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

Devo vs Nagios Log Server 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

Devo
Ranking in Log Management
28th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) (25th), IT Operations Analytics (9th), AIOps (21st)
Nagios Log Server
Ranking in Log Management
48th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Log Management category, the mindshare of Devo is 0.9%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Nagios Log Server is 0.9%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Log Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Devo0.9%
Nagios Log Server0.9%
Other98.2%
Log Management
 

Featured Reviews

FR
Strategic Account Executive at a computer software company with 51-200 employees
Has improved investigative workflows with interactive dashboards and simplified data correlation
The data analytics cloud component focuses on real-time analytics, which is very impressive. The SIEM collects and correlates logs data from different sources and can integrate with ServiceNow, hardware asset management, and software asset management. The security orchestration, automation, and response (SOAR) is another valuable feature. The security data platform serves as the foundation of Devo. Regarding advanced query capabilities, Devo offers several models including query logs, visual query builder, language integrated query, and SQL, with SQL being the most frequently used querying data capability. The single pane of glass that Devo offers is the SOC. The tools in Devo's active ports are for investigating, not just viewing data. They are more interactive than other market solutions. The drill-down reports capabilities allow analysts to click on any element in a widget. When they see a spike in a line chart for a failed login, which could be a true or false attempt, they can click that spike, and a table widget on the same active board instantly populates with raw logs of data for those specific failed logins. This is particularly important for enterprise companies with numerous endpoints and users. The dynamic filtering of inputs significantly reduces the time cybersecurity analysts spend trying to figure out failed logins and identifying false positives.
Syarul Idzuddin Adzmi - PeerSpot reviewer
Operation Director at Digital Pulse Sdn Bhd
A scalable and affordable tool for monitoring data centers
Five engineers are needed for the maintenance of the product. I would definitely recommend the solution to those planning to use it. To increase the rating for the product, Nagios should offer remote support and offer more customization in reporting while making it easy for the customers to use it. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The user interface is really modern. As an end-user, there are a lot of possibilities to tailor the platform to your needs, and that can be done without needing much support from Devo. It's really flexible and modular. The UI is very clean."
"The real-time analytics of security-related data are super. There are a lot of data feeds going into it and it's very quick at pulling up and correlating the data and showing you what's going on in your infrastructure. It's fast. The way that their architecture and technology works, they've really focused on the speed of query results and making sure that we can do what we need to do quickly. Devo is pulling back information in a fast fashion, based on real-time events."
"The most powerful feature is the way the data is stored and extracted. The data is always stored in its original format and you can normalize the data after it has been stored."
"One of the biggest features of the UI is that you see the actual code of what you're doing in the graphical user interface, in a little window on the side. Whatever you're doing, you see the code, what's happening. And you can really quickly switch between using the GUI and using the code. That's really useful."
"The drill-down reports capabilities allow analysts to click on any element in a widget. When they see a spike in a line chart for a failed login, which could be a true or false attempt, they can click that spike, and a table widget on the same active board instantly populates with raw logs of data for those specific failed logins."
"Devo helps us to unlock the full power of our data because they have more than 450 parsers, which means that we can ingest pretty much any type of log data."
"The querying and the log-retention capabilities are pretty powerful. Those provide some of the biggest value-add for us."
"Scalability is one of Devo's strengths."
"The initial setup of Nagios Log Server was easy and straightforward."
"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."
"A great feature of the solution involves its internal portal."
"The product is scalable."
 

