importance."
 

Cons

"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"I think that the integration and the exporting of the data collected are areas where Checkmk lacks but should try to improve the most."
"It is easy for tech-savvy people, but newcomers might find it intimidating."
"The main challenge for us is that we're moving from Nagios to Checkmk, and we're still getting used to the new way of working."
"If an alert is generated for a specific pattern in the log, and if Checkmk catches that log, it will stay there even after the alert is resolved."
"Checkmk does not allow running scripts at varying intervals."
"Checkmk does not work too easily with the PowerStore. I use a PowerShell script as Checkmk runs on Linux and a Windows system, connecting with the Checkmk agent."
"Sometimes we receive alerts, and it can become annoying when you acknowledge an alert. It is very clunky when you acknowledge the alert. The process is not very intuitive, and there are instances where it feels a bit cumbersome to acknowledge an alert."
"Elastic Observability’s price could be improved."
"I would have preferred built-in tools to manage the indexes on deployment for better visual representation, as the initial feedback regarding system performance and data storage was fairly primitive and lacking."
"The only challenging aspect for new users is often writing the query language."
"The price is the only issue in the solution. It can be made better and cheaper."
"Elastic support really struggles in complex situations to resolve issues."
"It lacked some capabilities when handling on-prem devices, like network observability, package flow analysis, and device performance data on the infrastructure side."
"In the future, Elastic APM needs a portfolio iTool. They can provide an easy way to develop the custom UI for Kibana."
"The auto-discovery isn't nearly as good. That's a big portion of it. When you drop the agent onto the JVM and you're trying to figure things out, having to go through and manually do all that is cumbersome."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product is affordable."
"The price of Checkmk is cheaper compared to other enterprise products."
"Checkmk is a fairly reasonably priced solution."
"We have been using the open-source version."
"Pricing is one of those situations where the more you use it, the more you pay."
"One needs to pay for the licenses, and it is an annual subscription model right now."
"Elastic Observability is cheaper than other similar solutions, such as Dynatrace. Its license calculation is based on various factors like data volume and physical infrastructure, particularly related to RAM capacity."
"There are two types: cloud and SaaS. They charge based on data ingestion, ingest rate, hard retention, and warm retention. I believe it costs around $25,000 annually to ingest 30GB of data daily. That is the SaaS version. There is also a self-managed license where the customer manages their own infrastructure on-prem. In such cases, there are three license tiers that respectively cost $5,000 annually per node, $7,000 per node, and $12,500 per node."
"Since we are a huge company, Elastic Observability is an affordable solution for us."
"The product’s pricing needs improvement."
"We will buy a premium license after POC."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions are best for your needs.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
9%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise2
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise16
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Checkmk?
I will get more information about Checkmk when the proof of concept is done. It's going to be before the summer. There will be a report about the tool and a recommendation to use it. So far, it loo...
What is your primary use case for Checkmk?
Checkmk ( /products/checkmk-reviews ) is a monitoring tool, so that's what I will use it for. Right now, it's not in production, but it's in a proof of concept phase. It looks good, so probably, du...
What advice do you have for others considering Checkmk?
I would rate Checkmk an eight out of ten, not knowing the final report.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Elastic Observability?
The problem is their licensing model, which is a bit confusing. Many customers struggle to understand their total cost of ownership because Elastic licensing is not dependent on easy, quantifiable ...
What needs improvement with Elastic Observability?
After careful consideration about areas for improvement in Elastic Observability, aspects such as pricing, customization, implementation, and scalability could be improved. As a user of the system,...
What is your primary use case for Elastic Observability?
My use case for Elastic Observability is observability, as we upload our customers' data, including logs, and when there is an issue, we can analyze what went wrong.
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
PSCU, Entel, VITAS, Mimecast, Barrett Steel, Butterfield Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Checkmk vs. Elastic Observability and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.