Cons

"There are some issues from an availability and functionality standpoint, meaning the tool is somewhat slow. There were some slow response periods over the past six to nine months, though it has yet to impact us terribly as we are a relatively small shop. We've noticed it, however, so Devo could improve the responsiveness."
"Some basic reporting mechanisms have room for improvement. Customers can do analysis by building Activeboards, Devo’s name for interactive dashboards. This capability is quite nice, but it is not a reporting engine. Devo does provide mechanisms to allow third-party tools to query data via their API, which is great. However, a lot of folks like or want a reporting engine, per se, and Devo simply doesn't have that. This may or may not be by design."
"The price is one problem with Devo."
"We only use the core functionality and one of the reasons for this is that their security operation center needs improvement."
"There is room for improvement in the ability to parse different log types. I would go as far as to say the product is deficient in its ability to parse multiple, different log types, including logs from major vendors that are supported by competitors. Additionally, the time that it takes to turn around a supported parser for customers and common log source types, which are generally accepted standards in the industry, is not acceptable. This has impacted customer onboarding and customer relationships for us on multiple fronts."
"Some of the documentation could be improved a little bit. A lot of times it doesn't go as deep into some of the critical issues you might run into. They've been really good to shore us up with support, but some of the documentation could be a little bit better."
"From our experience, the Devo agent needs some work. They built it on top of OS Query's open-source framework. It seems like it wasn't tuned properly to handle a large volume of Windows event logs. In our experience, there would definitely be some room for improvement. A lot of SIEMs on the market have their own agent infrastructure. I think Devo's working towards that, but I think that it needs some improvement as far as keeping up with high-volume environments."
"I would like to have the ability to create more complex dashboards."
"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."
"The support could be better."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I'm not involved in the financial aspect, but I think the licensing costs are similar to other solutions. If all the solutions have a similar cost, Devo provides more for the money."
"Our licensing fees are billed annually and per terabyte."
"Devo was very cost-competitive... Devo did come with that 400 days of hot data, and that was not the case with other products."
"We have an OEM agreement with Devo. It is very similar to the standard licensing agreement because we are charged in the same way as any other customer, e.g., we use the backroom."
"I like the pricing very much. They keep it simple. It is a single price based on data ingested, and they do it on an average. If you get a spike of data that flows in, they will not stick it to you or charge you for that. They are very fair about that."
"It's a per gigabyte cost for ingestion of data. For every gigabyte that you ingest, it's whatever you negotiated your price for. Compared to other contracts that we've had for cloud providers, it's significantly less."
"Devo is a hosted or subscription-based solution, whereas before, we purchased QRadar, so we owned it and just had to pay a maintenance fee. We've encountered this with some other products, too, where we went over to subscription-based. Our thought process is that with subscription based, the provider hosts and maintains the tool, and it's offsite. That comes with some additional fees, but we were able to convince our upper management it was worth the price. We used to pay under 10k a year for maintenance, and now we're paying ten times that. It was a relatively tough sell to our management, but I wonder if we have a choice anymore; this is where the market is."
"I rate the pricing a four on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive."
"For a single instance, the price is around $4,000."
"We found the pricing to be quite affordable."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is expensive, and ten is cheap, I rate the pricing an eight or nine."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Log Management solutions are best for your needs.
884,797 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Retailer
6%
Government
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
University
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise11
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Devo?
Compared to Splunk or SentinelOne, it is really expensive. I rate the product’s pricing a nine out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.
What needs improvement with Devo?
The single pane of glass that Devo offers could be improved. The tools in Devo's active ports need enhancement in their investigative capabilities. The drill-down reports capabilities, while useful...
What is your primary use case for Devo?
During my time at MetaBase Q and as a partner integrator of ServiceNow, I had the chance to understand and be part of projects integrating SOCs, NOCs, and Security Operation Centers with Devo. Most...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

United States Air Force, Rubrik, SentinelOne, Critical Start, NHL, Panda Security, Telefonica, CaixaBank, OpenText, IGT, OneMain Financial, SurveyMonkey, FanDuel, H&R Block, Ulta Beauty, Manulife, Moneylion, Chime Bank, Magna International, American Express Global Business Travel
IBM, impulse, wipro, comteco
Find out what your peers are saying about Devo vs. Nagios Log Server and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,797 professionals have used our research since 2012.